Need a 2nd nav with GNS 430?

Paul Folbrecht writes:

I am doing some preliminary planning of the panel for my RV-9A and
wondering if a 2nd nav is really a necessity with a GNS 430 in the
panel. [...]
(As for navigating with the 430 tango uniform - there's ATC vectors &
the backup handheld GPS.)

If you're planning to fly IFR in IMC up here in Canada, be aware that
the regulations require sufficient navigational equipment on board so
that, should you suffer the failure of any one, you can still make an
instrument approach at a suitable alternative. (Is there no similar
rule in the States?)

This appears to rule out having only a single integrated navigational
widget installed in the cockpit. (I don't believe a handheld GPS
qualifies as a loophole.)

- FChE

Will the EIFS accept composite?

Mike
MU-2


"Paul Folbrecht" wrote in message
...
530 is out of my price range.

The 430 does output a composite signal. An indicator is not needed with
the GRT EFIS - it talks to the 430 very nicely.

Mike Rapoport wrote:

You might want to consider a 530 instead of a 430. On the 530 you can
opt to show the distance and radial from whatever VOR is tuned. This
basically lets you show two waypoints (one VOR and one GPS) at a time.
You can even have the VOR output to an indicator if the indicator will
take composite input (while in GPS mode). I think that the 430 will also
output a composite signal (VOR (or LOC). The advantage of the 530 is
that it gives you distance and doesn't require another indicator.

Mike
MU-2

You can do everything you need to do with the 430, but there are
situations where havng only one is inconvenient. For about $250 you
can buy an M1 LORAN. Now you get a second set of nav signals
independent of GPS, you can get bearing and distance to any fix at
accuracies better than VOR-DME, and the UI is very easy to learn and
use. And there's a CDI built right into the panel if you want it -
almost no wiring.

Spending $2K for a VOR seems excessive when this is an option.

Michael

One of the really big plus's for the 530 over the 430 are two nav map pages,
both of which provide their particular great info, and of course, are easy to
read.

The downside is the lack of an airway database and the meager flight plan memory
(20 flight plans with a max of 31 WPs, each. My 296 does 50 with 300 WPs,
each).

Brad Salai wrote:

How do your members like the 480? Our club is going to upgrade three of our
airplanes with IFR gps's. Our maintenance officer is a big fan of the 430,
but some members want bigger units and are looking at the 530. The rational
for staying away from the 480 varies, but includes:

Harder to use,
Garmin may discontinue it,
Don't like soft keys ,
430/530 installed base is much bigger, therefore, guarenteed to be around,
Cheaper initially, and don't need waas now, so why pay for it.

I'd be interested in your opinion, having flown with the 480.

Brad
"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
Paul Folbrecht wrote:
I am doing some preliminary planning of the panel for my RV-9A and
wondering if a 2nd nav is really a necessity with a GNS 430 in the
panel. Seems to me that flying IFR GPS, with mostly GPS approaches in
the near future, I should not have much need for a 2nd VOR receiver to
identify intersections - obviously the GPS does that itself and the 430
does have one nav radio built-in.

In theory, you can fly all day with just the single GPS/NAV/COM. Just
keep
going waypoint to waypoint to waypoint, with maybe an ILS approach at the
end, and some vectors thrown in.

But, there are still a couple of reasons you want a second NAV receiver.

1) If #1 goes TU, you're not SOL (ok, you covered that below).

2) Sometimes it's just plain easier to use the #2 NAV. You're in the
middle of programming an approach on the GPS when the guy says, "Fly
direct
FOO VOR and hold". You could go direct FOO on the GPS, but it's often
more
convenient to use the #2 NAV for something like that so you don't have to
interrupt what you're doing on the GPS.

If I decide I can do without another nav I save $2000 going with a SL-40
(com only) vs a SL-30 (nav/com).

Interesting in hearing from people with 430s (and up) how they are
flying the things.

Most of my club's planes are equipped with a CNX-80/GNS-480 and an SL-30.
If not an SL-30, then some other kind of NAV/COM. I find I do most of my
flying with the #1 radio, but I still wouldn't want to be without the #2.
I set them both up on an ILS. I'll use the #2 NAV to quickly get going in
the right direction, when the GPS is tied up programming something
complicated that I don't want to interrupt.

How about a clearance like this... "Depart Carmel on the 270 radial to
intercept the Sparta 030 radial, then direct Sparta". That's a real
clearance that you sometimes get out of HPN (I'm guessing on the exact
radials). That's a tough one to execute with just the single GPS. It's
probably not impossible, but having the 2nd nav sure makes it simplier.

The bottom line is you can probably get away without the #2 NAV. I
wouldn't want to, but it's not my $2k we're talking about spending :-)

Paul Folbrecht wrote:
I am doing some preliminary planning of the panel for my RV-9A and
wondering if a 2nd nav is really a necessity with a GNS 430 in the
panel. Seems to me that flying IFR GPS, with mostly GPS approaches
in
the near future, I should not have much need for a 2nd VOR receiver
to
identify intersections - obviously the GPS does that itself and the
430
does have one nav radio built-in.

Paul,

I replaced my #1 radio/nav (a KX170B) with a 430 about a year ago and
keeping the #2 KX170B. I continue to use the com of the #2 and
consider it a "necessary". The nav of the #2 is now used for backup
and I do not feel it is necessary. I have a Garmin 195 on the yoke and
I could use it as emergency backup if the 430 went TU. Save the $2k or
not -- it's your call but I agree you can get along fine without the
second nav.

Chuck
Archer 2185B

Michael wrote:
You can do everything you need to do with the 430, but there are
situations where havng only one is inconvenient. For about $250 you
can buy an M1 LORAN. Now you get a second set of nav signals

You can get one for less than $250. Just look in the garbage can
behind any avionics shop.

Paul Folbrecht wrote:
I am doing some preliminary planning of the panel for my RV-9A and
wondering if a 2nd nav is really a necessity with a GNS 430 in the
panel. Seems to me that flying IFR GPS, with mostly GPS approaches in
the near future, I should not have much need for a 2nd VOR receiver to
identify intersections - obviously the GPS does that itself and the 430
does have one nav radio built-in.

Only problematic area I can think of are the cases where 2 VOR receivers
are pretty much necessary - to identify FAFs on ILS, LOC, and VOR (no
GPS overlay) approaches. I release that ILS's almost always have an OM
anyway and VOR IAPs w/no GPS overlay become scarcer by the month. With
WAAS.. much less of a problem all around (WAAS precision approaches).

If I decide I can do without another nav I save $2000 going with a SL-40
(com only) vs a SL-30 (nav/com).

Interesting in hearing from people with 430s (and up) how they are
flying the things.

(As for navigating with the 430 tango uniform - there's ATC vectors &
the backup handheld GPS.)


The 430 has separate VOR/GS recievers and GPS. As this group has discussed,
they are really separate inside the box, as in don't share any circuitry.
The points of failure, however, would be the power in and the display.
However, the display, if it packs in, would leave the VOR running on
the last frequency you set, but without any capability to change it.

Me, I left the original Cessna VOR in, and didn't upgrade to glideslope
on it.

Jose wrote:

3: if you can't update the database (such as you're in the middle of
a
trip during the window) you can't do IMC anymore. BTDT - at
Sun'n'Fun,
no less.

Is this a specific limitation spelled out in Garmin's POH supplement?
Not that I have done this due to burning my own cards and maintaining a
current subscription, but I was under the impression that one could
even fly an approach with an expired database, as long as a) the GPS
supplement doesn't restrict this and b) the pilot verifies the GPS
approach with a published approach plate.

If you burn your own database cards, you will note that the database
update for the Garmin GNS430/530 is normally released (at least here in
the US) ten days or so before becoming current. I suppose it is not
unrealistic to be away from home longer than ten days, but that does
provide some amount of time to plan for the expiration.

BTW, you raise some excellent points about the GPS being a single point
of failure. I also have also experienced three different GPS problems
during three different flights that rendered the unit inoperative for
five minutes or so per event. One was my fault, as I opened a bottle
of water at altitude that sprayed all over the GPS, thanks to the
pressure difference. The MSG button temporarily shorted out and I
could not see any page except the message page.

The other two problems were GPS software related. Of these two, the
notable one occurred when the database card I had in the unit became
*current* during my flight (at the crack of 00:00z of the new day - I
had placed the card in a day early for the flight). This was a
Bendix-King KLN-94 GPS and at the crack of 00z, a message appeared
stating that the unit needed to be rebooted due to the database
becoming current. Ridiculous of the unit to do this, but it caught me
with my pants down as the unit could not acquire satellites right away
upon rebooting. IMC at night and I did not have the VORs set as
backup. I scrambled to set up my VORs and only managed to drift off
course by a mile or two before getting back on course. That was a good
lesson.

--
Peter

3: if you can't update the database (such as you're in the middle of
a trip during the window) you can't do IMC anymore. BTDT - at
Sun'n'Fun, no less.


Is this a specific limitation spelled out in Garmin's POH supplement?
Not that I have done this due to burning my own cards and maintaining a
current subscription, but I was under the impression that one could
even fly an approach with an expired database, as long as a) the GPS
supplement doesn't restrict this and b) the pilot verifies the GPS
approach with a published approach plate.

I don't know if it's spelled out in the POH supplement, and it's not
handy right now. If you do the approach and land uneventfully, you will
probably not have a problem. If you do the approach and have an
incident which brings you to the FAA's attention, you could probably
count on a "careless or reckless" charge. If there was a significant
change to the approach, it might be difficult (depending on the change)
to fly the mod by hand, since it's not in the box.

Yes, they give you ten days. In my case, the new database was burned to
a spare card before my flight, but I didn't have the spare card and
didn't know until the flight that the database was about to expire. At
Sun'n'Fun, I went to the Jepp booth to update my card, and there were
"no more updates available", meaning that my quota of burns had already
been burned (we have three aircraft and three subs). So, Jeppesen would
not update my card, and it took a bit of "discussion" and several long
distance phone calls before I could convince them to add one to my quota
and let me burn the update.

I consider this to be a safety-of-flight issue, and I wonder how Jepp
would come out after an accident.... no, actually I do know how they
would come out. "After all, I didn't have to make the flight in the
first place."

Jose
r.a.homebuilt retained, though I don't follow that group
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:

don't know if it's spelled out in the POH supplement, and it's not
handy right now.
snip

I started to research this and the quickest place to find some info
about this was AOPA's GPS Safety Advisor. Sure the information is in
the AIM and I will get right back to it, but this was a faster link for
me:

http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/sa01.pdf

Pertinant Quote:

"For en route flying, it's legal - but not wise -
to use an expired database, as long as the pilot has
available current information, such as current low
altitude en route charts, to manually check and
correct any data that's changed."

I will look later for more details about approaches.

--
Peter