396 plus COM or GNS x30???

three-eight-hotel wrote:

So I started thinking.... (no wise cracks please) Portable handheld
with the many wis-bang features that it does have (downloadable Wx,
terrain display, etc.) and take the difference and put it towards 2nd
COM and possibly DME (for shooting those DME required approaches)
OR.... Panel mount with built in COM, legal DME and do Wx and terrain
planning the hard way???

I've been thinking, too. My background: I have a partnership in a Mooney that's
just now getting GNS480 IFR GPS capability (it's in the shop right now). I
installed a first-generation (GX50) IFR GPS in a plane I owned previously. I
have experience with 3 handheld GPSs, a Garmin 90, GPSMAP 196, and I just
received my GPSMAP 396 last week.

I'm thinking if I ever went back to sole ownership, it would probably be
something in the 172/Cherokee capability range, and I'd install the GPSMAP 396
panel mounting bracket and get along without the IFR certification. In a plane
of that class, I'd prefer the convenience and capabilities of the 396, with
weather and terrain. Panel mounting would remove the disadvantages of wires
running all over the cockpit, which I detest.

There's a panel mounting bracket for the 396. I guess the idea is you can
*legally* have the bracket permanently installed, although permanent
installation of the 396 itself probably could not be certified.

I think there's a lot of added value to having something like the 396 without
certification. You can do a lot with it when enroute IFR, for a relatively small
investment. The additional investment and capability that comes with IFR enroute
/ terminal / approach certification doesn't have such a good cost/benefit ratio.


Other benefits to the handheld are using it in the car, just watching
Wx at home (for fun), identifying the hot fishing spots on Eagle Lake
and being able to get back to them quickly... ;-)

I plan to use my 396 in the car. It will replace the 196 I use in my car now.
Right now I have the 396 set up in my living room watching hurricane Katrina.

Dave

wrote:

On 27-Aug-2005, "Steven Barnes" wrote:


Where does the DME info come from when using an IFR cert GPS?



From the GPS. Approach certified GPS can be used in lieu of DME for
determining position on an instrument approach that requires DME.



An enroute/terminal GPS can also be used on an approach for necessary
DME information. I use my GX55 for such purposes. Since no DME shacks
are in the database I use other navaids or intersections as my DME fix,
such as VOR's or the outer markers.

Dave Butler wrote:


I'm thinking if I ever went back to sole ownership, it would probably be
something in the 172/Cherokee capability range, and I'd install the
GPSMAP 396 panel mounting bracket and get along without the IFR
certification. In a plane of that class, I'd prefer the convenience and
capabilities of the 396, with weather and terrain. Panel mounting would
remove the disadvantages of wires running all over the cockpit, which I
detest.

Just to clarify, are you saying your plane would be IFR certified but
you wouldn't bother with an IFR certified GPS? So you would use
VOR/LOC/DME etc for official IFR flying and the GPS for situational
awareness?

There's a panel mounting bracket for the 396. I guess the idea is you
can *legally* have the bracket permanently installed, although permanent
installation of the 396 itself probably could not be certified.

I read elsewhere (can't remember where) that you also have to be careful
about permanently installing the wires because it starts to cross the line.

I think there's a lot of added value to having something like the 396
without certification. You can do a lot with it when enroute IFR, for a
relatively small investment. The additional investment and capability
that comes with IFR enroute / terminal / approach certification doesn't
have such a good cost/benefit ratio.

That makes sense for today but what about the future? It seems that
the FAA is going in the direction of relying more on GPS approaches and
less on ground based navaids. Also a GPS approach to each end of the
runway obviates the need for a lot of circling approaches. It's
starting to look like more airports will be GPS-only or will have ILS
and to one runway and GPS only to the other Wouldn't that concern you?

Keep in mind that I am only an instrument student, not IFR rated, when I
give these opinions

xyzzy wrote:
Dave Butler wrote:


I'm thinking if I ever went back to sole ownership, it would probably
be something in the 172/Cherokee capability range, and I'd install the
GPSMAP 396 panel mounting bracket and get along without the IFR
certification. In a plane of that class, I'd prefer the convenience
and capabilities of the 396, with weather and terrain. Panel mounting
would remove the disadvantages of wires running all over the cockpit,
which I detest.


Just to clarify, are you saying your plane would be IFR certified but
you wouldn't bother with an IFR certified GPS? So you would use
VOR/LOC/DME etc for official IFR flying and the GPS for situational
awareness?

Yes. Of course this is all just daydreaming. I don't currently own the plane we
are speculating about.


There's a panel mounting bracket for the 396. I guess the idea is you
can *legally* have the bracket permanently installed, although
permanent installation of the 396 itself probably could not be certified.


I read elsewhere (can't remember where) that you also have to be careful
about permanently installing the wires because it starts to cross the line.

Yes, I agree. I don't think the dust has settled on this issue yet.


I think there's a lot of added value to having something like the 396
without certification. You can do a lot with it when enroute IFR, for
a relatively small investment. The additional investment and
capability that comes with IFR enroute / terminal / approach
certification doesn't have such a good cost/benefit ratio.


That makes sense for today but what about the future? It seems that
the FAA is going in the direction of relying more on GPS approaches and
less on ground based navaids. Also a GPS approach to each end of the
runway obviates the need for a lot of circling approaches. It's
starting to look like more airports will be GPS-only or will have ILS
and to one runway and GPS only to the other Wouldn't that concern you?

Yes. This might be a shortsighted suggestion.


Keep in mind that I am only an instrument student, not IFR rated, when I
give these opinions

Your questions and opinions have merit.

Dave

hmmmm... I think I'm starting to come around, full-circle. Maybe
spinning around in circles is more like it... ;-)

I'm hearing a lot of valuable feedback, and it's got me leaning back
towards the IFR certified panel mount. It seems like that would
address the main weaknesses of my current configuration, and would be
in line with where the technology seems to be going.

Some other key factor to my current position "on the fence" a
1. Installation costs of something like a GNC300XL, as a few have
mentioned
2. Do I really plan to weave my way through serious T-Cells (not at the
moment)
3. One of the biggies - could I justify or afford the $50/mo. XM
subscription to take full advantage of the 396 (not at the moment ;-)

I really like the idea of having the handheld, and would probably be
happy with the features "out of the box", but at that point, it's
still, really just a "backup". Going with a GNS type of configuration
would add value to my plane and give me a much more current (looking
and functional) panel.

I'm still on the fence, and am not ready to pull the trigger just yet,
so I'll keep monitoring the discussions, as there seems to be a new
thread popping up every day!

Thanks again for the feedback!

Best Regards,
Todd

I am a happy user of the 300XL. From a cost standpoint, installation is
an issue (yes, an annuciator panel is needed and a Nav head - not worse
than anything else, just not cheaper). Only the unit is cheaper.

While it would add value to your use of the a/c, it wouldn't add any
value in a market sense. I think market value starts at the 430...

If I were doing it now, I would have to put a 430 in - perhaps used.

From a flying utility standpoint, since you have a minimal panel you
have flown with, perhaps the handheld would be the best value right now
just for the weather. The $30/month aviator lite package provides the
bulk of the value and a great value I expect it to be in my everyday
flying.

I guess I'm suggesting a critical look at the flying you do and
comparing that to the options. Where I live (SE US), being able to look
down route, see the storms, and strategizing to avoid them is 80% of
summer flying.

Oh, and remember as soon as you go certified panel mount, you need
refereshed data. About $50 a month to stay absolutely current. Garmin
makes it hard to save money for those willing to be less than current.

three-eight-hotel wrote:
hmmmm... I think I'm starting to come around, full-circle. Maybe
spinning around in circles is more like it... ;-)

I'm hearing a lot of valuable feedback, and it's got me leaning back
towards the IFR certified panel mount. It seems like that would
address the main weaknesses of my current configuration, and would be
in line with where the technology seems to be going.

Some other key factor to my current position "on the fence" a
1. Installation costs of something like a GNC300XL, as a few have
mentioned
2. Do I really plan to weave my way through serious T-Cells (not at the
moment)
3. One of the biggies - could I justify or afford the $50/mo. XM
subscription to take full advantage of the 396 (not at the moment ;-)

I really like the idea of having the handheld, and would probably be
happy with the features "out of the box", but at that point, it's
still, really just a "backup". Going with a GNS type of configuration
would add value to my plane and give me a much more current (looking
and functional) panel.

I'm still on the fence, and am not ready to pull the trigger just yet,
so I'll keep monitoring the discussions, as there seems to be a new
thread popping up every day!

Thanks again for the feedback!

Best Regards,
Todd

"three-eight-hotel" wrote:

2. Do I really plan to weave my way through serious T-Cells (not at
the
moment)

Depends on where you fly. If you aren't willing to weave your way
through serious T-Cells, you won't fly much down South for half the
year.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

17. Dan Luke Aug 30, 2:24 pm show options

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning
From: "Dan Luke" - Find messages by this
author
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 16:24:48 -0500
Local: Tues, Aug 30 2005 2:24 pm
Subject: 396 plus COM or GNS x30???
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse



2. Do I really plan to weave my way through serious T-Cells (not at
the
moment)


Depends on where you fly. If you aren't willing to weave your way
through serious T-Cells, you won't fly much down South for half the
year.

Agreed... I should have specified that I live in "severe clear"
Northern California.

Any instrument time I get is typically with a safety pilot, or would be
popping to VFR-on-top (which I have still yet to do). With a
single-engine airplane, I am hesitant to do real IFR, unless I have to
(so far, haven't had to). I would like to fly over the Sacramento
valley some time and get some real approaches, when the fog has rolled
in, but I've yet to do that also. I plan to make weekend trips to the
coast which will all but assure me of .1 hrs. of actual, on occaision.

My ultimate goal is get the commercial and CFI rating. I want to be as
proficient as I possibly can and confident that I can handle any IFR
situtations that come up. Proper planning should keep me out of
"un-intentional" IFR, but should something happen, I want to be
confident and proficient. The only way that's going to happen is
practice, practice, practice, and I would like to have my plane
properly equipped.

If I did live in the south or the mid-west, I'm sure I would be talking
an entirely different game. I am envious of the experience you guys
get, but not so much as I wish that weather on NorCal... ;-)

Best Regards,
Todd