Can I do this?

Morgan3820

Morgan3820

En-Route
Joined
Jun 29, 2013
Messages
4,753
Location
New Bern, NC
Display Name
Display name:
El Conquistador
Purchased a PA 28-161 last november. Removed the ADF because I wanted the panel space to mount my iPad/Foreflight and I felt that ADFs are obsolete. I am now thinking about working to my IR, but I have been told that taking out the ADF was a bad idea as there are lots of approaches where ADF is still viable. The plane has 2 nav/coms one with a gs/loc and the other has a vor. There is no DME. The pitot/static certification is current. It has the standard 6 pack, dg, ah, turn and bank and a stand alone marker beacon. My home field is class D with an ILS, but no published ADF approaches that I can find. I looked at getting an IFR GPS but I am not up for spending the needed $ yet. Can I train for my IR with this setup or do I need some other equipment?
Thanks in advance.
 
Unless the only ILS approaches anywhere near you require ADF (like this one), you can train for and take the IR practical test with nothing but the two nav/comms you have. Since your home field at New Bern (KEWN) has an ILS/LOC approach with no ADF required, plus two VOR approaches, you can do all of the approaches required for the IR practical test (one precision, two nonprecision with different systems) right there (ILS 4, LOC 4, and VOR 4 or VOR 22). You're really going to want that IFR GPS once you start flying IFR routinely, but what you have is enough for the training and test, and I've successfully tra)ined several people for the IR with just what you have in your plane (1 nav/comm with GS, 1 nav/comm without, transponder, and marker beacon. Just remember you will need the marker beacon to identify the FAF on the LOC 4 approach.
 
Ron,
In the approach linked, I notice that Rwy 11 is NA at night. If someone is familiar, is a contact approach authorized for CTL on 11?
 
Too bad two GPS receivers are not sufficient to fly IMC and forgo entirely navcom. But I guess it's not the receivers that need redundancy, its the entire GPS system, right?

Is it true that the military can block GPS anytime it wants?
 
Last edited:
CTLSi said:
RNAV is old world. GPS is here. Too bad its not twenty years from now when all the VORs are gone.
Click to expand...

CTLSi said:
Too bad two GPS receivers are not sufficient to fly IMC and forgo entirely navcom.
Click to expand...

It seems you have a fundamental misunderstanding of RNAV & GPS. Here's a quote from the AIM that helps put it in perspective"
"1-2-1. Area Navigation (RNAV)

a. General. RNAV is a method of navigation that permits aircraft operation on any desired flight path within the coverage of ground or space based navigation aids or within the limits of the capability of self-contained aids, or a combination of these. In the future, there will be an increased dependence on the use of RNAV in lieu of routes defined by ground-based navigation aids."
​

Also, "NAVCOM" refers to a combination navigation and communications receiver. I don't think you want to eliminate comms do you? Then again, maybe you just want text messaging :dunno:

dtuuri
 
dtuuri said:
It seems you have a fundamental misunderstanding of RNAV & GPS. Here's a quote from the AIM that helps put it in perspective"
"1-2-1. Area Navigation (RNAV)

a. General. RNAV is a method of navigation that permits aircraft operation on any desired flight path within the coverage of ground or space based navigation aids or within the limits of the capability of self-contained aids, or a combination of these. In the future, there will be an increased dependence on the use of RNAV in lieu of routes defined by ground-based navigation aids."
​

Also, "NAVCOM" refers to a combination navigation and communications receiver. I don't think you want to eliminate comms do you? Then again, maybe you just want text messaging :dunno:

dtuuri
Click to expand...
Nit meet Pick
 
I think the distinctions are under appreciated. R-NAV, or area navigation is a manner of direct navigation across great distances without regards to airways. Today we R-NAV using GPS to derive our position, and many will use that position information to drive data to a moving map display. Given current technology, it would not be particularly difficult for computer driven Nav radios to fix the position n the moving map using VOR radios.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Ron,
In the approach linked, I notice that Rwy 11 is NA at night. If someone is familiar, is a contact approach authorized for CTL on 11?
Click to expand...
There is no such thing as a contact approach with a circle-to-land. You're either doing a circling maneuver off a SIAP or you're doing a contact approach. If you are asking whether one can legally land on Rwy 11 at KEWN at night from a contact approach, I know of no regulation and see nothing in the A/FD for that airport which would prohibit that.

That said, the reason many runways are "NA" for circling at night is unlit obstructions (primarily trees which have grown up since the approach was constructed). There was a near disaster a couple of years back in which someone snagged some trees at night on an approach. The investigation discovered that while one must get authorization from the FAA to increase the height of a man-made obstacle near an airport, God needs no such authorization to increase the height of His trees over time. As a result, there is now a requirement for resurveying periodically to ensure the trees are not impinging vertically into the protected airspace, and to NA the affected runway at night until the trees are trimmed. So, if you see an approach where circling to a particular runway is NA at night, one should be rather careful about doing a contact approach to that runway at night, because the tree doesn't care if you're on a contact approach or circling off a SIAP -- it will happily snag you either way.
 
CTLSi said:
Too bad two GPS receivers are not sufficient to fly IMC and forgo entirely navcom. But I guess it's not the receivers that need redundancy, its the entire GPS system, right?
Click to expand...
Not so. You can legally fly IFR with one GPS receiver and no other nav gear as long as that GPS is a TSO-c146 "sole source" nav system like a Garmin GNS430W with the VOR portion either inop or not checked per 91.171. Not sure that would be wise, but it would be legal as long as you limit yourself to GPS approaches.

Is it true that the military can block GPS anytime it wants?
Click to expand...
It is true that the military can turn on "selective availability" (which significantly degrades accuracy or can even make it unavailable to anyone other than the US military), that is not something they are authorized to do "anytime it wants". That requires authorization from pretty high up the chain of command. IIRC, that means either the National Command Authorities or an official authorized to declare an Air Defense Emergency. This is one reason the FAA's long term plan includes retention of something like 40 VOR's for "essential" air navigation function in case the GPS system is denied by either adversarial jamming or military necessity.
 
CTLSi said:
Is it true that the military can block GPS anytime it wants?
Click to expand...

They occasionally do this around the White Sands Missle area and restricted areas. This is just a regional area, not nation wide though. Nothing like losing GPS signal to get people whinning on the radio to center. Center will have to explain several times to different people about what is going on with the signal. There is a constant notam about possible loss of GPS signal in the area. Usually only happens late at night, but it can happen at anytime. And believe me, when the military is "testing" their jamming equipment, it works.!!!
 
i yanked my ADF out of the panel ten years ago and haven't missed it. I put a GDL89A in so I could still hear the ball games.

As C'Ron says, the military promises not to invoke SA except in dire emergencies, and in fact, also promised not to much with the carrier phase on the L2 frequency (which pretty much only carries the data for the classified precision codes) because fancier nav systems were designed to look at the carrier to compare with the L1 to correct for atmospheric propagation discrepancies.
 
How is the selective availability affected by the WAAS correction? Wouldn't it pretty much make it irrelevant?

Now, jamming, otoh....
 
Isn't there a requirement to fly an approach at an alternate with one piece of equipment inop? (I have this requirement as a personal requirement, it can be met by having a VFR airport within range. I am under the impression it is in the regs, not totally sure about that one).

So its an IFR GPS and a Nav/Com in a separate box for me. GPS craps, I still have the Nav/Com. Nav/Com craps, I still have the IFR GPS etc. There are other ways of meeting this, but that's my setup. I should have a IFR/GPS/Com, but my second com is a handheld, which will suffice.

Electric gyros and GPS with vacuum gyros as a second source. One craps you have the other is another thing. VFR GPS in an emergency running on battery also in the mix.
 
flyingron said:
As C'Ron says, the military promises not to invoke SA except in dire emergencies, and in fact, also promised not to much with the carrier phase on the L2 frequency (which pretty much only carries the data for the classified precision codes) because fancier nav systems were designed to look at the carrier to compare with the L1 to correct for atmospheric propagation discrepancies.
Click to expand...
The only problem is, it's not only the military that's in a position to jam GPS reception. We have a joker in the PTK-VLL area that as far as I know has not been caught yet. But when he is operating whatever device he has, all the satellites on my 480's satellite page disappear completely. The location where the outages occur varies -- suggesting his jammer is probably mobile -- but I've seen it happen twice, at the exact same spot, 10 minutes apart.

There have been NOTAMs at PTK warning that GPS signals are unreliable in the area. Word has it, this is why.
 
Zeldman said:
They occasionally do this around the White Sands Missle area and restricted areas. This is just a regional area, not nation wide though.
Click to expand...
The military does do GPS jamming exercises periodically. The radius of such jamming is up to 400 nm at FL400 but barely outside the exercise areas down low. They are NOTAM'd well in advance so you can plan accordingly, and there should be no "surprise" GPS jamming exercises. However, I've noticed giving instrument refresher training that many pilots are not very diligent about checking the Navigation and FDC NOTAM's for this sort of thing. Caveat aviator.
 
coloradobluesky said:
Isn't there a requirement to fly an approach at an alternate with one piece of equipment inop? (I have this requirement as a personal requirement, it can be met by having a VFR airport within range. I am under the impression it is in the regs, not totally sure about that one).
Click to expand...
The requirement about which you may be thinking is that if your IFR approach GPS is non-WAAS, either your destination or your alternate must have an approach you can fly without your GPS.

There is also the IR practical test requirement that one nonprecision approach be flown with your primary flight instrument(s) inop (i.e., "partial panel"), but that's a flight instrument, not navigation, issue. In fact, there is no requirement in the IR PTS that any of your three approaches be flown with the GPS out, but many DPE's want one flown that way, anyway.

So its an IFR GPS and a Nav/Com in a separate box for me. GPS craps, I still have the Nav/Com. Nav/Com craps, I still have the IFR GPS etc. There are other ways of meeting this, but that's my setup. I should have a IFR/GPS/Com, but my second com is a handheld, which will suffice.

Electric gyros and GPS with vacuum gyros as a second source. One craps you have the other is another thing. VFR GPS in an emergency running on battery also in the mix.
Click to expand...
All good considerations for an extra level of safety beyond what the rules require.
 
dtuuri said:
It seems you have a fundamental misunderstanding of RNAV & GPS. Here's a quote from the AIM that helps put it in perspective"
"1-2-1. Area Navigation (RNAV)

a. General. RNAV is a method of navigation that permits aircraft operation on any desired flight path within the coverage of ground or space based navigation aids or within the limits of the capability of self-contained aids, or a combination of these. In the future, there will be an increased dependence on the use of RNAV in lieu of routes defined by ground-based navigation aids."
​
Also, "NAVCOM" refers to a combination navigation and communications receiver. I don't think you want to eliminate comms do you? Then again, maybe you just want text messaging :dunno:

dtuuri
Click to expand...

It appears you misunderstand your own cut-n-paste in regard to what I said. VOR radio RNAV is old tech. GPS does not require any fixed point anywhere, the freedom to fly where you want limited only by weather minimums and winds aloft is a far cry from the old Victor airways mapped out according to radials coming off radio stations. And worse, to use such clumsy nav aids like VOR radials, and DME to figure where you are on approaches.

RNAV is going bye bye. GPS is fast replacing it, the only reason we are not all GPS right now is the usual, 200,000 old GA aircraft out there with steam gauges and no GPS.

Heck, I use VORs as GPS waypoint when one is in my direct line of flight, the odd little witches hats are a curiosity. But it's wise to stay away from them because they are literal hotspots for guys flying their radials. One day they will all be gone.
 
Last edited:
CTLSi said:
It appears you misunderstand your own cut-n-paste in regard to what I said. VOR radio RNAV is old tech. GPS does not require any fixed point anywhere, the freedom to fly where you want limited only by weather minimums and winds aloft is a far cry from the old Victor airways mapped out according to radials coming off radio stations. And worse, to use such clumsy nav aids like VOR radials, and DME to figure where you are on approaches.

RNAV is going bye bye. GPS is fast replacing it, the only reason we are not all GPS right now is the usual, 200,000 old GA aircraft out there with steam gauges and no GPS.

Heck, I use VORs as GPS waypoint when one is in my direct line of flight, the odd little witches hats are a curiosity. But it's wise to stay away from them because they are literal hotspots for guys flying their radials. One day they will all be gone.
Click to expand...
If you are trying to say RNAV(VOR/DME) is going the way of the buffalo, I would agree -- the FAA is retiring those approaches and replacing them with RNAV(GPS). But there are RNAV systems based on many different sources, including GPS, VOR/DME, DME/DME, and other multi-sensor system out there, and they are all considered "RNAV" systems. Note the following definitions from 14 CFR 1.1:
Area navigation (RNAV) is a method of navigation that permits aircraft operations on any desired flight path.

Suitable RNAV system is an RNAV system that meets the required performance established for a type of operation, e.g. IFR; and is suitable for operation over the route to be flown in terms of any performance criteria (including accuracy) established by the air navigation service provider for certain routes (e.g. oceanic, ATS routes, and IAPs). An RNAV system's suitability is dependent upon the availability of ground and/or satellite navigation aids that are needed to meet any route performance criteria that may be prescribed in route specifications to navigate the aircraft along the route to be flown. Information on suitable RNAV systems is published in FAA guidance material.
Click to expand...
Note that neither is specific to any one nav data source.

Also, keep in mind that there is a lot to "RNAV" besides a nav source receiver (databases, nav computers, displays, etc), and just having a GPS receiver doesn't get necessarily you all of that any more than just having VOR and DME receivers gets you VOR/DME-based RNAV. Note that there are companies integrating GPS receivers into stand-alone ADS-B-out units, and those are definitely not RNAV devices capable of providing guidance for RNAV routes and procedures.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
If you are trying to say RNAV(VOR/DME) is going the way of the buffalo, I would agree -- the FAA is retiring those approaches and replacing them with RNAV(GPS). But there are RNAV systems based on many different sources, including GPS, VOR/DME, DME/DME, and other multi-sensor system out there, and they are all considered "RNAV" systems. Note the following definitions from 14 CFR 1.1:
Note that neither is specific to any one nav data source.

Also, keep in mind that there is a lot to "RNAV" besides a nav source receiver (databases, nav computers, displays, etc), and just having a GPS receiver doesn't get necessarily you all of that any more than just having VOR and DME receivers gets you VOR/DME-based RNAV. Note that there are companies integrating GPS receivers into stand-alone ADS-B-out units, and those are definitely not RNAV devices capable of providing guidance for RNAV routes and procedures.
Click to expand...
What Avionics packages do we in GA have that use both GPS and GLONASS for 3D positional information? And can use the other in the event of an outage. His that for redundancy?

Still can be jammed, but:dunno:.....
 
Ron Levy said:
Unless the only ILS approaches anywhere near you require ADF (like this one), you can train for and take the IR practical test with nothing but the two nav/comms you have. Since your home field at New Bern (KEWN) has an ILS/LOC approach with no ADF required, plus two VOR approaches, you can do all of the approaches required for the IR practical test (one precision, two nonprecision with different systems) right there (ILS 4, LOC 4, and VOR 4 or VOR 22). You're really going to want that IFR GPS once you start flying IFR routinely, but what you have is enough for the training and test, and I've successfully tra)ined several people for the IR with just what you have in your plane (1 nav/comm with GS, 1 nav/comm without, transponder, and marker beacon. Just remember you will need the marker beacon to identify the FAF on the LOC 4 approach.
Click to expand...


How about a DME? I see a lot of approaches listed as VOR/DME.
 
I think there are a few things not being considered here:

1. You mentioned that you had ADF before, but have had it removed. If you still own the equipment, how much will it cost you to have it reinstalled?
2. In our area, once you leave New Bern, the next closest approach you'll be legal to fly is 45 minutes away. For training purposes, do you want to limit yourself to the same 3 approaches flown over and over again or spend an hour and a half (at best) transiting just to get experience on other approaches at other airfields? If you need cross country time, you're going to build it, looking for flyable approaches.
3. Real world: once you leave the nest and start to really use your IFR, having an ADF and/or DME will open a whole slew of airfields (and legal diverts) you otherwise wouldn't have access to. It comes back to how much is it going to cost to have that extra flexibility (and less stress searching for legal approaches when planning trips).
4. GPS is awesome, but really unnecessary (unless you have $10-grand burning a hole in your pocket). With several IFR coast to coast flights in aircraft with VOR and ILS only equipment at best, or TACAN equipment only at worst, I've never had to cancel or divert due to lack of a GPS. If the a argument is that you should get it for increased SA, I counter that with the argument that you can do it a lot cheaper and nearly as effectively with Foreflight (pick your iPad software). It is great and will open tons of approach options; however, don't feel an IFR rating is unusable without it.
 
Well, I am old, grizzled, and really set in my ways.
I'm still pizzed at DC for shutting down LORAN. We WILL regret that one day - big time.
The issue with GPS is that it is trivial for someone to shut it down by jamming - and the difference between doing it in a small area and doing it over thousands of miles is merely transmitter power and line of sight range. A flock of helium balloons carrying a transmitter and floating across NA at FL1200 would put much of the country flat on it's back.

Now because it is so deeply imbedded into our transportation world from cars and boats to UPS and hikers everyone in a position of power/responsibility is whistling past the graveyard.
"Can't happen" they say - meaning we can't afford to have it happen politically/financially and we don't have a solution to jamming so please stop talking about it.
But those who wish us harm will cheerfully ruin us financially as well as navigationally when they choose to do it.
The Iranians rubbed our noses into it when they spoofed a drone into thinking it was back home and time to land. That alone should be proof positive that our eggs are all in one basket.

Now, having thoroughly trashed the GPS band wagon, it is about the only game in town today - other than the rapidly dwindling VOR/ILS/DME (yes they are shutting down DME's also) and NDB's are on the endangered list (ours was shut down at KHYX)
 
Dr. O said:
The issue with GPS is that it is trivial for someone to shut it down by jamming
Click to expand...
And as I said in post #15, this is ALREADY a problem in some areas (between VLL and PTK for example) and the responsible party is apparently still on the loose.

I agree with your other points too. But the die is cast, and we seem to have thrown away our backups with nothing to replace them on the horizon. As it is, other than the slowly shrinking set of NDB approaches, I don't know of many approaches in the continental U.S. that actually REQUIRE an ADF, in the sense that an IFR GPS can't substitute for the ADF. Unless someone plans to do a lot of flying in Alaska or remote parts of Canada (or abroad), that IFR GPS the OP is thinking about getting is going to be a lot more useful than an ADF.
 
Last edited:
Jaybird180 said:
What Avionics packages do we in GA have that use both GPS and GLONASS for 3D positional information? And can use the other in the event of an outage. His that for redundancy?

Still can be jammed, but:dunno:.....
Click to expand...

Not sure there is anything on the certified side of the spectrum, but there are now a few receivers that are multi system that I have seen at marine trade shows, but I am not sure if anything hit the market yet.
 
Jaybird180 said:
What Avionics packages do we in GA have that use both GPS and GLONASS for 3D positional information? And can use the other in the event of an outage. His that for redundancy?
Click to expand...
I suspect that if the US military shuts down GPS for national security reasons, they'll make sure you can't use GLONASS, either.
 
Morgan3820 said:
How about a DME? I see a lot of approaches listed as VOR/DME.
Click to expand...
If you have an IFR GPS, you don't need a DME to fly a VOR/DME approach (other than the two VOR/DME approaches in the whole US which have a DME arc as the final segment). For that reason, I don't see much point in investing in a DME if you have or will have IFR GPS.

BTW, here are those two approaches:
http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1407/05222VDTZ15.PDF
http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1407/00639VDT10.PDF
If anyone finds another like them, I'd love to see it.
 
Banjo33 said:
I think there are a few things not being considered here:

1. You mentioned that you had ADF before, but have had it removed. If you still own the equipment, how much will it cost you to have it reinstalled?
2. In our area, once you leave New Bern, the next closest approach you'll be legal to fly is 45 minutes away. For training purposes, do you want to limit yourself to the same 3 approaches flown over and over again or spend an hour and a half (at best) transiting just to get experience on other approaches at other airfields? If you need cross country time, you're going to build it, looking for flyable approaches.
3. Real world: once you leave the nest and start to really use your IFR, having an ADF and/or DME will open a whole slew of airfields (and legal diverts) you otherwise wouldn't have access to. It comes back to how much is it going to cost to have that extra flexibility (and less stress searching for legal approaches when planning trips).
4. GPS is awesome, but really unnecessary (unless you have $10-grand burning a hole in your pocket). With several IFR coast to coast flights in aircraft with VOR and ILS only equipment at best, or TACAN equipment only at worst, I've never had to cancel or divert due to lack of a GPS. If the a argument is that you should get it for increased SA, I counter that with the argument that you can do it a lot cheaper and nearly as effectively with Foreflight (pick your iPad software). It is great and will open tons of approach options; however, don't feel an IFR rating is unusable without it.
Click to expand...
All well and good, but the OP plans to put in an IFR GPS eventually, and just wants to know if it's possible to do the IR training and test "as is", and the answer is "yes". Once that IFR GPS goes in, an ADF or DME is just surplus weight and cost.
 
Ron Levy said:
All well and good, but the OP plans to put in an IFR GPS eventually, and just wants to know if it's possible to do the IR training and test "as is", and the answer is "yes". Once that IFR GPS goes in, an ADF or DME is just surplus weight and cost.
Click to expand...

The OP said he's "not ready to drop the money yet" for GPS. His specific question is if he has enough Nav capability to conduct IFR training, which he does (in reality, to conduct training alone, all he really needs is a radio, transponder, and a GCA). However, I THINK he still possesses his ADF box (I believe it was operable when he pulled it out.), I know the ADF RBI (?) is still in his plane, and the original slot for the box is still available (if he removes his IPad mount). If he wants to conduct the training cheaply, adding the ADF back costs him littles nothing and improves his capability pretty significantly and he can save for the GTN750.

I'm at least one of those that originally recommended to him to reinstall the ADF (and/or add DME, if it could be done cheaply) for IR training, check ride, etc until he's ready to spring for GPS. Yes GPS pretty nearly opens the Pandora's box of approaches; however, for his stated mission, my recommendation comes with lowest upfront cost.
 
Banjo33 said:
The OP said he's "not ready to drop the money yet" for GPS. His specific question is if he has enough Nav capability to conduct IFR training, which he does (in reality, to conduct training alone, all he really needs is a radio, transponder, and a GCA).
Click to expand...
Not so. Either an ILS, or GPS with LPV, is necessary to conduct the training for the instrument rating since a precision approach with an on-board electronic glide path is a required Task in the IR PTS. A "GCA" (or, more properly for the last few decades, a "PAR") does not meet that requirement. Also, while a transponder is awfully nice to have, it is technically possible to do the IR training and practical test without one.

However, I THINK he still possesses his ADF box (I believe it was operable when he pulled it out.), I know the ADF RBI (?) is still in his plane, and the original slot for the box is still available (if he removes his IPad mount). If he wants to conduct the training cheaply, adding the ADF back costs him littles nothing and improves his capability pretty significantly and he can save for the GTN750.
Click to expand...
If cost is a factor, why spend the money to re-install the ADF when the training and test can be completed without it?

I'm at least one of those that originally recommended to him to reinstall the ADF (and/or add DME, if it could be done cheaply) for IR training, check ride, etc until he's ready to spring for GPS. Yes GPS pretty nearly opens the Pandora's box of approaches; however, for his stated mission, my recommendation comes with lowest upfront cost.
Click to expand...
The lowest up-front cost comes with leaving everything as is since what he has right now is sufficient without adding anything or putting anything back.
 
Morgan3820 said:
Purchased a PA 28-161 last november. Removed the ADF because I wanted the panel space to mount my iPad/Foreflight and I felt that ADFs are obsolete. ............................................................ I looked at getting an IFR GPS but I am not up for spending the needed $ yet. ...............
Click to expand...
I'd say it would depend on the cost of having the ADF re-installed and how soon you expect to be up for spending the "needed $$" for IFR GPS.
 
Looks to me like this thread could have been resolved at Post #2, but since resolving problems is not what we do here on PoA....:rofl:
 
Ron Levy said:
Not so. Either an ILS, or GPS with LPV, is necessary to conduct the training for the instrument rating since a precision approach with an on-board electronic glide path is a required Task in the IR PTS. A "GCA" (or, more properly for the last few decades, a "PAR") does not meet that requirement. Also, while a transponder is awfully nice to have, it is technically possible to do the IR training and practical test without one.
Click to expand...

I said capable of conducting "IR training alone" not "meet the PTS requirements to conduct the check ride." It has nothing to do with PAR or ASR, precision vs non-precision.

Still waiting for him to reply how much it would cost to reinstall that ADF. My guess is next to nothing (assuming he still has the box).
 
Jaybird180 said:
What Avionics packages do we in GA have that use both GPS and GLONASS for 3D positional information? And can use the other in the event of an outage. His that for redundancy?

Still can be jammed, but:dunno:.....
Click to expand...

Most tablets (including 3rd gen and beyond cellular iPad) have combined GPS/GLONASS receivers. Sure, they're not certified, but we're talking about emergency situations anyway.

I am curious though if anyone has flown through a GPS testing zone and seen their 430's drop out but the iPad keep going.
 
Banjo33 said:
I think there are a few things not being considered here:

1. You mentioned that you had ADF before, but have had it removed. If you still own the equipment, how much will it cost you to have it reinstalled?
2. In our area, once you leave New Bern, the next closest approach you'll be legal to fly is 45 minutes away. For training purposes, do you want to limit yourself to the same 3 approaches flown over and over again or spend an hour and a half (at best) transiting just to get experience on other approaches at other airfields? If you need cross country time, you're going to build it, looking for flyable approaches.
3. Real world: once you leave the nest and start to really use your IFR, having an ADF and/or DME will open a whole slew of airfields (and legal diverts) you otherwise wouldn't have access to. It comes back to how much is it going to cost to have that extra flexibility (and less stress searching for legal approaches when planning trips).
4. GPS is awesome, but really unnecessary (unless you have $10-grand burning a hole in your pocket). With several IFR coast to coast flights in aircraft with VOR and ILS only equipment at best, or TACAN equipment only at worst, I've never had to cancel or divert due to lack of a GPS. If the a argument is that you should get it for increased SA, I counter that with the argument that you can do it a lot cheaper and nearly as effectively with Foreflight (pick your iPad software). It is great and will open tons of approach options; however, don't feel an IFR rating is unusable without it.
Click to expand...


My plane partner echoes your thoughts exactly.

I talked to an avionics repair guy yesterday and he had reliability concerns about my ADF model.

I have seen some non-WAAS GNS 430 going for under $5K. Perhaps I should save my plane pennies and get one. Problem solved. The 430 also comes with a 10 watt com which would allow me to replace the old KX 170B.

:wink2:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top