Upgrading my 530 to WAAS

[poadeleted21]

Ouch!

Oh well, it's just money. I had to buy an annunciator too + install cost of the annunciator.

This ought to be motivation to finish up my IR ticket.

What's the difference in an old 530 and a WAAS box?

I figured the straight 530 was getting a little long in the tooth and didn't want to waste the $1000 to fix it then turn around and upgrade it a year later.

But, ouch.

 

[EppyGA]

Faster processor and more choice of approaches. Well worth the investment.

 

[poadeleted21]

Faster processor and more choice of approaches. Well worth the investment.

That takes a little bit of the sting out

 

[KSMooniac]

You won't regret it once you fly behind it, and especially so if you have an autopilot and GPSS. GPSS is a game-changer IMO for single pilot IFR.

 

[poadeleted21]

You won't regret it once you fly behind it, and especially so if you have an autopilot and GPSS. GPSS is a game-changer IMO for single pilot IFR.

I was just reading that, yes I have GPSS.

 

[Ted]

The other real benefit in the 530W is the terrain awareness feature. I really, really like that.

If you can fly one, you can fly the other. The faster processor speed I do like. You might not notice the difference so much since you don't have your IR ticket yet, but the vertical guidance even on non-precision approaches is very nice. Just make sure you understand what it means and how to use it.

 

[coma24]

You won't regret it once you fly behind it, and especially so if you have an autopilot and GPSS. GPSS is a game-changer IMO for single pilot IFR.

I know already that this won't be a popular view... but what I've seen it do is make people a slave to the automation. I watched 3 out of 5 pilots in a recent sim class blow an unpublished hold (including the altitude) because they were so obsessed with getting the automation to fly a procedure, they forgot to just fly the airplane.

I know that's a small sample size and just one case, but time and time again in the class, when asked why they were off course, the answer always started with "my autopilot..." and "my GPS..."

I fly in all sorts of weather without using the AP. You never lose focus when you're hand flying in IMC...you're always scanning, checking and planning ahead. I can't say that I've seen the same level of engagement from pilots who rely TOO heavily on automation.

I spent several hours in those same sims flying a Garmin 530 WAAS...and it was indeed a thing of beauty, no question. However, I felt quite disengaged from the flight.

I'd never argue that you shouldn't have it, but I'd urge any pilot to remain proficient with hand flying and be prepared to go raw data when the box does odd things.

Ugh, when did I become old?

 

[Henning]

That takes a little bit of the sting out

V-Nav is the biggie. Way more stable to fly than an ILS, especially near the bottom.

 

[Ted]

I know already that this won't be a popular view... but what I've seen it do is make people a slave to the automation. I watched 3 out of 5 pilots in a recent sim class blow an unpublished hold (including the altitude) because they were so obsessed with getting the automation to fly a procedure, they forgot to just fly the airplane.

I know that's a small sample size and just one case, but time and time again in the class, when asked why they were off course, the answer always started with "my autopilot..." and "my GPS..."

I fly in all sorts of weather without using the AP. You never lose focus when you're hand flying in IMC...you're always scanning, checking and planning ahead. I can't say that I've seen the same level of engagement from pilots who rely TOO heavily on automation.

I spent several hours in those same sims flying a Garmin 530 WAAS...and it was indeed a thing of beauty, no question. However, I felt quite disengaged from the flight.

I'd never argue that you shouldn't have it, but I'd urge any pilot to remain proficient with hand flying and be prepared to go raw data when the box does odd things.

Ugh, when did I become old?

I completely agree with this point. As someone who's flies a pretty shiny panel, I rarely use my AP. I love having GPSS steering, but I've never let it shoot an approach other than for practice purposes. What I use the automation for is as an extra set of hands when I need to look at something. Do I need it? Nope. Just a workload reducer.

When I went into the 310 (well, 421) sim last year, the instructor said most students completely screw up any of the hand flying portions. My sim partner and I (both of whom subscribe to the value of hand flying) got told "I've never seen anyone fly out of that" and "You were supposed to crash there" a lot.

 

[CT Arrow]

Delete.

 

[poadeleted20]

I know already that this won't be a popular view... but what I've seen it do is make people a slave to the automation.

Doesn't take WAAS to make one a slave to automation, and if you weren't before, it won't turn you into one. It's all about your approach to flying, not the presence or absence of WAAS.

That said, with a full WAAS GPS-based system with a full 2-axis autopilot with altitude command/preselect, you do become more of a systems manager and less of a stick-and-rudder manipulator. But that's a good thing, I think, because it frees more of your attention for situational awareness, strategic planning, and systems monitoring. The trick, however, is to maintain your proficiency at operating after failure of the autopilot or GPS, and that takes some effort and dedication. That's why I suggest periodic refresher training to those flying aircraft with that capability -- at least an hour or two of failure modes work every six months, and a more in-depth session every year or so.

 

[poadeleted21]

Doesn't take WAAS to make one a slave to automation, and if you weren't before, it won't turn you into one. It's all about your approach to flying, not the presence or absence of WAAS.

That said, with a full WAAS GPS-based system with a full 2-axis autopilot with altitude command/preselect, you do become more of a systems manager and less of a stick-and-rudder manipulator. But that's a good thing, I think, because it frees more of your attention for situational awareness, strategic planning, and systems monitoring. The trick, however, is to maintain your proficiency at operating after failure of the autopilot or GPS, and that takes some effort and dedication. That's why I suggest periodic refresher training to those flying aircraft with that capability -- at least an hour or two of failure modes work every six months, and a more in-depth session every year or so.

My A/P has GPSS and Alt Hold. If it can hold altitude, I've always wondered why it can't climb/descend? I assume the plumbing is already there for controlling pitch, seems they just left that out of the software?

 

[Jthamilton]

Ouch!

Oh well, it's just money. I had to buy an annunciator too + install cost of the annunciator.

This ought to be motivation to finish up my IR ticket.

What's the difference in an old 530 and a WAAS box?

I figured the straight 530 was getting a little long in the tooth and didn't want to waste the $1000 to fix it then turn around and upgrade it a year later.

But, ouch.

Can I ask how much of an ''ouch''?

Turbo Toga I'm looking to buy is having pre buy tomorrow. It has the 530 and I considered upgrade but keep forgetting to look into costs.

 

[EppyGA]

I know already that this won't be a popular view... but what I've seen it do is make people a slave to the automation. I watched 3 out of 5 pilots in a recent sim class blow an unpublished hold (including the altitude) because they were so obsessed with getting the automation to fly a procedure, they forgot to just fly the airplane.

I know that's a small sample size and just one case, but time and time again in the class, when asked why they were off course, the answer always started with "my autopilot..." and "my GPS..."

I fly in all sorts of weather without using the AP. You never lose focus when you're hand flying in IMC...you're always scanning, checking and planning ahead. I can't say that I've seen the same level of engagement from pilots who rely TOO heavily on automation.

I spent several hours in those same sims flying a Garmin 530 WAAS...and it was indeed a thing of beauty, no question. However, I felt quite disengaged from the flight.

I'd never argue that you shouldn't have it, but I'd urge any pilot to remain proficient with hand flying and be prepared to go raw data when the box does odd things.

Ugh, when did I become old?

I do not have an autopilot so I have no choice. I agree with your view though. Some things are just as well done by hand.

 

[poadeleted20]

My A/P has GPSS and Alt Hold. If it can hold altitude, I've always wondered why it can't climb/descend? I assume the plumbing is already there for controlling pitch, seems they just left that out of the software?

There's a lot more involved in climbing/descending than there is in just holding altitude. Simple altitude hold is just a matter of pitching to keep the sensed static pressure constant. But even basic pitch command (i.e., commanding a pitch attitude to be held) like you have on the Century III requires attitude sensing, and that's a whole 'nother module -- and that doesn't even begin to address vertical speed command or altitude preselect. There's a lot more hardware involved in all that, not just software.

 

[poadeleted21]

Can I ask how much of an ''ouch''?

Turbo Toga I'm looking to buy is having pre buy tomorrow. It has the 530 and I considered upgrade but keep forgetting to look into costs.

GPS update alone is 3200. You wouldn't need an annunciator in the toga I don't believe if the gps is in the center stack. That added quiet a bit to the cost. Not to mention the other AMU worth of work I had him do.

 

[poadeleted21]

There's a lot more involved in climbing/descending than there is in just holding altitude. Simple altitude hold is just a matter of pitching to keep the sensed static pressure constant. But even basic pitch command (i.e., commanding a pitch attitude to be held) like you have on the Century III requires attitude sensing, and that's a whole 'nother module -- and that doesn't even begin to address vertical speed command or altitude preselect. There's a lot more hardware involved in all that, not just software.

Gotcha, thanks.

 

[Henning]

My A/P has GPSS and Alt Hold. If it can hold altitude, I've always wondered why it can't climb/descend? I assume the plumbing is already there for controlling pitch, seems they just left that out of the software?

It can, just need to spend more money.

 

[jesse]

That takes a little bit of the sting out

5Hz refresh vs 1Hz refresh is actually pretty substantial. Once you get used to it at the faster rate the 1Hz is super annoying

 

[Ted]

That said, with a full WAAS GPS-based system with a full 2-axis autopilot with altitude command/preselect, you do become more of a systems manager and less of a stick-and-rudder manipulator. But that's a good thing, I think, because it frees more of your attention for situational awareness, strategic planning, and systems monitoring. The trick, however, is to maintain your proficiency at operating after failure of the autopilot or GPS, and that takes some effort and dedication. That's why I suggest periodic refresher training to those flying aircraft with that capability -- at least an hour or two of failure modes work every six months, and a more in-depth session every year or so.

I think therein lies the problem for many with being a dedicated monitor pilot vs. hand pilot with minimal use of monitoring. Most hobby pilots have a hard enough time flying enough hours per year to maintain general proficiency, and don't believe in regular training. Even if they do believe in it, finding a good CFI can be hard.

When you're flying at the professional level, it's different since you're flying so much more. But even with pros who become automation slaves, we are seeing crashes that are indicating more hand flying time is needed.

 

[poadeleted21]

I think therein lies the problem for many with being a dedicated monitor pilot vs. hand pilot with minimal use of monitoring. Most hobby pilots have a hard enough time flying enough hours per year to maintain general proficiency, and don't believe in regular training. Even if they do believe in it, finding a good CFI can be hard.

When you're flying at the professional level, it's different since you're flying so much more. But even with pros who become automation slaves, we are seeing crashes that are indicating more hand flying time is needed.

I accidentally bumped into my first and only CFI, kept my plane at the FBO he owned and he was my A&P/IA too. Since I've moved, I've discovered that was an anomaly. Been searching for over a year for a good CFI who's based near my plane and has reasonable availability.

 

[poadeleted20]

It can, just need to spend more money.

There are many pitch autopilots which cannot be modified to handle climb/descent, starting with the S-Tec 30ALT, no matter how much money you spend (short of replacing it with an entirely different unit). Further, I know of none which can be so upgraded which can be done with only a software change, again, no matter how much money you spend.

 

[poadeleted20]

I think therein lies the problem for many with being a dedicated monitor pilot vs. hand pilot with minimal use of monitoring. Most hobby pilots have a hard enough time flying enough hours per year to maintain general proficiency, and don't believe in regular training.

That's a problem not limited to instrument pilots.

Even if they do believe in it, finding a good CFI can be hard.

I disagree. Plenty of top-quality CFI's available, starting with (at the risk of self-serving) Professional Instrument Courses, who will send a highly experienced instructor wherever you are (I've been sent as far as Peru, and I don't mean Peru, Indiana). The problem is that many pilots, even those who want regular training, aren't willing to spend the money for such an instructor.

When you're flying at the professional level, it's different since you're flying so much more. But even with pros who become automation slaves, we are seeing crashes that are indicating more hand flying time is needed.

Agreed, but we're also seeing fewer airline crashes overall, so in terms of the big picture, it is getting better.

 

[Ted]

I accidentally bumped into my first and only CFI, kept my plane at the FBO he owned and he was my A&P/IA too. Since I've moved, I've discovered that was an anomaly. Been searching for over a year for a good CFI who's based near my plane and has reasonable availability.

Yep. Around here I could fly up the road an hour to a place where they know Twin Cessnas great, but otherwise I can't find anyone. Have I looked under every rock? No, but my CFI back in PA was an anomaly.

I disagree. Plenty of top-quality CFI's available, starting with (at the risk of self-serving) Professional Instrument Courses, who will send a highly experienced instructor wherever you are (I've been sent as far as Peru, and I don't mean Peru, Indiana). The problem is that many pilots, even those who want regular training, aren't willing to spend the money for such an instructor.

There is something to that, but if I have to travel, that means they're hard to find. Sim instruction is different since sims are big and expensive.

In my case flying a light twin, it's pretty hard. The reality is that most instructors know less about the plane than I do, which makes it hard for them to generate reasonable failure scenarios. Even when I went to SimCom, my partner and I kept on passing the instructor notes for what to fail in the box because he wasn't doing a good job.

He also said we were a rare pair, because most people also just want it as easy as possible and get their certificate for the insurance.

If you're in a 172, I'd agree it would be much easier.

 

[poadeleted20]

There is something to that, but if I have to travel, that means they're hard to find.

PIC travels to you. We're only as hard to find as the numbers and letters "800-I-FLY-IFR" on your phone. :wink2:

Sim instruction is different since sims are big and expensive.

Not so big that we can't bring ours with us, and their use is included in our daily rate. Granted, we're not cheap, but our clients pretty much all agree that they got what they paid for. In fact, I can only think of one unhappy client of mine in 8 years with PIC, and he was just annoyed that I wouldn't sign an IPC unless he hand-flew an ILS and did a PFD-inop nonprecision approach in his Avidyne Cirrus (two mandatory events per the PTS for an IPC, in case any of you aren't familiar with that).

 

[Ted]

PIC travels to you. We're only as hard to find as the numbers and letters "800-I-FLY-IFR" on your phone. :wink2:

Right, why do you think I have any interest in paying your travel expenses? Hint, I don't.

And not to use you as an example, but since you brought yourself up, how much time have you spent in a de-iced piston twin in the last 5 years? I'm guessing less than me.

That's a big part of the challenge.

Not so big that we can't bring ours with us, and their use is included in our daily rate. Granted, we're not cheap, but our clients pretty much all agree that they got what they paid for. In fact, I can only think of one unhappy client of mine in 8 years with PIC, and he was just annoyed that I wouldn't sign an IPC unless he hand-flew an ILS and did a PFD-inop nonprecision approach in his Avidyne Cirrus (two mandatory events per the PTS for an IPC, in case any of you aren't familiar with that).

I have no interest in flying your "puny" sim.

If I fly one, I want one of the real, full-sized ones.