HRM Posted March 22, 2015 Report Posted March 22, 2015 (edited) In my continuing foray into all things IFR, I found this on a website forum: Keep the 89B and get a Garmin 396 with XM WX. You can still file /G but can navigate with the 396. Beautiful color screen and very easy to use. Plus it also gets XM music so you have in-flight tunes. They even make a panel mount for it. Plus you'll save yourself a couple grand. The discussion had to do with a question that a pilot in a flying club had posed about what to do with a KLN-89B. I was somewhat taken aback (being the Boy Scout that I am) about "still file /G, but navigate with the 396." This sounds like the poster was suggesting something terribly illegal. Purely out of curiosity mind you, I went and looked at the specs on a 396 and apparently it has WAAS along with IFR approaches. I am losing sleep over this disturbing notion... Edited March 22, 2015 by HRM Quote
Hank Posted March 22, 2015 Report Posted March 22, 2015 The 89B is the approved navigation source for /G; is it approved for approaches? Whatever approach you use will have to be on it. The 396 provides wonderful situational awareness, weather, music, and the desirable pink line, but it cannot load or show approaches. Set it up the same as the King, and use both. Me, I've got a 430W and sometimes a tablet. I've used a 396 a few times but never bought a handheld. I'm sure some others with experience using the 89B / Garmin handhelds will be along soon, but that's the gist that I've seen and heard others doing. Quote
rbridges Posted March 22, 2015 Report Posted March 22, 2015 The KL89B is approach certified. In my situation, I have a 430W and foreflight. I use the 430W to load my flight plan, but I often use the ipad enroute. I can zoom in/out and access information much quicker on the ipad. It also displays tons more info than the 430W. I keep an eye on the 430W, but it's easier to use the larger screen on the ipad. Although the foreflight/ipad combo has the waypoints, arrivals and approaches, it is not certified for IFR use. You've got to have an IFR certified GPS to file /G. When it gets time to set up the approach, I only use the 430W. I don't think they were saying to use only the 396. My opinion is that they were saying to take advantage of the better interface of the 396 when possible but have the KL89B as the certified source. Quote
carusoam Posted March 22, 2015 Report Posted March 22, 2015 Harley, Thoughts on primary nav vs portables... If he keeps the KLN89B and it is working as expected... He is able to navigate using the KLN89B as expected. If the color graphics of the portable make it easier to understand what he is doing. That is OK too.... It wouldn't give him the legal ability to fly WAAS approaches. Relying on a portable for primary Nav in IMC is a terrible plan A. It is too easy to have a failure. Another thing you might see is somebody navigating using a portable GPS while following victor airways. The NAV radio is technically his primary nav tool. The portable helps with situational awareness. A third thing you may see is somebody using an IFR GPS and following Victor airways. This can be a way to cover for an outdated database. Primary is supplied by the ship's VORs... There are some more specific rules to follow about updating databases vs. verifying all the points in your plan. This gets very complex when it comes to all the approaches installed around the world. The price of all the databases and how many different approaches you really fly, and all the other things... The thread about when to use GPS distances when DME distances are available is another example of how complex the rules can be. To file /G requires qualified equipment and an updated database. All of the complexity is appreciated by a few groups of people - professional pilots that need to fly in various planes with various equipment installed... - young pilots short on dough and long on memory... - ordinary pilots with extraordinary legal skills... For a private pilot, it may be a challenge to keep the database and VORs updated and logged properly. If you need to keep things simple, get a WAAS GTN and a database update plan. Get it installed properly, file /G all the time. If you need to keep things low cost, a single VOR is a valuable device. Your capabilities will be limited by the choices you make. Always have a few plan Bs... Portable nav devices, com devices and things like that. One of the most fun things to have is an updated database installed in an approach capable GPS. Unfortunately, it is one of the most expensive things to have to afford. Keep it simple at first. Best regards, -a- We were all typing at the same time... See if our opinions are the same. 1 Quote
Marauder Posted March 22, 2015 Report Posted March 22, 2015 Prior to installing a /G GPS, I flew with a portable GPS (a 295) and filed as /A. In the remarks section I would put "VFR GPS equipped". Often in radar coverage I would get, "fly heading XXX, direct ABC VOR, when able, resume own Nav". When this happened, "ABC" was usually way beyond its service limit. There was no way that I would be able to navigate direct to a VOR that was over a hundred miles away. Was it legal? Sure, I was on a vector. But the reality was that the controller knew what I was doing and because I was in radar coverage, they were helping me out. As for flying in non radar or using a non approved GPS for real life navigation & approaches - nope. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk 1 Quote
M016576 Posted March 22, 2015 Report Posted March 22, 2015 Excellent points, but technically you don't need an "updated" database to file /G... you just need to certify that the points in your database are still accurate. In order to (legally) shoot an IFR LPV GPS approach, though, your nav database must be current. I think you can still shoot the non-precision GPS approaches without an updated database, but I could be wrong on that. what all this means is that technically you can file /G with a 2 year old nav database, so long as the points you are flying to remain the same as on your charts and you've verified their accuracy, and when you get to your destination, fly an ILS or VOR approach legally. a handheld or ipad is a great way to keep SA. I have a 430W for legal /G flying, and use an AERA 560 as a MFD/scratchpad/ADSB displayer. They compliment one another very well. 1 Quote
Mooneymite Posted March 22, 2015 Report Posted March 22, 2015 In order to (legally) shoot an IFR LPV GPS approach, though, your nav database must be current. I think you can still shoot the non-precision GPS approaches without an updated database, but I could be wrong on that. Hmmm. I really don't want to start a long discussion that usually ensues on this subject, but under certain installations/conditions, it may be legal to shoot a GPS approach as long as the individual approach in your database is current even though your entire database is not current. Some installations are quite specific that the entire database must be up to date. Is anyone familiar with an accident attributed to shooting an approach with an out of date database? I can't recall one attributed solely to approach data. Quote
NotarPilot Posted March 22, 2015 Report Posted March 22, 2015 I found an excellent article explaining the regs in simple terms. Yes, when flying en route with GPS you need to verify your points are still accurate but you only need a current database for GPS approaches. You don't need a current database for non precision such as a VOR or even precision approaches such as an ILS because once you start the approach you're not using GPS to navigate anymore. At least, you're not supposed to. http://www.fredonflying.com/Articles/IFR_Refresher/1001-IFR-GPS-Regulations.pdf 1 Quote
HRM Posted March 22, 2015 Author Report Posted March 22, 2015 The operative sentence in my original post was: You can still file /G but can navigate with the 396. After a lot of pontificating about rules (BTW, NotarPilot, thanks for that link!) the reality remains that this individual was telling a pilot to just keep the KLN-89B to be legal, but use the 396 to NAVIGATE, which is not the same as using it for SA. Of course, we could be just arguing semantics here. I mean, what does it mean to use a portable GPS for SA anyway? I doubt the FAA intended it to mean that you were to NAVIGATE WITH IT. To be fair, the post that preceded the one I usurped talked about how difficult the KLN-89B was to use, sort of clunky, mono-display, etc. So this guy is saying, keep the KLN-89B in your panel, IFR certified, etc., etc., etc., go ahead and file /G, but NAVIGATE with the 396. My understanding is that the 396 has WAAS approaches in it. Now, the KLN is only good for non-precision approaches so that is all you could legally file for, but the 396 could still be used to NAVIGATE from origin to destination without even turning the KLN on. Quote
Hector Posted March 22, 2015 Report Posted March 22, 2015 I have an older GX-60 IFR approved GPS (non-precession only) and a panel mounted Garmin 496. I navigate using the GX-60 because it is very simple to use and it is legal (and connected to the A/P) but use the 496 as backup and better situational awareness since it has a nice display. When it comes time to shoot a GPS approach I use and fly the GX-60, again, because it is simple to use and legal, but will also load the approach in the 496. The difference is that my 496 will not load any IAF's automatically. You can load vectors to final or fly to the FAF (or manually enter the IAF). I've used them together enough that if I absolutely had to (i.e. complete electrical failure) I would trust the 496 to get me home. If the weather is bad enough that I can't use a non-precision GPS approach then I make sure I have an alternate with an ILS. At some point I will upgrade my panel to allow for LPV approaches but To date I have not found my old boxes to be a limiting factor. Quote
carusoam Posted March 23, 2015 Report Posted March 23, 2015 Harley, Where that method falls down... The portable devices just aren't 'proven' to work in all situations. I had an earlier version of the 396. It took a holiday while I was navigating in Florida on the way to SNF. It turns out that some radios (a Narco in my M20C's instrument panel) bleed enough interference to kill off the satelite signal going to the portable GPS unit. The signal blocking was related to a particular VOR frequency I was tuning for primary navigation. I don't like to bet very much on individual pieces of equipment, even less on something that isn't certified to do the job that I intend to use it for. Flying in IMC has too much risk to not get quality equipment to meet the needs of the flight. I'm sure people will do that. It takes all types. Fortunately, with MS we have the opportunity to discuss what works and how to do it right and at lowest costs... But doing it wrong is probably going to cost, a lot... Accidents happen to people with the best instruments. Who would want to battle declining weather conditions with inferior or improper equipment? Performing a raim test prior to using an approach. This test is part of IFR certified equipment. It tests the radio to determine that is currently ready for the job. The portable I have, is unable raim... Using a portable for primary nav might be possible. When you find it isn't working, how much time do you have to fire up Plan B? Following the rules can be difficult and costly. Skipping the rules can get more costly...? You have given an example of a guy flying IFR without the rating, and another guy flying in IMC without proper equipment. Adding small amounts of risk in this fashion can add up to death by a thousand paper cuts.... Yes you can do these things, it's just not a good idea. I heard a teen the other day coming out of the local high school... He turns to his friend and tells him "Drive fast, and take chances...!" Sounds similar to "fly in IMC with out a rating, and use portable 'primary' nav devices...!" Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. Best regards, -a- Quote
NotarPilot Posted March 23, 2015 Report Posted March 23, 2015 what all this means is that technically you can file /G with a 2 year old nav database, so long as the points you are flying to remain the same as on your charts and you've verified their accuracy, and when you get to your destination, fly an ILS or VOR approach legally. By the way, can anyone show an example where some waypoints (fixes, intersections) have changed on a database? I would think they would not move a fix without changing it's name right? Or am I way off base here? Quote
HRM Posted March 23, 2015 Author Report Posted March 23, 2015 By the way, can anyone show an example where some waypoints (fixes, intersections) have changed on a database? I would think they would not move a fix without changing it's name right? Or am I way off base here? Sort of. My most common flight (VFR as IFR ) is through the Houston Bravo via the IFR corridor that follows I-10 flying back and forth from KBPT to KEDC. What I learned early on was that I could program my 295 with the VPTNE and RECVR waypoints, which gave me: KBPT ➔ VPTNE (the East dogleg) VPTNE ➔ RECVR (the straight piece right through the Bravo) RECVR ➔ KEDC (the West dogleg) Recently I was doing some flight planning on SkyVector for KBPT ➔ 84R (Smithville) and discovered that RECVR was gone. At that point I was perplexed, since it was still in the 295. Of course, I haven't updated the 295 database in over a year Turns out, RECVR disappeared and VPKTY (Katy) appeared. Not at the same location, but still over I-10 on the west side. Needless to say, VPKTY is not in the 295. Should be on the next update that I do. Side note: When ATC asks my intentions I tell them I want the corridor, VPTNE to RECVR (now VPKTY). This throws them off--I am VFR in a Mooney. They treat me like an IFR flight since VFR pilots don't use waypoints. It's great fun. Quote
chrisk Posted March 23, 2015 Report Posted March 23, 2015 When I have done this sort of thing, I have filed direct, /U, with a note that I have a handheld GPS. When I get to the destination, I'll ask for a VOR or ILS approach, as I have one of those. ATC seems quite happy to send you direct if they can. As to why would anyone do this. The last time I did this, I was 700 miles from home when my WAAS GPS died. Direct was a lot more direct than airways. The weather was basically VFR. And it also made transitioning a class B airspace easier. Quote
HRM Posted March 23, 2015 Author Report Posted March 23, 2015 Direct was a lot more direct than airways. The navigation network has always constrained flight. One of the reasons for ADS-B other than getting rid of radar is to allow more direct flight, which saves time and money over the dogleg, pinball routes of the Victor airways. What ADS-B does is give the IFR pilot VFR eyes completely around his plane. Quote
Deb Posted March 23, 2015 Report Posted March 23, 2015 By the way, can anyone show an example where some waypoints (fixes, intersections) have changed on a database? I would think they would not move a fix without changing it's name right? Or am I way off base here? Funny you should ask... Earlier this year, a new approach plate was issued for the eastbound RNAV approach to KFXE. It was now RNAV 09 instead of RNAV 08 (OK, no big deal), but interestingly, the mileages between the waypoints had changed although the names had stayed the same. The distance charted (on the plate) between ENVER and PADDS (IAF --> FAF) increased from 6 NM to 6.1 NM, and the distance from PADDS to the runway increased from 6 NM to 6.1 NM. So, in theory, ENVER moved 0.2 miles west, and PADDS moved 0.1 miles west. However, the GPS coordinates for the waypoints had not changed. (The runway numbers were repainted but the runway and threshold were not relocated.) So apparently small changes can happen. The FAA and the airport said this was due to a more accurate survey, and the previous mileages were slightly off. Quote
M016576 Posted March 28, 2015 Report Posted March 28, 2015 Sort of. My most common flight (VFR as IFR ) is through the Houston Bravo via the IFR corridor that follows I-10 flying back and forth from KBPT to KEDC. What I learned early on was that I could program my 295 with the VPTNE and RECVR waypoints, which gave me: KBPT ➔ VPTNE (the East dogleg) VPTNE ➔ RECVR (the straight piece right through the Bravo) RECVR ➔ KEDC (the West dogleg) Recently I was doing some flight planning on SkyVector for KBPT ➔ 84R (Smithville) and discovered that RECVR was gone. At that point I was perplexed, since it was still in the 295. Of course, I haven't updated the 295 database in over a year Turns out, RECVR disappeared and VPKTY (Katy) appeared. Not at the same location, but still over I-10 on the west side. Needless to say, VPKTY is not in the 295. Should be on the next update that I do. Side note: When ATC asks my intentions I tell them I want the corridor, VPTNE to RECVR (now VPKTY). This throws them off--I am VFR in a Mooney. They treat me like an IFR flight since VFR pilots don't use waypoints. It's great fun. I had a similar problem about 3 years ago flying between Bend and Portland... Turns out an entire V-route I had on my handheld had completely disappeared from my (current) paper charts.... When I got home, I grudgingly purchased a nav update for my handheld. Quote
HRM Posted March 28, 2015 Author Report Posted March 28, 2015 I had a similar problem about 3 years ago flying between Bend and Portland... Turns out an entire V-route I had on my handheld had completely disappeared from my (current) paper charts.... When I got home, I grudgingly purchased a nav update for my handheld. Outdated databases under VFR are not a big issue, but I cannot imagine flying IFR with outdated charts. Trees, routes, towers, things change...no biggie if you can see them, but in the soup? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.