ADSB and iPads...

[kortopates]

Between the GTN and the GNS, the older GNS really do provide the same enroute and approach capabilities except for one. Only the new GTN boxes support the new RF leg approach types. But these are new and rare and probably most people don't even know about them or care. I have one near me, but not a big deal.

Otherwise as Athony said, for everything else the GNS does what the GTN does just not as efficiently as the newer GTN boxes (i.e. programmable holds, airways). But add in a Flighstream 210, as JohnB suggested and voila you just added a new iPad interface and solving the missing airways dilemma. But no arguing that the newer GTN & IFD do it all with much more G-Whiz bang and with beautiful color maps and touch screen.

But as Teejay says,  given install cost is the same and significant for any of these GPS starting from scratch, one would really have to be strapped to install the older GNS boxes. My sense is the more complex the install (more interfaces to wire) the less palatable the savings from a GNS box will be. A simple interface to one VOR/GPS head makes its the most attractive. But don't be dissuaded by stories of Garmin is not updating the GNS boxes because they continue to be supported. They have added and continued to update them for LP approaches and continue to update them to interface with for ADS-B as well as interfacing with their other product updates.

But I recently went from a GMX-200 with dual GNS430W's to a GTN750/GTN650 w/FS510 combo because I was modernizing my panel with a G500 and wanted to simplify. Plus I traded in my GNS430W at 5.5K each and then am getting another $5K in Garmin rebates - so that helps too.

But if you are starting from scratch, it makes the Avidyne solution really tough since their advertised pricing starts at $17K and $15K plus install for the 540 and 440 respectively. That's great for people already coming from a GNS solution which won't pay for install - which is where most of their install base comes from (that and early adopters that got big discounts for deposits before their availability). Contract that with the GTN750 which advertises starting at $17K with install and starting at $12K with install for the 650. (I assume an AP interface and any other interfaces to existing avionics will drive install cost up.) That's a pretty big difference between the GTN650 and IFD440 for a new installed cost. I was also surprised to learn the IFD series doesn't support the new RF leg approaches. I wonder if that is a temporary thing or more a sign of a lack of future capability like the existing the GNS boxes. If it was only temporary, why didn't they just get it in so it they wouldn't suffer the negative marketing?  

Edited December 6, 2016 by kortopates

[JohnB]

2 hours ago, kortopates said:

Between the GTN and the GNS, the older GNS really do provide the same enroute and approach capabilities except for one. Only the new GTN boxes support the new RF leg approach types. But these are new and rare and probably most people don't even know about them or care. I have one near me, but not a big deal.

Otherwise as Athony said, for everything else the GNS does what the GTN does just not as efficiently as the newer GTN boxes (i.e. programmable holds, airways). But add in a Flighstream 210, as JohnB suggested and voila you just added a new iPad interface and solving the missing airways dilemma. But no arguing that the newer GTN & IFD do it all with much more G-Whiz bang and with beautiful color maps and touch screen.

 

Hey Paul!! I have been trying to do that RF leg GPS approach to Palomar for quite some time to use that GTN feature, but the two times I tried it, the controller just vectored me to the straight part of the approach. Have you been able to let them let you do the curved portion of the approach? How?

[kortopates]

1 hour ago, JohnB said:

Hey Paul!! I have been trying to do that RF leg GPS approach to Palomar for quite some time to use that GTN feature, but the two times I tried it, the controller just vectored me to the straight part of the approach. Have you been able to let them let you do the curved portion of the approach? How?

I suggest you try asking the controller that "Zero Romeo Alpha request commencing the GPS XRAY runway 24 approach at VISTA, full stop ( or missed)".  That should work; especially if you are coming from OCN. But because of the 5.8 nm leg between the JABAL and KANEC, after the RF leg, our controllers aren't thrilled with this approach if they are sequencing you in with other straight in traffic so that could have been the issue.

[cnoe]

I suggest you try asking the controller that "Zero Romeo Alpha request commencing the GPS XRAY runway 24 approach at VISTA, full stop ( or missed)".  That should work; especially if you are coming from OCN. But because of the 5.8 nm leg between the JABAL and KANEC, after the RF leg, our controllers aren't thrilled with this approach if they are sequencing you in with other straight in traffic so that could have been the issue.

Wouldn't you have to file an ICAO flight plan with the proper RNP code to receive this approach from ATC? It looks similar to a DME arc but without a reference fix, certainly above my pay grade.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[KLRDMD]

11 hours ago, kortopates said:

But if you are starting from scratch, it makes the Avidyne solution really tough since their advertised pricing starts at $17K and $15K plus install for the 540 and 440 respectively. 

Of course advertised pricing and real life pricing are not the same, at least for the Avidyne. My invoice dated September 7, 2016 shows the 540 actually selling for $13,300 and the 440 at $10,150, $8,550 less for the combination than Avidynes's advertised pricing. 

[kortopates]

3 hours ago, cnoe said:

 

Wouldn't you have to file an ICAO flight plan with the proper RNP code to receive this approach from ATC? It looks similar to a DME arc but without a reference fix, certainly above my pay grade.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Good point because I have yet to review the parameters to see if another one needs to be enabled as I suspect there is. But to answer your question directly, no, we don't even file flight plans to do IFR approaches here. For IFR flights that begin and end anywhere within specific TRACONs airspace, its is possible to get an IFR clearance without pre-filing by asking the tower for an IFR published TEC route (Tower Enroute Control) clearance.  These are in the published in the AF/D and we have TEC routes here in the SOCAL and NORCAL TRACONS as well as the north east coast.  For even shorter routes such, such as between nearby airports, they are not published in the AF/D, but prescribed never the less and provided to you when you ask tower for IFR to the a nearby or same airport. For these flight plans, they only care about your airplane type and equipment suffix, e.g. M20T or M20P and /G or...

[JohnB]

19 hours ago, kortopates said:

I suggest you try asking the controller that "Zero Romeo Alpha request commencing the GPS XRAY runway 24 approach at VISTA, full stop ( or missed)".  That should work; especially if you are coming from OCN. But because of the 5.8 nm leg between the JABAL and KANEC, after the RF leg, our controllers aren't thrilled with this approach if they are sequencing you in with other straight in traffic so that could have been the issue.

Thanks Paul! I think I said that, and got vectored to the straight part, but it was a marginal VFR day and the controllers seemed a bit stressed. I thought I might try it on a CAVU weekday,. but hmm then they might have more arrivals to sequence.  Have you been able to do the whole approach with RF legs? Just curious if its worth me trying again one of these days

[kortopates]

5 minutes ago, JohnB said:

Thanks Paul! I think I said that, and got vectored to the straight part, but it was a marginal VFR day and the controllers seemed a bit stressed. I thought I might try it on a CAVU weekday,. but hmm then they might have more arrivals to sequence.  Have you been able to do the whole approach with RF legs? Just curious if its worth me trying again one of these days

John, I have not yet had the opportunity. My plane and new panel is still in the shop and then when it finally comes out I'll be out of annual  '

But usually when you ask to start at specific IAF they'll give you an explanation when they can not accomodate - such as traffic. I really think that is the issue since he can keep you out of the way while vectoring you to just outside the JABAL, but when you do the full arc to KANEC you still have a 5 nm leg to get to JABAL which makes it harder for him to sequence you in with other arrivals coming from JLI. But if you get to try it again anytime soon and still get refused for questionable reasons please pass on what you can and I will take it up with my SOCAL contacts. One of the few perks of being on the FAASTeam here is the access I get to such folks and I will be eager to get to the bottom of it.

[JohnB]

22 minutes ago, kortopates said:

John, I have not yet had the opportunity. My plane and new panel is still in the shop and then when it finally comes out I'll be out of annual  '

But usually when you ask to start at specific IAF they'll give you an explanation when they can not accomodate - such as traffic. I really think that is the issue since he can keep you out of the way while vectoring you to just outside the JABAL, but when you do the full arc to KANEC you still have a 5 nm leg to get to JABAL which makes it harder for him to sequence you in with other arrivals coming from JLI. But if you get to try it again anytime soon and still get refused for questionable reasons please pass on what you can and I will take it up with my SOCAL contacts. One of the few perks of being on the FAASTeam here is the access I get to such folks and I will be eager to get to the bottom of it.

Yes thanks!!! Will do!!!