Need a new #2 Nav/Com

[HIghpockets]

Well my KX155 has gone Tango Uniform after one attempt at repair. Time for a replacement. Any recommendations? I am considering the Garmin 225.

Edited October 28, 2019 by HIghpockets

[Yetti]

A GNS 355 navigoater and comm would advance several technologies in the plane.

[Marauder]

Just now, HIghpockets said:

Well my KX155 has gone Tango Uniform after one attempt at repair. Time for a replacement. Any recommendations? I am considering the Garmin 225.

I have the Garmin 255B. 16W version. Solid unit. WIth the 355 out there, for a few more thousands, you can get one with a GPS. If you are looking for just a plain Com, the 225 will be fine.

https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/p/689774/#overview

[bob865]

This brings up a good point, or at least a question for me.....in today's flying world, how important is it to have a second nav radio?  I currently have a KX-170B and a KX-155.  I'm thinking about replacing my 170 with a 355.  I know without a doubt I want two comm radios, but with GPS and a Nav radio, would you consider that a solid IFR platform?  The only thing I wonder about is the VOR check.  Is there a way to do a 30day VOR check if against the GPS?  Or would I have to have a VOT or a visual VOR check?  Am I overthinking this?

[Marauder]

3 minutes ago, bob865 said:

This brings up a good point, or at least a question for me.....in today's flying world, how important is it to have a second nav radio?  I currently have a KX-170B and a KX-155.  I'm thinking about replacing my 170 with a 355.  I know without a doubt I want two comm radios, but with GPS and a Nav radio, would you consider that a solid IFR platform?  The only thing I wonder about is the VOR check.  Is there a way to do a 30day VOR check if against the GPS?  Or would I have to have a VOT or a visual VOR check?  Am I overthinking this?

I think you are asking some valid points. The FAR you are referring to is 91.171. Under section (b) 4, you can do a single VOR check using the procedure described there. 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.171

It is hard to say how long VOR/ILS approaches will be around. But for the airports I visit, the VOR approaches are slowly being replaced by GPS approaches. I think ILS approaches will be around for a while but who knows how long? I personally would have gone with a 355 over the 255 knowing I would rather have a second GPS radio over another Nav one.

[Niko182]

8 minutes ago, bob865 said:

This brings up a good point, or at least a question for me.....in today's flying world, how important is it to have a second nav radio?  I currently have a KX-170B and a KX-155.  I'm thinking about replacing my 170 with a 355.  I know without a doubt I want two comm radios, but with GPS and a Nav radio, would you consider that a solid IFR platform?  The only thing I wonder about is the VOR check.  Is there a way to do a 30day VOR check if against the GPS?  Or would I have to have a VOT or a visual VOR check?  Am I overthinking this?

Id say a gps is far nicer than a second nav. Especially with the MON system beginning, LPV and LP approaches are going to be way more useful than ILS approaches since so many more airports are going to have them.

In my panel upgrade, im doing 1 source of gps, 1 nav source, 2 comms, and a backup gps in a g3x. I dont see the need for a second nav.

[RobertGary1]

I'm looking at losing my #2 nav in favor of a GPS. I guess I'll have to back up my ILS with LPV.

 

-Robert

[chriscalandro]

What about no NAV in favor of GPS?

[MIm20c]

Just now, chriscalandro said:

What about no NAV in favor of GPS?

My personal minimum would be gps/nav/com and a com or gps/com and a nav/com. The second setup would be more of a backup with the gps and nav separated but I’d feel comfortable behind both.  Most pilots have a portable EFB and along with a com would help in an emergency. 

[Niko182]

 

Just now, chriscalandro said:

What about no NAV in favor of GPS?

I think that depends on the ttpe of IFR flying you put yourself at. Do you fly IFR to avoid airspace and fly the occational LPV down to 1500ft above minimims? Then sure whats the point of the nav. You dont really need one. But if you fly hard IFR from taking off in a 2mi vis 500ft ceiling, flying in rain and clouds the entire flight until you breakout at 300ft AGL over your destination airport. Then a CDi with GS might be really nice incase of gps loss. It all depends on what you fly in and what your limitations. Different people have different limitations. With one form of RNAV, and one form of nav, im gonna have to be having a really bad day to lose both of those in IMC, and when that happens, i still have GPS on foreflight to get me to a decent VFR airport.

[chriscalandro]

I don't have anything besides the 170b right now.  The idea was to swap it for a 375.  I don't really fly any IMC right now.  But if you're going to spend the money why spend it on VOR?

Edited October 28, 2019 by chriscalandro

[RobertGary1]

1 hour ago, Niko182 said:

 

I think that depends on the ttpe of IFR flying you put yourself at. Do you fly IFR to avoid airspace and fly the occational LPV down to 1500ft above minimims? Then sure whats the point of the nav. You dont really need one. But if you fly hard IFR from taking off in a 2mi vis 500ft ceiling, flying in rain and clouds the entire flight until you breakout at 300ft AGL over your destination airport. Then a CDi with GS might be really nice incase of gps loss. It all depends on what you fly in and what your limitations. Different people have different limitations. With one form of RNAV, and one form of nav, im gonna have to be having a really bad day to lose both of those in IMC, and when that happens, i still have GPS on foreflight to get me to a decent VFR airport.

You still have your #1 nav that will support the ILS. But honestly most airports with an ILS have an lpv approach with the same mins. 
 

-Robert 

[luv737s]

Correct me if I am wrong, but the reg actually says:

91.171 VOR equipment check for IFR operations.

(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft under IFR using the VOR system of radio navigation unless the VOR equipment of that aircraft -

(1) Is maintained, checked, and inspected under an approved procedure; or

(2) Has been operationally checked within the preceding 30 days, and was found to be within the limits of the permissible indicated bearing error set forth in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section.

Not using the VOR/flying Airways no check required.  If you need to fly VOR approaches/Airways, then do the check. If any part of the approach requires a VOR then do the checks.

Mike

 

 

 

[carusoam]

If logic prevails...  

• Extra important if you fly in IMC...
• Two independent nav sources... Because one is going to fail miserably while you are using it... receiver, or display... or the connections....
• Two ways to get to the ground... ILS and WAAS. Because one ILS will fail...
• Or limit you flights where you can get to better conditions... hard to do some days... wide spread IFR days...

If you stick to flying in VMC... the phone, the pad, the portable navcom.... there are so many gps devices floating around the cockpit... a second VOR in the cockpit doesn’t do much beyond follow an ancient FAR...

I have five GPS receivers operating in my plane while flying solo... and a spare portable one... G196 that soldiers on...

PP thoughts only not a CFI...

Best regards,

-a-

 

[Hank]

6 hours ago, carusoam said:

e five GPS receivers operating in my plane while flying solo... and a spare portable one... G196 that soldiers on...

While those are certainly all good enough to navigate, how many of them will get you on an instrument approach to an airport below the clouds? That's the value of Nav2 and a VOR head.

[carusoam]

Hank,

looks like I may have mixed the message...

I am a proponent of two independent resources of vertical guidance to get to the ground... in IMC...  ILS and a separate WAAS system. Or a pair of WAAS systems...

with a single source of vertical guidance (ILS), I need to include options with 1k’ ceilings for VOR approach capability...

Otherwise,  wide spread IMC with low ceilings can leave me stuck in the clouds without the ability to come down...

knowing where the nearest radar approach facility is, may require an emergency...

 

I was gently saying...

IFR:

• not having a second nav radio is a bad idea...
• Having a single source of vertical guidance is quite limiting.
• having a portable radio with ILS skills seems like a logical choice for a third resource....
• A single VOR as a nav source?... is near impossible to find intersections...

VFR: 

• Having a single nav radio isn’t quite as limiting... make it a waas GPS with a color screen...
• Airspace has gotten more complex, avoiding busting it has become more of a challenge...
• Having ADSB out, leaves a digital signature of every bust made...

Using portable devices as primary nav?  Another dumb idea...

• batteries get run-down pretty quickly using GPS
• Antenna wires and power cords disconnect themselves
• Having a DG failure is pretty disconcerting.
• GPS antennas in the iPad have a tendency to lose their signal down low in the cockpit... on a knee pad...

Everything is great until it isn’t.... 

Keep in mind some people are using the words nav radio and GPS to mean different things...

A single WAAS nav radio is a great idea... but it isn’t going to work forever...  we have thread after thread of the latest technical failures of all types of new nav devices...

If you are a proponent of using only a single NAV radio... have a solid Plan B.

Best regards,

-a-

 

[MinneMooney]

I have an old Narco Nav 122 as my #2 Nav and just sent it out to be repaired when the VOR portion quit working. For me, needing to do VOR checks every 30 days without a second VOR made it an easy decision (based on economics). Without a second VOR, I would have to fly over a landmark on a VOR airway to check my Garmin 430’s VOR. It wouldn’t take many flights to cover the repair cost (thanks Mike’s Avionics). It would be nice if the FAA would revise 91.171 to allow the use of a GPS to establish your location to check your VOR against.

[carusoam]

Specific to the OP’s request...

Have you considered a slide in replacement of a used KX155?

how limited is your budget?

The new Garmin nav boxes are nice, they include...

• VOR
• ILS
• WAAS GPS

But, they are missing the COM... 

Best regards,

-a-

[bob865]

A lot of good discussion, but I guess I'm asking for the tribal knowledge from those who fly a lot of actual IFR flight plans.  I do not, or not yet.  It seems to me, VOR/ILS are becoming a backup/secondary nav method.  This is my perception from things I read.  But eliminating VOR/ILS capability in the cockpit seems foolish when GPS is easily jammed.  Remember they do planned GPS outages for military practice somewhat regularly and GPS jammers are home build devices.  So for those of you with GPS, how often do you actually use your VOR/ILS nav reciever?

My question stemmed from, do I replaced my 170B with a GNC 355 with WAAS GPS and comm only for ~$7k or do I need to spring for the GTN 650 with WAAS GPS, Nav, and Comm for ~$12k?  Pros- 650 is duplicate everything, Cons-Doubling of price.  Pros -355 is a major leap forward in nav technology for half the price of a 650 Cons-being no secondary nav.  It seems like a worst case scenario with the 355 is I can't identify an intersection if the GPS fails. 

[kris_adams]

so my #2 155 is intermittantly inop.  I'm going with a 750 and making my 430W (which functions perfectly) my #2.  I forgot what a pita it is to get ATIS and talk to center/approach with a single Com.  I'd prefer to keep a single nav/com/vor/gs as my #1 for now.  My answer might be different a few years from now.  In fact if my 430 dies, I'll probably go with the 355 for my #2.  Good luck on your decisions!

Btw I rarely use the GS/VOR feature of my current 430 so I don't think it would be limiting to get rid of that capability.  I''m just not ready to do that for my #1 radio...yet

[Marauder]

2 hours ago, bob865 said:

A lot of good discussion, but I guess I'm asking for the tribal knowledge from those who fly a lot of actual IFR flight plans.  I do not, or not yet.  It seems to me, VOR/ILS are becoming a backup/secondary nav method.  This is my perception from things I read.  But eliminating VOR/ILS capability in the cockpit seems foolish when GPS is easily jammed.  Remember they do planned GPS outages for military practice somewhat regularly and GPS jammers are home build devices.  So for those of you with GPS, how often do you actually use your VOR/ILS nav reciever?

My question stemmed from, do I replaced my 170B with a GNC 355 with WAAS GPS and comm only for ~$7k or do I need to spring for the GTN 650 with WAAS GPS, Nav, and Comm for ~$12k?  Pros- 650 is duplicate everything, Cons-Doubling of price.  Pros -355 is a major leap forward in nav technology for half the price of a 650 Cons-being no secondary nav.  It seems like a worst case scenario with the 355 is I can't identify an intersection if the GPS fails. 

I have a GTN 650 and a 255B. For the majority of smaller airports, you will find mostly GPS approaches with an occasional VOR or ILS approach. The ILS often will have a slightly lower DA than an LPV approach. I find flying GPS approaches easier if you are required to fly the whole procedure turn. Even if you are flying an ILS with a procedure turn, the GPS can be used up to the last segment of the approach. You will get more utility out of the GPS but I will tell you from personal experience, having the ability to fly an ILS approach is pretty handy when you see an LOI message on a GPS approach.

I had this happen flying the RNAV to RWY8 at KLNS. The LPV and ILS both have a 200' DA. I was flying the RNAV and had the ILS up in the second HSI. Got an LOI and a "good luck" message from the GPS. Fortunately switching over to the ILS was seamless.

[Marauder]

11 hours ago, luv737s said:

Correct me if I am wrong, but the reg actually says:

91.171 VOR equipment check for IFR operations.

(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft under IFR using the VOR system of radio navigation unless the VOR equipment of that aircraft -

(1) Is maintained, checked, and inspected under an approved procedure; or

(2) Has been operationally checked within the preceding 30 days, and was found to be within the limits of the permissible indicated bearing error set forth in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section.

Not using the VOR/flying Airways no check required.  If you need to fly VOR approaches/Airways, then do the check. If any part of the approach requires a VOR then do the checks.

Mike

 

 

 

That was the point of my answer to Bob. If you have only one VOR, you can still make it legal for IFR. The bigger question is how many pilots actually do the VOR check. I do, but I venture to think many don't.

[jaylw314]

11 hours ago, luv737s said:

Correct me if I am wrong, but the reg actually says:

91.171 VOR equipment check for IFR operations.

(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft under IFR using the VOR system of radio navigation unless the VOR equipment of that aircraft -

(1) Is maintained, checked, and inspected under an approved procedure; or

(2) Has been operationally checked within the preceding 30 days, and was found to be within the limits of the permissible indicated bearing error set forth in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section.

Not using the VOR/flying Airways no check required.  If you need to fly VOR approaches/Airways, then do the check. If any part of the approach requires a VOR then do the checks.

Mike

I read 91.171(a) to mean that if you use the VOR system at all for navigation, you have to do the 30 day check.  I think you're required to monitor VOR if you have a non-WAAS GPS, so you'd have to do so even if you navigated by non-WAAS GPS or non-airway VOR, even if you never used VOR for approaches.

 

3 hours ago, MinneMooney said:

I have an old Narco Nav 122 as my #2 Nav and just sent it out to be repaired when the VOR portion quit working. For me, needing to do VOR checks every 30 days without a second VOR made it an easy decision (based on economics). Without a second VOR, I would have to fly over a landmark on a VOR airway to check my Garmin 430’s VOR. It wouldn’t take many flights to cover the repair cost (thanks Mike’s Avionics). It would be nice if the FAA would revise 91.171 to allow the use of a GPS to establish your location to check your VOR against.

I don't think it should be a big deal to do the visual landmark method of VOR testing.  Just find a visual landmark at your home airport, preferably near the downwind leg of your typical runway.  Take a sectional and find the radial from the nearest VOR.  When you're practicing pattern work, just set your VOR to the appropriate radial before takeoff, then glance at the VOR needle once you're in the downwind leg passing over that landmark.  As long as you take the plane for a spin more than once every 30 days, you can do it.

Edit: In retrospect, I'm spoiled because I have multiple airways going directly over my airport.  I suppose if you're nowhere near an airway, this is  much less convenient...

[MinneMooney]

If you read the VOR check requirements:

Single VOR, 

you must use a VOT, a designated ground checkpoint, or a designated airborne checkpoint, none of which are convenient for me at my home field. 

The 4th option is: 
(4) If no check signal or point is available, while in flight - 

(i) Select a VOR radial that lies along the centerline of an established  VOR airway; 

(ii) Select a prominent ground point along the selected radial preferably more than 20 nautical miles from the VOR ground facility and maneuver the  aircraft directly over the point at a reasonably low altitude; and 

(iii) Note the VOR bearing indicated by the receiver when over the ground point (the maximum permissible variation between the published radial and the indicated bearing is 6 degrees).

Also not very convenient for me, but doable. You can’t just pick a spot on a sectional and determine the radial to the VOR. I had to fly about 30 minutes the last time I did this check.

With 2 VOR’s I can do the check on the ground sitting outside my hangar.

[jaylw314]

11 minutes ago, MinneMooney said:

If you read the VOR check requirements:

Single VOR, 

you must use a VOT, a designated ground checkpoint, or a designated airborne checkpoint, none of which are convenient for me at my home field. 

The 4th option is: 
(4) If no check signal or point is available, while in flight - 

Also not very convenient for me, but doable. You can’t just pick a spot on a sectional and determine the radial to the VOR. I had to fly about 30 minutes the last time I did this check.

With 2 VOR’s I can do the check on the ground sitting outside my hangar.

Yeah I figured you must be far away from an airway when I looked back at your post.  I have an airway going directly over my airport and a nearby airport, so that was unfair of me to assume most people had a similar situation  

I always assumed the 2 VOR check had to be done in the air, but now that I looked closer at 91.171, you're right, it doesn't specifically require that...