MinneMooney Posted October 29, 2019 Report Share Posted October 29, 2019 Funny thing is I have an airway that passes right over the top of my home field but the VOR is too close (5 miles) so I have to fly outbound 15+ mi min. before I can perform a legal single VOR check. Sorry for the thread creep but this should be a consideration for anyone making avionics decisions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaylw314 Posted October 29, 2019 Report Share Posted October 29, 2019 1 hour ago, MinneMooney said: Funny thing is I have an airway that passes right over the top of my home field but the VOR is too close (5 miles) so I have to fly outbound 15+ mi min. before I can perform a legal single VOR check. Sorry for the thread creep but this should be a consideration for anyone making avionics decisions. Doh! That is annoying. I have a VOR at my home airport, and another about 25 miles away at EUG. There is also an FAA approved VOR ground reference point on the ramp at our airport, so we seem to have a surplus of options... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradp Posted October 30, 2019 Report Share Posted October 30, 2019 I went with a used GNC 255 that I’m installing right now. I considered the GNC 355 but decided that if my primary navigator goes down, I just want something that will give me the ability to shoot an ILS. If I have an emergency I’m most likely headed to a big airport that commercial jets fly in. They have ILS. That’s not going away any time soon. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobertGary1 Posted October 31, 2019 Report Share Posted October 31, 2019 On 10/29/2019 at 11:04 AM, MinneMooney said: Funny thing is I have an airway that passes right over the top of my home field but the VOR is too close (5 miles) so I have to fly outbound 15+ mi min. before I can perform a legal single VOR check. Sorry for the thread creep but this should be a consideration for anyone making avionics decisions. What is the scenario you’d want to do a vor check? If you have gps the only time you need to use the nav radio is for a possible ILS and that doesn’t require the vor check. -Robert Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinneMooney Posted October 31, 2019 Report Share Posted October 31, 2019 19 minutes ago, RobertGary1 said: What is the scenario you’d want to do a vor check? If you have gps the only time you need to use the nav radio is for a possible ILS and that doesn’t require the vor check. -Robert I currently have a (TSO-C129)Garmin 430 non-waas. Technically, I need my VOR to legally navigate on an IFR flight plan. Can’t wait to install my new Avidyne IFD-440! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy95W Posted October 31, 2019 Report Share Posted October 31, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, MinneMooney said: I currently have a (TSO-C129)Garmin 430 non-waas. Technically, I need my VOR to legally navigate on an IFR flight plan. Can’t wait to install my new Avidyne IFD-440! This isn't true. Non-WAAS GPS is perfectly legal for IFR navigation and has been for 25 years- way before WAAS had even been invented. The biggest difference in this respect is that with non-WAAS navigators you have to check RAIM availability before flight. There was a time, a long time ago, when you could not use GPS to fly a VOR approach unless the title of the approach read VOR or GPS. In those cases, you had to monitor the VOR approach if you had your GPS fly that approach. I seriously doubt any of those approaches still remain, like for the last 10 years. I'm not sure where misinformation like this comes from. Probably uninformed flight instructors who were, themselves, taught incorrectly. Edit- if your GNS-430's installation was as VFR only, then of course all bets are off. Edited October 31, 2019 by Andy95W 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinneMooney Posted October 31, 2019 Report Share Posted October 31, 2019 Andy, has there been a change? This is what I found on AOPA’s web-site: https://pilot-protection-services.aopa.org/news/2016/july/01/are-30-day-vor-checks-still-required-for-ifr-flight it’s from 2016. Unless there’s been a change, it says a Garmin 430 non-waas (TSO-C129) requires 30 day VOR checks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobertGary1 Posted October 31, 2019 Report Share Posted October 31, 2019 (edited) 3 hours ago, MinneMooney said: I currently have a (TSO-C129)Garmin 430 non-waas. Technically, I need my VOR to legally navigate on an IFR flight plan. Can’t wait to install my new Avidyne IFD-440! You could just use a ham sandwich and use the vor as backup. There is no requirement for any certification for the primary equipment you use to navigate enroute. You could shoot stars, pocket ins system, deadrec etc. -Robert Edited October 31, 2019 by RobertGary1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy95W Posted October 31, 2019 Report Share Posted October 31, 2019 Kim- I've had to go back and reread my references! And no question about it, I might certainly be wrong. The part that I'm referring to is what goes way back to the original interpretation by the FAA: ------------------------------------------(b) Conduct GPS domestic, en route, and terminal IFR operations only when approved avionics systems are installed. Pilots may use GPS via TSO-C129() authorized for Class A1, B1, B3, When using TSO-C129() orTSO-C196() receivers, the avionics necessary toreceive all of the ground-based facilities appropriatefor the route to the destination airport and anyrequired alternate airport must be installed andoperational. Ground-based facilities necessary for these routes must be operational. ----------------------------------------- So from the above, if you were to use your 430 to navigate using Victor airways, then you would need VOR and do the checks. If you navigated using your 430 direct to the destination (or waypoints), then there are no ground facilities so you wouldn't need the VORs. You could also fly any GPS or RNAV approach without having a backup VOR. (The regulations continue- I couldn't find it specifically- that for C129 if you needed an alternate, then that alternate must have an approach that was not GPS based, meaning VOR/ILS and you would need to do the VOR checks.) The AOPA article is a little confusing in the way it's written- specifically this part: "Some of these “129” units (such as the non-WAAS Garmin 430) contain a certified VOR and ILS and, when that functionality is used for IFR flight, (my emphasis added) they must be checked operationally and the results logged under 14 CFR 91.171 just like any other VOR receiver." Therefore, if you aren't going to use the VOR or ILS for your flight, then you don't need to do the checks. I don't think there's been a change, except that technically TSO C129 has been effectively cancelled for new receivers because all the manufacturers have gone to the C146 standard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobertGary1 Posted October 31, 2019 Report Share Posted October 31, 2019 3 minutes ago, Andy95W said: Kim- I've had to go back and reread my references! And no question about it, I might certainly be wrong. The part that I'm referring to is what goes way back to the original interpretation by the FAA: ------------------------------------------(b) Conduct GPS domestic, en route, and terminal IFR operations only when approved avionics systems are installed. Pilots may use GPS via TSO-C129() authorized for Class A1, B1, B3, Just bring a sexton. Its legal IFR navigation and requires no TSO. YOu can use your 430 just for situational awareness. -Robert 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy95W Posted October 31, 2019 Report Share Posted October 31, 2019 I think in your case ( @MinneMooney) I would feel comfortable using your 430 for enroute, terminal, and approach navigation as C129 says. I would check RAIM before every IFR flight, if you need an alternate, make sure it is either VFR or has ILS/VOR available, and I would use the VOR airway that goes directly over your home field for the VOR check - even though it is only 5 miles away from the VOR. Technically, the requirement for VOR checks says preferably at least 20 miles away, but it doesn't say it is required. It might be splitting hairs, but honestly your non-WAAS GPS is more accurate than those VORs anyway! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank Posted October 31, 2019 Report Share Posted October 31, 2019 11 minutes ago, RobertGary1 said: Just bring a sexton. Its legal IFR navigation and requires no TSO. YOu can use your 430 just for situational awareness. -Robert Since us non-denominational Protestants don't have much in the way of bishops, sextons, etc., will my preacher suffice? On the other hand, a sextant is useful for shooting the position of stars and the inclination of the sun. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy95W Posted October 31, 2019 Report Share Posted October 31, 2019 What if the sexton is a trained navigator carrying a sextant? 2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank Posted October 31, 2019 Report Share Posted October 31, 2019 58 minutes ago, Andy95W said: What if the sexton is a trained navigator carrying a sextant? Then you've covered all of your bases! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carusoam Posted November 1, 2019 Report Share Posted November 1, 2019 So the fun part of the 430... It has four radios in one box... 1) GPS 2) VOR 3) ILS 4) Comm So.... if you are using it to receive VORs and displaying it on an indicator... it would make sense to perform the monthly test and log it on that piece of paper / spiral notebook somewhere... Expect when you are flying VOR to VOR on your IFR flight plan using GPS... it would make sense to flip the source to the VOR and check that the indicator is still within the expected tolerance... The fancy G box is actually attached to all these antennas, not just a single GPS antenna... and switching between all the receiver options is internal to the box... when you select the type of approach being used... At least that is how I understood it to work... my BK GPS is in a separate box so there is less confusion... the switch is external with a light bulb associated with it... Let me know if I have missed something... PP thoughts only, not a navcom expert... Best regards, -a- 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
67 m20F chump Posted November 1, 2019 Report Share Posted November 1, 2019 Why not just fix the 155? You would save enough money to buy a G5 or 2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob865 Posted November 1, 2019 Report Share Posted November 1, 2019 20 hours ago, Andy95W said: What if the sexton is a trained navigator carrying a sextant? Is there a 30-day accuracy check required for a Sextant Sexton? Do you need two Sextant Sextons to do it easily? If they dont' agree, do they argue? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank Posted November 1, 2019 Report Share Posted November 1, 2019 23 minutes ago, bob865 said: Is there a 30-day accuracy check required for a Sextant Sexton? Do you need two Sextant Sextons to do it easily? If they dont' agree, do they argue? No, he just needs a copy of the most recent star charts from the Naval Observatory. They're probably available online now . . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradp Posted November 1, 2019 Report Share Posted November 1, 2019 20 hours ago, Hyett6420 said: Im with @Marauder on this. I have the 255 and its an excellent box. Make sure your avionics guy connects it to your gps input. My avionics guy is out of RS-232 ports on his 430W. What is the benefit of connecting it to the navigator? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xavierde Posted April 27, 2020 Report Share Posted April 27, 2020 @HIghpockets I'd be interested to hear what you ended up going for as I have exactly the same question. My KX 165 is dying and I'm looking at three options: GNC255, GNC355 or GTN650 (my primary being a GNS480W which I plan to replace by a GTN750xi down the line). Thank you, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HIghpockets Posted April 27, 2020 Author Report Share Posted April 27, 2020 Much to my relief the problem was a loose connection. Repaired easily. Still have the KX155. (Crossed fingers.) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.