IFR avionics panel planning - need for VOR /LOC/GS?

[kortopates]

You should check out the Garmin G3X. For one it allows you to transition slowly to glass if that is a concern since one display option is actually to display a six ack on the screen.
Also check out the GI-275 over the G5 with a lot more capability and very configurable in what it displays.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[McMooney]

thinkng about it a bit further, i'd  keep the kx155 / cdi combo,  the gnc215 is just spending money for moneys sake and the 650 you'd just be paying for vor func you already have and wont' use anyway.

Only reason i ever use the VOR's is to practice an ILS approach.

heck how about replacing the transponder with a gnx375 , which would keep all functionality, get you adsb-in/out and work really well with the dynon

[Paul Thomas]

If the Dynon panel is 75, I'd rethink things. Dyson autopilot is not certified for the C model so that would push me toward Garmin for an integrated system.

If you are handing, cutting your own panel is not difficult if that's where most of the expense is from.

[Pinecone]

4 hours ago, AJ88V said:

So, got some preliminary quotes back.  Both include keeping a VOR in the form of a GNC-215.  Haven't discussed keeping the KX155 instead, or just forgoing the VOR.

A 'basic' Dynon 10" single setup without AP will run around $60K.  The AP would add another $15K.

A refit of the current panel using G5s, JPI  monitor + an AeroCruz AP will run just over $52.

I like the G5s, but am not thrilled with the placement of the bottom one places the knobs way low on the yoke, but the AP is a big deal.  

Dunno, really hate to throw in this kind of money and not have a big display.  One unexpected cost driver was the cost of developing a new panel vice a retrofit.

Next step is to just fly out to the shop next week and dig into more options.

At those prices, I would first shop around.   And look at a G3X based panel.

It looks like you are in VA.  I would talk to SMARTS Avionics at N71 (Donegal Springs, west of Lancaster PA).

 

[Jim Peace]

7 years ago was the last time I tuned an ILS or a VOR on my Mooney...it was to see if they worked after the Garmin panel install.....

 

[Pinecone]

I fly an ILS or VOR approach almost every practice session.   Would hate to be IMC and have a GPS outage or jamming incident and not have the equipment or proficiency/\.

[midlifeflyer]

8 hours ago, Pinecone said:

I fly an ILS or VOR approach almost every practice session.   Would hate to be IMC and have a GPS outage or jamming incident and not have the equipment or proficiency/\.

The good new is that “proficiency” in this case is more about the set-up process. I see people wondering “what’s wrong” when they fail to place the frequency in active, confirm and identify, change/confirm the VLOC source selection or, after being so used to auto-skewing HSIs, twist the CDI/course needle.

[PeteMc]

Here's some perspective of why we should all have at least one ILS/LOC/VOR onboard.
And for those unfamiliar with the PNW, the circles cover all of WA, most of ID, some of MT, most of OR and a good chunk of BC up in Canada.

FLIGHT ADVISORY
GPS INTERFERENCE TESTING
YAKIMA TRAINING CENTER WASHINGTON
(YATCWA) 25-33
13 – 22 May
Yakima Training Center, WA
GPS testing is scheduled as follows and may result in unreliable or unavailable GPS signal.
A. Centered at 464702N1201153W or the YKM VOR 017-degree radial at 16 NM.
B. Dates and times (Dates and times are based on GMT (Z).):
13 – 22 MAY 25 DLY 1200Z – 1559Z 1900Z – 2259Z
C. Duration: Each event may last the entire requested period.
D. NOTAM INFO: NAV GPS (YATCWA GPS 25-33) (INCLUDING WAAS, GBAS, AND ADS-B) MAY NOT BE AVBL WI A 295NM RADIUS CENTERED AT 464702N1201153W (YKM017016) FL400-UNL,
246NM RADIUS AT FL250,
174NM RADIUS AT 10000FT,
164NM RADIUS AT 4000FT AGL,
129NM RADIUS AT 50FT AGL.
E. Pilots are encouraged to report anomalies in accordance with the Aeronautical
Information Manual (AIM) paragraphs 1-1-13 and 5-3-3.

[Vance Harral]

On 5/10/2025 at 9:11 AM, AJ88V said:

really hate to throw in this kind of money and not have a big display

Having flown a variety of piston-powered equipment, I'll opine that big displays are more about entertainment/cool factor, and resale value, than capability.  I wouldn't hesitate to fly a "micro EFIS" system (dual G5s, Aspen, whatever) in any situation where I'd fly with "TV screens" (Dynon, G500, G3X, etc.)  And that's coming from a guy old enough to need corrective lenses to see the small stuff. 

You might also consider that people who have upgraded more than once over the last 20 years seem to have an easier time upgrading individual small displays than big PFD/MFD setups.  Hard to say if that will be true in the next 20 years, though.

But it's certainly OK to buy stuff just because it's cool.  If big displays are important to you (or you think they'll be a better resale investment), more power to you.

[Vance Harral]

56 minutes ago, PeteMc said:

And for those unfamiliar with the PNW, the circles cover all of WA, most of ID, some of MT, most of OR and a good chunk of BC up in Canada.

Yahbut... these "GPS testing" NOTAMs essentially never result in actual outages, and people who fly regularly see them as NOTAM noise to be ignored.

I know that sounds sketchy, but people who fly nationwide on a regular basis know GPS testing NOTAMs are present essentially all the time.  They remind me of UAS NOTAMs, which is to say that yes, something is there, and yes there are corner cases where the thing could cause you to have a bad day; but you can't change your actual operations as a result of the NOTAM except to not fly at all.  The likelihood of your aircraft being unable to navigate via GPS is almost exactly the same whether a GPS testing NOTAM is present or not, just like the likelihood of you having a mid-air collision with a small object is the same regardless of whether there is a UAS NOTAM in your area of operation.

[PeteMc]

1 minute ago, Vance Harral said:

NOTAMs essentially never result in actual outages, and people who fly regularly see them as NOTAM noise to be ignored.

Never say never.  Not so much around Yakima maybe, but there are people more in the SW that have frequently run into GPS issues from military testing. 

And yes, they also don't usually jam the entire time.  The test are often within the times posted, but relatively short.  So you may not even notice...  Unless you're shooting an Approach. 

 

[Vance Harral]

7 minutes ago, PeteMc said:

Never say never.

Understood and agreed.  But I'm confident the likelihood of being affected by such testing is less (or at most the same) as the likelihood of you having a problem with your own specific equipment, as discussed.  Therefore, the presence of these NOTAMs doesn't change flight planning (or avionics planning).  If you fly with GPS at all, you're accepting a small possibility of a GPS outage, regardless of whether government testing is happening, and therefore regardless of NOTAM or no NOTAM.

Sidetrack: This sort of thing is the main reason why the NOTAM system is fundamentally broken and is increasingly being ignored, even though we all know it's "wrong" to do so.  There is no requirement for a NOTAM to rise to any particular threshold of risk, so the system has become more about liability protection for people on the ground than about risk management for pilots.  Two days ago, I flew from Amarillo to Denver with a student.  I just re-studied the briefing.  It contains 6 GPS testing NOTAMs, 16 UAS NOTAMs, and 37 NOTAMs for unlit towers (tower operators never fix lights any more, as that actually costs money, issuing a NOTAM is free).  Half of the people reading this are saying to themselves, "Wow, Vance is actually still checking NOTAMs, what a nerd!"  Lest you think this is some sort of anti- (or pro-) GPS rant, I note that the same briefing contains 36 NOTAMs about ground-based NAVAIDs being either unserviceable or unmonitored: VORs, DMEs, etc.  The unmonitored devices are nearly always still working, but it's up to pilots to determine so on their own rather than expecting help from "the system".  The ones marked unserviceable are a lot less likely to be functional, but sometimes they still are.  So anyone doing real-word flying has to develop filters to sort the NOTAM wheat from the chaff, e.g. to find that runway closure that's hidden in an avalanche of junk NOTAMs.  The EFB companies have boldly taken on the task of trying to provide situation-specific NOTAM data where critical (e.g. pop-up when you look at an approach plate), and I very much appreciate it.  But the governing body apparently doesn't understand or doesn't care about the problem.  To quote Robert Sumwalt of the NTSB, "NOTAMs are just a pile of garbage".

[AndreiC]

1 hour ago, Vance Harral said:

Having flown a variety of piston-powered equipment, I'll opine that big displays are more about entertainment/cool factor, and resale value, than capability.  I wouldn't hesitate to fly a "micro EFIS" system (dual G5s, Aspen, whatever) in any situation where I'd fly with "TV screens" (Dynon, G500, G3X, etc.)  And that's coming from a guy old enough to need corrective lenses to see the small stuff. 

Here is a more extreme version of this statement. @Vance Harral is there any situation in which you would not fly a well-equipped steam gauge piston-powered aircraft but would fly the same plane if equipped with glass? My impression was that *all* glass displays, big or small, were there largely for entertainment factor. I can maybe see the benefit of an HSI over a DG+ILS head. I can certainly see the benefit of an autopilot. But above that?

[dkkim73]

1 hour ago, Vance Harral said:

36 NOTAMs about ground-based NAVAIDs being either unserviceable or unmonitored: VORs, DMEs, etc.  The unmonitored devices are nearly always still working, but it's up to pilots to determine so on their own rather than expecting help from "the system".  The ones marked unserviceable are a lot less likely to be functional, but sometimes they still are. 

Funny I was doing an IPC last week and the identifier on the ILS was incorrect (still usable signal). This is a staffed class C location. So there's something to "trust and verify". 

Your post is pretty nuanced and thoughtful, kind of both/and. No magic bullets. 

I'll still say it takes more to punk a VOR or ILS than GPS, though. 

 

[dkkim73]

43 minutes ago, AndreiC said:

Here is a more extreme version of this statement. @Vance Harral is there any situation in which you would not fly a well-equipped steam gauge piston-powered aircraft but would fly the same plane if equipped with glass? My impression was that *all* glass displays, big or small, were there largely for entertainment factor. I can maybe see the benefit of an HSI over a DG+ILS head. I can certainly see the benefit of an autopilot. But above that?

I'm a luddite. Ish. Or at least a 6-pack fan. 

But 190 hrs later, I must say, the big integrated displays (G1000) do, in my opinion, really help with situational awareness. The PFD gives a lot more "gut" reference than a tiny gauge, both for orientation and the HSI+. And the MFD with XM nexrad, terrain, ADS-B, GPS and course references all integrated. 

I do think it helped give me more confidence getting back to flying real IFR with weather than if I had dual VOR/ILS heads I'd have to keep verifying and switching and had to squint at a handheld. 

[AndreiC]

1 hour ago, dkkim73 said:

I'm a luddite. Ish. Or at least a 6-pack fan. 

But 190 hrs later, I must say, the big integrated displays (G1000) do, in my opinion, really help with situational awareness. The PFD gives a lot more "gut" reference than a tiny gauge, both for orientation and the HSI+. And the MFD with XM nexrad, terrain, ADS-B, GPS and course references all integrated. 

I do think it helped give me more confidence getting back to flying real IFR with weather than if I had dual VOR/ILS heads I'd have to keep verifying and switching and had to squint at a handheld. 

I don't doubt that a glass display is very nice and helps with situational awareness. My question is if it is $75k better. For that money I can fly 1000 hours' worth of fuel, or do a nice overhaul of a beat up engine, or fly for 4-500 hours with an instructor (way more than needed to increase my situational awareness better than the glass will ever do...) That's what I think was meant with the "entertainment value" comment. 

[dkkim73]

I dunno. $75k is a lot of money in the real world. I'd be really thoughtful about upgrading from a functional, incrementally-improvable discrete panel to a costly big panel just for the gee-whize. But I think a lot of the G3X implementations I've seen are solid and seem to provide a lot of value and good ergonomics. Honestly, I'd have to think about it. 

I think my point was more about the utility of the G1000 and the big panels once you have them. 

Recall, I was the guy saying don't get rid of your dual VOR/ILS.  I'm occasionally searching for used DME and ADF boxes. I tease my wife about wanting a Stormscope for Christmas. Heck, I want a mechanical clock.

[kortopates]

Here is a more extreme version of this statement. [mention=12653]Vance Harral[/mention] is there any situation in which you would not fly a well-equipped steam gauge piston-powered aircraft but would fly the same plane if equipped with glass? My impression was that *all* glass displays, big or small, were there largely for entertainment factor. I can maybe see the benefit of an HSI over a DG+ILS head. I can certainly see the benefit of an autopilot. But above that?

I think your missing the point of a glass panel, and focused too much on the glass. Its really not just the glass at all. But I get it, your not wrong at all to question putting in a glass panel in an airframe that may not be worth more than the panel to to begin worth. But its all about capability of the entire aircraft package. Although I grew up on IFR with basic 6 pack and limited AP functions these days I wouldn't want to do more than punch through a thin marine layer. Nor would i want to venture to far afield without greater redundant systems. I will accept the risk for flying single engine but virtually everything else I want reliability and redundancy to be comfortable. The modern glass panel not only eliminates the unreliable vacuum pump it provides redundancy in virtually everything including Com, Nav, ADHARS, GPS. And the aircraft will typically include dual alternators or dual batterys and/or a standby alternator and some with many more capabilities for IFR. And of course the modern digital AP's are far more capable and surprisingly cheaper than the 1980's Bendix King AP I had before, which was state of the art when I bought my Mooney. 
But the cost of the panel vs value in purely in the eye's of the person valuing it. Remember the cost of the airframe is a small cost of aircraft ownership. My annual flying budget is right at half the glass panel cost you use. So for me, amortized over at least a decade its not that bad and I sure enjoy it! Plus it re-assuring knowing its extremely unlikely that I'll ever have the need to use my iPad to get down in my aircraft and its also re-assuring with its avionics that if I had really screwed up and was in weather below minimums without the fuel to get to better options that I could still pull off a landing with the synthetic vision - its that good. Again its purely a personal choice yet the choices we have today are beyond amazing to what I learned on. Thank god NDB's are essentially dead! 

[dkkim73]

32 minutes ago, kortopates said:

Thank god NDB's are essentially dead! 

Why do you hate freedom and goodness?

[Vance Harral]

2 hours ago, AndreiC said:

 @Vance Harral is there any situation in which you would not fly a well-equipped steam gauge piston-powered aircraft but would fly the same plane if equipped with glass? My impression was that *all* glass displays, big or small, were there largely for entertainment factor. I can maybe see the benefit of an HSI over a DG+ILS head. I can certainly see the benefit of an autopilot. But above that?

Agree with @kortopates that you're over-simplifying a complex question, though the conclusions I draw are somewhat different than his.

Within the realm of my experience (lots of steam and glass in piston aircraft, very little turboprop and zero jet time), I just don't care much whether information is displayed as pixels on a screen driven by a digital computer, or plastic and metal needles and rings driven by analog op-amps.  i.e. I don't care about "glass", i.e. I agree with you.  But if you start looking at reliability and redundancy, things get more complicated as Paul notes.

One aspect of this is the power source, which is typically singular for a vacuum-powered instrument (one vacuum pump), but typically triple redundant for a glass instrument (alternator + ship's battery + internal backup battery).  In this respect, glass is better than steam not because of pixels, but because you'd need a second steam instrument and/or a standby vacuum system to achieve the same level of power backup with steam gauges.  If you actually have that power redundancy in your steam gauge setup, then I'm back to not caring.  But standby vacuum and/or a spare electric-powered mechanical AI is not very common in the airplanes I fly.  It's more expensive and more invasive to install than a second G5 or GI-275, and therefore the market dynamics just make it unlikely to be there.

Another aspect is how different your scan has to be when primary attitude fails.  If, say, a G5 ADI fails, and you have a G5 HSI right below it, the HSI can be reverted to an ADI and the location where you look for attitude information doesn't change much.  However, the loss of the HSI means navigation "needles" are only available on the EFIS, which most people aren't used to looking at.  Backup mechanical AIs are usually located somewhere outside the basic 6-pack layout, so the scan changes a bit more, but the needles on your vintage CDI/HSI are right where they've always been.  The worst case, arguably, is big-screen PFD/MFDs, where you now have to look all the way on the other side of the panel for backup.  It's hard to say which of these is the most distracting, but see my note about training below.

Regarding the reliability of the instruments themselves, I'm a bit of a contrarian about this idea of replacing "unreliable" vacuum pumps with "reliable" electronics.  First, I work in the electronics and software industry and I know all kinds of ways a supposedly reliable electronic system can fail, so this gives me a sense of paranoia others lack.  I'm not sure why people assume electronic instruments won't fail, and I've never actually seen statistical data on it.  Anecdotally, I'll point out that I fly half a dozen heavily used flight school airplanes with dual G5 setups, and I've seen as many failures in these systems as I've seen failed vacuum pumps in steam gauge panels.  The failures mostly have to do with heading data on the G5 briefly going yellow due to what I assume is vibration-induced inaccuracy, but in one case the magnetometer in the wing came loose, rendering heading data completely incorrect despite the displayed heading not going yellow or red.  it's also worth pointing out that the wires which connect the output of a GPS/NAV radio to an indicator are equally likely to break or burn up, regardless of whether that indicator is steam or glass.

But I think the real bottom line is this: anything that changes the critical information displayed or the place it's shown, is extraordinarily distracting if you've never seen it before.  The only fix for this is training for likely failures.  People that fly instruments in steam gauge airplanes are somewhat likely to seek out "classic partial panel" training using needle/ball/airspeed to keep the greasy side down, and if you actually practice this intensively, it just doesn't seem that hard to me, though I admit I've never had a real vacuum instrument failure in actual IMC.  Conversely, people that fly glass panels seem less likely to train for various failure modes, because they seem more sure that failures are a theoretical bogeyman rather than a real possibility.  They also seem to assume things like automatic reversion of an HSI to an ADI, or the use of an iPad to get attitude information will be inherently manageable, and underestimate just how distracting it actually is the first time.  To that end, I won't sign off someone for an instrument ride without a couple of hours flying in some sort of non-standard redundant mode, be it steam or glass-based.  Pilots that get this kind of training during pursuit of the rating, and who keep it up in safety pilot sessions and IPCs, tend to do well, regardless of steam vs. glass.  Pilots that don't, don't.

[Z W]

I had two vacuum failures before we went all glass. The attitude indicator slowly drifted off both times. The first was the vacuum pump itself, so I did get a warning light on the panel for low vac. The second was the attitude indicator failing internally, so no warning lights, just an instrument that would have put the plane into a steep nose up climbing right turn until the pilot figured it out. Luckily I was VMC for both events.

I'll take a big X failure display on a G5 every time.

[Slick Nick]

14 hours ago, kortopates said:

I think your missing the point of a glass panel, and focused too much on the glass. Its really not just the glass at all. But I get it, your not wrong at all to question putting in a glass panel in an airframe that may not be worth more than the panel to to begin worth. But its all about capability of the entire aircraft package. Although I grew up on IFR with basic 6 pack and limited AP functions these days I wouldn't want to do more than punch through a thin marine layer. Nor would i want to venture to far afield without greater redundant systems. I will accept the risk for flying single engine but virtually everything else I want reliability and redundancy to be comfortable. The modern glass panel not only eliminates the unreliable vacuum pump it provides redundancy in virtually everything including Com, Nav, ADHARS, GPS. And the aircraft will typically include dual alternators or dual batterys and/or a standby alternator and some with many more capabilities for IFR. And of course the modern digital AP's are far more capable and surprisingly cheaper than the 1980's Bendix King AP I had before, which was state of the art when I bought my Mooney. 
But the cost of the panel vs value in purely in the eye's of the person valuing it. Remember the cost of the airframe is a small cost of aircraft ownership. My annual flying budget is right at half the glass panel cost you use. So for me, amortized over at least a decade its not that bad and I sure enjoy it! Plus it re-assuring knowing its extremely unlikely that I'll ever have the need to use my iPad to get down in my aircraft and its also re-assuring with its avionics that if I had really screwed up and was in weather below minimums without the fuel to get to better options that I could still pull off a landing with the synthetic vision - its that good. Again its purely a personal choice yet the choices we have today are beyond amazing to what I learned on. Thank god NDB's are essentially dead! 

Until the fancy touch screen Garmin that controls absolutely everything freezes up in flight and you can't even do so much as change a radio frequency...

[AndreiC]

I get the theoretical argument for safety due to the higher redundancy of glass. But is it borne by data? How many lives were lost due to vacuum failure in hard IMC in recent years? I think it is a function of how much hard IFR people actually fly. Yes, if 50% of my flying was in IMC I would definitely want the added redundancy. But I calculated and only about 3% of my flying is in IMC. If my money was unlimited, sure, I'd spend the money on having triply redundant attitude and directional data. But given that I do have almost doubly redundant data (if vacuum fails, I have my Stratus AHRS + iphone mounted on the yoke straight in my line of vision, both with battery power if also have electrical failure), and knowing that 97% of the time a failure will be a non-event (in VMC), I can live with that. I'd much rather fly more and practice more with instructors, I think safety would be much better served that way for the money. 

[jeremyc209]

38 minutes ago, Slick Nick said:

Until the fancy touch screen Garmin that controls absolutely everything freezes up in flight and you can't even do so much as change a radio frequency...

At least you can power cycle a glass panel to correct a "freeze" (does that happen often though?) but when steam gauges or legacy radios or vacuum pumps crap out, not much you can do in flight.

[kortopates]

Until the fancy touch screen Garmin that controls absolutely everything freezes up in flight and you can't even do so much as change a radio frequency...

IPad yes, but certified Garmin i don’t think so.
But if happens i have two!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk