Upgrading panel, what would you consider most important for IFR?

[EricJ]

On 1/16/2026 at 12:16 PM, Mscheuer said:

The audio panel used to be the Rodney Dangerfield until PS Engineering starting bringing innovation to the audio panel. 

PMA8000G

PMA450C

Mark Scheuer

Yes, you've brought us a long way from the KMA-20/-24.   Thanks much for that!   

[DCarlton]

I didn't study every response in this thread but here's a few thoughts.  I'm not a CFI.  Just a pilot that's owned a '67 F for over twenty years with a non-WAAS GNS430.  

- I spent $18K right after I bought my airplane due to audio panel issues.  Get your audio panel working correctly if it's bugging you but it's an invasive item to install with lots of wiring.  Ask the shop if they can do it in such a way to facilitate future radio upgrades.  

- Having everything working and working reliably is the most important thing to me regardless of what's in your panel.  It's not about the number of features; it's about being able to depend on what you have.  

- If my home airport didn't have a tower and an ILS, I'd probably have WAAS.  So far it hasn't been worth the pain to upgrade (downtime and money). 

- There is one thing I really don't like about the Garmin GNS 430 CDI when you're flying a localizer or GPS approach.  The glide slope needle stays centered; it's not hidden.  If you're used to an ILS but the glide slope is down and you're flying the localizer instead, you've really gotta remind yourself that the glide slope is out of service; otherwise you'll see the centered glide slope needle and think you're on the glide slope.  To me it's always seemed like an accident waiting to happen.  A poor CDI design that shouldn't have been allowed.   

- When I'm training or flying practice approaches, I almost always do it with the autopilot turned off; I hand fly whenever I have a CFI in the right seat.  

- I went with the cheaper and easier to install Uavionix AV30 instead of a Garmin EFIS; I'm satisfied (except for one software upgrade that required factory support to resolve).  Make sure it has the most current software before it's installed.    

 

[DCarlton]

28 minutes ago, EricJ said:

Yes, you've brought us a long way from the KMA-20/-24.   Thanks much for that!   

If only there was a plug in upgrade for a KMA26!  

[Jackk]

2 hours ago, DCarlton said:

I didn't study every response in this thread but here's a few thoughts.  I'm not a CFI.  Just a pilot that's owned a '67 F for over twenty years with a non-WAAS GNS430.  

- I spent $18K right after I bought my airplane due to audio panel issues.  Get your audio panel working correctly if it's bugging you but it's an invasive item to install with lots of wiring.  Ask the shop if they can do it in such a way to facilitate future radio upgrades.  

- Having everything working and working reliably is the most important thing to me regardless of what's in your panel.  It's not about the number of features; it's about being able to depend on what you have.  

- If my home airport didn't have a tower and an ILS, I'd probably have WAAS.  So far it hasn't been worth the pain to upgrade (downtime and money). 

- There is one thing I really don't like about the Garmin GNS 430 CDI when you're flying a localizer approach.  The glide slope needle stays centered; it's not hidden.  If you're used to an ILS but the glide slope is down and you're flying the localizer instead, you've really gotta remind yourself that the glide slope is out of service; otherwise you'll see the centered glide slope needle and think you're on the glide slope.  To me it's always seemed like an accident waiting to happen.  A poor CDI design that shouldn't have been allowed.   

- When I'm training or flying practice approaches, I almost always do it with the autopilot turned off; I hand fly whenever I have a CFI in the right seat.  

- I went with the cheaper and easier to install Uavionix AV30 instead of a Garmin EFIS; I'm satisfied (except for one software upgrade that required factory support to resolve).  Make sure it has the most current software before it's installed.    

 

 I can’t remember the last time I shot a localizer outside of in the sim, it’s ether a RNAV or a ILS.

 

 Heck in my personal plane I don’t think I have ever shot one

[MikeOH]

16 hours ago, Jackk said:

I can’t remember the last time I shot a localizer outside of in the sim, it’s ether a RNAV or a ILS.

Which, if you stop to think about, pretty well proves @DCarlton's point!

[DCarlton]

20 hours ago, Jackk said:

 I can’t remember the last time I shot a localizer outside of in the sim, it’s ether a RNAV or a ILS.

 

 Heck in my personal plane I don’t think I have ever shot one

Our ILS was up and down a couple of years ago.   The glide scope was OOS for weeks.  The LOC was still in service.  I used the LOC approach just to see if the glide scope was completely dead or just out of spec.  There’s another LOC approach in our area that I like to fly because I find it challenging.   It’s a good capability to have if GPS craps out.  

[Ragsf15e]

2 hours ago, DCarlton said:

Our ILS was up and down a couple of years ago.   The glide scope was OOS for weeks.  The LOC was still in service.  I used the LOC approach just to see if the glide scope was completely dead or just out of spec.  There’s another LOC approach in our area that I like to fly because I find it challenging.   It’s a good capability to have if GPS craps out.  

I’m sort of surprised by the behavior you described.  I don’t think the 430 actually displays a glide slope as it does a cdi, but obviously it sends a gs signal to your obs/pfd/hsi or whatever you are using to display the approach guidance on.  Are you sure it isn’t a problem with that device?  Or possibly a way they are configured?  If it’s not receiving a glideslope signal, it should be flagged or at least not displayed.

[DCarlton]

2 hours ago, Ragsf15e said:

I’m sort of surprised by the behavior you described.  I don’t think the 430 actually displays a glide slope as it does a cdi, but obviously it sends a gs signal to your obs/pfd/hsi or whatever you are using to display the approach guidance on.  Are you sure it isn’t a problem with that device?  Or possibly a way they are configured?  If it’s not receiving a glideslope signal, it should be flagged or at least not displayed.

If so it’s because I didn’t describe it well.  It’s the common GI106A CDI.  Pretty sure it’s behaving normally.  The needle is centered when it’s not receiving a GS signal.  It’s not hidden or buried.  I’ll revisit the manual and check for flags.  

[Ragsf15e]

Just now, DCarlton said:

If so it’s because I didn’t describe it well.  It’s the common GI106A CDI.  Pretty sure it’s behaving normally.  The needle is centered when it’s not receiving a GS signal.  It’s not hidden or buried.  I’ll revisit the manual and check for flags.  

Interesting. I think there’s supposed to be a flag but I don’t remember exactly (last plane had a gi106).

[Vance Harral]

10 hours ago, DCarlton said:

 I’ll revisit the manual and check for flags.  

The GI-106A definitely has flags for both lateral and vertical needles.  You can see them in the picture at the top of the Garmin product page for the unit: https://www.garmin.com/en-US/p/6435/

The later GI-106B design doesn't have flags, it instead has the "disappearing needle" behavior you describe, and that I agree is superior: https://www.garmin.com/en-US/p/552213/

There is definitely an opportunity for confusion if you fly multiple GI-106 equipped airplanes and don't realize there is a difference between the "A" and "B" models.

[DCarlton]

4 hours ago, Vance Harral said:

The GI-106A definitely has flags for both lateral and vertical needles.  You can see them in the picture at the top of the Garmin product page for the unit: https://www.garmin.com/en-US/p/6435/

The later GI-106B design doesn't have flags, it instead has the "disappearing needle" behavior you describe, and that I agree is superior: https://www.garmin.com/en-US/p/552213/

There is definitely an opportunity for confusion if you fly multiple GI-106 equipped airplanes and don't realize there is a difference between the "A" and "B" models.

Everyone becomes aware of their own weaknesses over time.  Areas for improvement.  I'll admit, visual annunciators and flags have never gotten my attention the way they should.  I look at them but don't always process them immediately.  I'm adding this to my self improvement list.  Wake up and pay more attention to annunciators and flags.  And yes the GI-106B is definitely a design improvement.  If my A ever craps out I'll see if the B is a plug and play replacement.  

[Pinecone]

I learned and flew IFR for many years without an autopilot.  But it is probably the single biggest safety device to allow you to stop and think.

For easy of flying IFR, IMO the best thing you can install is an HSI.  It simplifies the mental gymnastics of flying IFR.

The nice thing about the GFC-500 is you could have it installed with just a roll servo (AFAIK) so a simple wing leveler.  And then later add Pitch and later Pitch trim.  One of the few things that a stepped approach might save you some money.

Another thumbs up for PS Engineering audio panels.  Call them and talk to them about your needs.  Good people.

[McMooney]

I did the IR and flew for a number of years without an autopilot, it's not difficult at all.  Actually, might've been beneficial, I tend to fly more precisely even VFR.

installed an aerocruze autopilot and wow, AWESOME,  I now understand everyones AP  arguement.   instead of spending most of my time/energy flying the plane, i now focus more on monitoring and planning.

flew 1800 miles in the last 8 days and not really tired at all, before the ap i would've been exhausted.

one thing, i make a point of manually flying parts of each leg,  unfortunately, i can see how having an autopilot can also become a crutch

Edited January 22 by McMooney

[Marc Taylor]

You may be able to find a 750 that has been traded in during an upgrade that would solve both the audio panel and WAAS issue and be within your budget (maybe find a G5 that someone traded in for a 275 too)

Diverting to ILS when minimums go below LNAV can be a trap-my GPS dropped to LNAV and minimums were at LPV.

Diverted to an airport with ILS, put in hold, then LNAV , below minimums, hold, ILS would not activate, low on fuel.  Followed tower issued guidance in.  5 other pilots had the same experience that night.  Only explanation was an MOA may have been jamming the GPS, but the ILS?  So if the ILS airport (or if any airport) is your backup, plan for more than minimum fuel reserve than minimums-LPV is available at many more airports in the rural states.

 

[skykrawler]

Yet another opinion....

Do the audio panel.  Some nice pre-owned are available because folks are upgrading to the nicest new units.  Some older model trays are plug-and-play with the latest models - for later if needed or desired.

FYI - if you install a G5 for attitude, you still have to keep the altimeter and turn coordinator, and most (all?) shops will charge for 2 altimeter certs which probably adds $100 every two years.   Understand what the requirements are before choosing an electronic attitude instrument.

An HSI is really nice for IFR.  Eliminating a vacuum heading gyro means less time spent verifying against the compass due to drift.   It will also give you a second nav indicator.  A G5 HSI with magnetometer will do a nice job there.   If you add a second nav radio you can connect it to you existing indicator.  The G5 can also select a second nav input.

This probably fits your budget while allowing (forcing?) you to learn to fly IFR without an operating autopilot.

So...audio panel and HSI.   Consider a backup nav source - although for a 430 screen failure (emergency in IMC) a tablet device is way better than nothing.

 

[midlifeflyer]

On 1/21/2026 at 10:31 PM, McMooney said:

one thing, i make a point of manually flying parts of each leg,  unfortunately, i can see how having an autopilot can also become a crutch

… in a different way than most think. When I fly with a pilot who has become over dependent on their AP, the hand flying/scan comes back quickly. It’s the ability to anticipate what’s next that seems more difficult to get back. We kinda stop thinking/saying, “when I get to [X], I need to [something lateral], [something vertical], and [maybe something else]” and just leave it to George. We fall behind the airplane.

[midlifeflyer]

This may be a bit of a tangent but it crossed my mind reading this thread… for those who have two GPS/NAV/COM units, say, two 650s or a 750/650 combo, how are you using them beyond redundancy and com?

I’ve noticed a reduction in full-featured combos in favor of just a second com or VLOC/com in recent years and wondered whether it’s merely cost or that there isn’t a good use case.

 

 

[Max Clark]

3 hours ago, midlifeflyer said:

This may be a bit of a tangent but it crossed my mind reading this thread… for those who have two GPS/NAV/COM units, say, two 650s or a 750/650 combo, how are you using them beyond redundancy and com?

I’ve noticed a reduction in full-featured combos in favor of just a second com or VLOC/com in recent years and wondered whether it’s merely cost or that there isn’t a good use case.

Typically you keep the larger unit as the display, and the smaller unit becomes the keyboard.

So I had an IFD 540/440 stack and would have the flight plan loaded on the 540, when I was inserting/changing instead of the flight plan disappearing on the 540 the keyboard would load on the 440 for you to type into. Same thing with searching/changing frequencies for the COM or VOR/ILS. It was actually really nice using things this way and you didn't have some of the mental overhead of screens changing on you all the time. Also second screen means different/more information being displayed. I would typically keep the map on the 540 and the flight plan or traffic on the 440. 

I went full Garmin on my replacement and thought about adding the GTN 650 as the secondary for a long time. Ultimately there were three things that ended up pushing the GNC 215 instead.

1. Cost - I was already pretty deep into the hole, and spending the extra $ for functionality I may/may not need was a major factor.
2. Functionality - the G3x natively gives most of what I previously used the 440 for. NAV/COM search and entry in the data strip on top, the ability to split screen and see a map, chart, flight plan, traffic, etc...
3. Space - The GTN and the GFC are much larger than what they were replacing. The shop was confident that they could make it work, but I wasn't positive that wouldn't lead to a phone call down the road. I wanted to simplify the panel and with my visual OCD wanted to have a clean straight line across the stop of the stack.

The 215 is a great compromise for me. I use it for weather, tune navaids that display on the HSI, it has an OBS, etc...

-Max

P.S. The G3x has GPS built in, it isn't certified for RNAV approaches. At some point we're going to see a PFD that blurs into the G1000 functionality for retrofit.

[Vance Harral]

5 hours ago, midlifeflyer said:

I’ve noticed a reduction in full-featured combos in favor of just a second com or VLOC/com in recent years

I think the ubiquitousness, relative low expense, and pretty good reliability of EFB tablets has rendered a second, full-featured NAV/COM/GPS to be largely uninteresting relative to what one might otherwise spend money on.  Nowhere is this reflected more than in the flight school airplanes I fly, none of which are equipped with a second GPS, and a couple of which don't even have a second ground-based NAV radio, just like you note.

My main gripe about this has nothing to do with safety, only with training.  Teaching VOR navigation is challenging enough when manipulating the hardware consists only of "tune this frequency, turn that CDI knob".  Increasingly, it's "click the cursor button to select the nav tuner, tune the nav frequency, enter a series of clicks/rotations on the HSI to select NAV indication, then more clicks/rotations to select a course".  I try to be good natured about it, and preach the value of the redundancy of ground-based nav.  But it's increasingly clear to me that the students simply don't want to do it, and just hope GPS is always going to be there, on their iPad if not on their panel-mounted equipment.   And I think the reason it's increasingly hard to beat this attitude actually has less to do with the theory of VOR navigation, and more to do with how much of a PITA it is to set up the instrumentation to actually show VOR/LOC course guidance.

[Crawfish]

In terms of redundancy from my experience, when I’ve had a GPS fail it’s either been jamming or both GPS have failed (or their controlling subsystem.) So in my personal plane I don’t feel the need for a second GPS. But a second ground based nav is nice in that case. VOR to VOR navigation (which I’ve had to do in the aforementioned FMS failure in a jet) is a requirement in my mind for when you have to switch nav sources halfway through a victor airway. Or think VOR to an ILS (an arc then the approach which doesn’t happen super often but DOES happen) which if you’re experiencing equipment failure you could probably get out of having to do…. But not a guarantee dual ground based nav is required IMO. 
 

Another thing to think of is if your nav based is controlled through the GPS controller (think garmin 430/530 + 650/750) if the controller itself fails you’re losing two sources of nav at once. 

Edited Saturday at 06:31 PM by Crawfish
Additional info

[McMooney]

rather new to having 2 gpss/comms, tbh, the second unit is mostly used as a more complicated radio or ignored.

heck, when ifr, even the primary unit is only used for the flight-plan and to select procedures,  i don't really look at the units all that much.  i'll glance at airspace or hit the nrst button at times, that's really about it.  

if i'm doing an approach to a field with an ils to the same rwy as the rnav,  i'll dial the loc frequency into the second unit.

Edited Sunday at 01:07 AM by McMooney

[Max Clark]

6 hours ago, Crawfish said:

In terms of redundancy from my experience, when I’ve had a GPS fail it’s either been jamming or both GPS have failed (or their controlling subsystem.) So in my personal plane I don’t feel the need for a second GPS.

This was part of my thinking as well. Everything has GPS: G3x, GTN, iPad/iPhone w/ Sentry. I didn't need a redundant GPS NAV, but redundancy from GPS.

[dkkim73]

Not apples to apples, but: The G1000 has an intrinsically dual-redundant design on the COM/NAV/GPS and FMS-type functions, which I've come to appreciate. It all depends on your use case, but for people flying IFR in a way that requires a lot of RNAV (e.g. clearances to fixes, etc), it is insurance. 

The boxes seem to glitch out more than the old navigators (GNS430/530), so it's not directly comparable. But as I recall the old 430/540 (+-W) design gives you the redundancy of both modes. 

I'd probably be wary of going down to just one IFR-certified GPS, these days, but it all depends on your flying. I'd also never give up VOR/ILS, but then again I'd suffer the weight to add DME (cheap) or ADF (free), so color me old-fashioned. 

I do agree that most of the time it's going to be an outage or jamming thing. 

 

[Max Clark]

I ended up here:

The G3x has GPS and my iPad + Sentry has GPS. If the GTN fails either of these are acceptable navigation tools to get me where I need to go. I know people have flown with the G3x and manual altitude step downs, it's something I might practice with a safety pilot just to have that in the quiver.

But I've read enough crash reports that I'm flying an ILS at a Towered field over an RNAV in the soup. For me having IFR certified, redundant LOC/ILS was the most important thing.

[toto]

4 hours ago, Max Clark said:

I ended up here:

The G3x has GPS and my iPad + Sentry has GPS. If the GTN fails either of these are acceptable navigation tools to get me where I need to go. I know people have flown with the G3x and manual altitude step downs, it's something I might practice with a safety pilot just to have that in the quiver.

But I've read enough crash reports that I'm flying an ILS at a Towered field over an RNAV in the soup. For me having IFR certified, redundant LOC/ILS was the most important thing.

The G5 normally has a built-in GPS too?