IFR GPS certification

"...the additional capability over and above a non-certified moving map is
not that great..."

That's just it. Without certification, you can't file /G, and you can't use
GPS as the primary navigation instrument. In my case, I can't legally use
the speed/dist functions for the DME portion of the approach either. I'm in
the same place with a much cheaper (portable) VFR GPS.

Ed

"Dave Butler" wrote in message
news:1109264569.720642@sj-nntpcache-5...
nobody wrote:
I guess I've been living under a rock. I wanted to update the VFR GPS in
the panel to an IFR model. I started getting quotes on recon GNC 300XLs.
The units themselves were about 2,500-3,000. I was shocked to find out
that I had to install an annunciator, a new indicator and approx 30 hrs
labor bringing the total cost to around 8,000. I checked several shops
and got the same story. Is it typical to spend 25% of the value of the
aircraft on just the IFR GPS? If I installed a 530, the receiver and
install would probably cost close to 80% of the value of the aircraft.

Your absolute expense dollars sound about right. The percentage of the
value of the aircraft will, of course, depend on the value of the
aircraft.

IMO, and as other have also pointed out here, the additional capability
over and above a non-certified moving map is not that great, either,
unless you frequently fly to a runway that's served only by a GPS
approach. Most of the benefit of certified GPS can be had without the
certification.

I made the same decision against getting a IFR GPS and statyed with /U
on my plane. I did get a Garmin 196 and it works fabulously along with
my onboard VOR on IFR flights. I made this choice because nearly all
the airports that I fly IFR into have ILS.

M wrote:
I made the same decision against getting a IFR GPS and statyed with /U
on my plane. I did get a Garmin 196 and it works fabulously along with
my onboard VOR on IFR flights. I made this choice because nearly all
the airports that I fly IFR into have ILS.

Nothing wrong with this but more and more airports are getting GPS
approaches for the opposite and crossing directions to the ILS runways.

So if the wind doesn't work for the ILS runway you can make a straight
in approach instead the more dangerous circle to land from the ILS
option; lower minimums to boot.

Doug Carter wrote:

So if the wind doesn't work for the ILS runway you can make a straight
in approach instead the more dangerous circle to land from the ILS
option; lower minimums to boot.

I haven't done a survey, but my impression is that the average straight in GPS
approach has higher minimums than the average ILS circling approach. I agree I'd
rather land straight in if possible, though.

DGB

Dave Butler wrote:
Doug Carter wrote:

So if the wind doesn't work for the ILS runway you can make a straight
in approach instead the more dangerous circle to land from the ILS
option; lower minimums to boot.


I haven't done a survey, but my impression is that the average straight
in GPS approach has higher minimums than the average ILS circling
approach. I agree I'd rather land straight in if possible, though.

DGB

You may be correct but I looked at about a dozen airports in the
Southwest and in all cases the GPS approach was lower than the ILS
circling minimums.

Now that I think of it, I was looking at actual LNAV approaches, not
GPS overlays of NDB or VOR approaches. This could be a difference.

Interestingly enough, it seems that on the days when the ceiling/vis is
low enough to make circling approach difficult are also likely to be
the days when the wind is either very light or lined up with the ILS
straight-in direction.




Nothing wrong with this but more and more airports are getting GPS
approaches for the opposite and crossing directions to the ILS
runways.

So if the wind doesn't work for the ILS runway you can make a
straight
in approach instead the more dangerous circle to land from the ILS
option; lower minimums to boot.