Garmin 530 WAAS upgrade - what's involved?

We recently put a 530 in one of our planes. Garmin says the upgrade to
WAAS is only going to be $1500. Sure, that's what they charge for the
guts, but what is this likely to run to once the shop starts adding their
labour costs, etc. Is another field approval needed, or what sort of
paper work?

--
Paul Tomblin http://blog.xcski.com/
Sign on door of computing lecturer: "If your project is 90% right,
I have to give you a distinction, your employer will fire you."
-- Zebee

(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

We recently put a 530 in one of our planes. Garmin says the upgrade to
WAAS is only going to be $1500. Sure, that's what they charge for the
guts, but what is this likely to run to once the shop starts adding their
labour costs, etc. Is another field approval needed, or what sort of
paper work?

Paul,

I saw a discussion about this on another forum. Other issues are that the antenna may need to be
replaced, as well as possibly the antenna cable to RG-400. The upgrade is covered by an STC with an
approved model list, so good chance no field approval will be required, but a 337 will be required for the
STC installation.

Mike

"Mike Adams" wrote in message ...
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

We recently put a 530 in one of our planes. Garmin says the upgrade to
WAAS is only going to be $1500. Sure, that's what they charge for the
guts, but what is this likely to run to once the shop starts adding their
labour costs, etc. Is another field approval needed, or what sort of
paper work?

Paul,

I saw a discussion about this on another forum. Other issues are that the antenna may need to be
replaced, as well as possibly the antenna cable to RG-400. The upgrade is covered by an STC with an
approved model list, so good chance no field approval will be required, but a 337 will be required for the
STC installation.

Mike

Antenna replaced? If it's broken, maybe.
Nothing in the upgrade itself would require that.
And if the cable works OK before the upgrade, it'll work OK afterward.

"John R. Copeland" wrote in message
. ..

Antenna replaced? If it's broken, maybe.
Nothing in the upgrade itself would require that.
And if the cable works OK before the upgrade, it'll work OK afterward.

.................................................. .................................................. ............................

The antenna WILL need to be replaced.

Karl
ATP CFI
"Curator" N185KG

The antenna WILL need to be replaced.

That is consistent with my readings of the ComAnt antenna web site.
The WAAS GPS seem to require 26dB antennas, whereas plain ones make do
with 17dB ones.

- FChE

"Frank Ch. Eigler" wrote in message
...

The antenna WILL need to be replaced.

That is consistent with my readings of the ComAnt antenna web site.
The WAAS GPS seem to require 26dB antennas, whereas plain ones make do
with 17dB ones.

- FChE

Horizon-to-horizon coverage, with 17dB gain???? And increasing their gain
will just narrow the coverage. Unless the gain figure includes some
low-noise active gain in the antenna package, ahead of the cable losses.

But I have also heard from two different shops that the antennas will have
to be replaced. Haven't heard why.

John R. Copeland wrote:
Antenna replaced? If it's broken, maybe.
Nothing in the upgrade itself would require that.
And if the cable works OK before the upgrade, it'll work OK afterward.

While the WAAS satellites use the same (L1) frequencies as the
others..rumor has it that the existing antennas Garmin sold with
the 530/430 have a hard time seeing low enough on the horizon to
meet the C146a specs.

Ron Natalie wrote:

John R. Copeland wrote:
Antenna replaced? If it's broken, maybe.
Nothing in the upgrade itself would require that.
And if the cable works OK before the upgrade, it'll work OK afterward.

While the WAAS satellites use the same (L1) frequencies as the
others..rumor has it that the existing antennas Garmin sold with
the 530/430 have a hard time seeing low enough on the horizon to
meet the C146a specs.

I find that hard to believe. Do you know the elevation angle
requirement? I will check how low it picks up soon.

Ron Lee

It's true. I was at the AOPA convention at Palm Springs and talked
with the Garmin rep. The antenna is replaced to upgrade to WAAS and
included in the $1500 price. I have a homebuilt Glasair so replacing
the antenna won't be any problem or added shop expense since I do it
myself. Of course it will be convenient if it has the same footprint
as the old one.
When the first announced their much delayed WAAS upgrade program, you
had to pre-sign-up with a shop to get the $1500 price. But now it
seems they are just giving it to everyone.
Ron Lee wrote:
Ron Natalie wrote:

John R. Copeland wrote:
Antenna replaced? If it's broken, maybe.
Nothing in the upgrade itself would require that.
And if the cable works OK before the upgrade, it'll work OK afterward.

While the WAAS satellites use the same (L1) frequencies as the
others..rumor has it that the existing antennas Garmin sold with
the 530/430 have a hard time seeing low enough on the horizon to
meet the C146a specs.

I find that hard to believe. Do you know the elevation angle
requirement? I will check how low it picks up soon.

Ron Lee

Ron Lee wrote:
Ron Natalie wrote:

John R. Copeland wrote:
Antenna replaced? If it's broken, maybe.
Nothing in the upgrade itself would require that.
And if the cable works OK before the upgrade, it'll work OK afterward.

While the WAAS satellites use the same (L1) frequencies as the
others..rumor has it that the existing antennas Garmin sold with
the 530/430 have a hard time seeing low enough on the horizon to
meet the C146a specs.

I find that hard to believe. Do you know the elevation angle
requirement? I will check how low it picks up soon.

Ron,

As you know, the MOPS has gone through several revs, but my copy of
DO-229A specifies 10.-deg. They've released 229D and I believe it
hadn't changed between C and D, but the mask angle is now 5.-deg.

As an aside, remember the issues with some of the early 129 boxes? As I
recall, there was no specific requirement for any particular mask
angle. 7.5-deg (then 5.0-deg in a later version) was the recommended
value. Basically, as long as the rcvr. manuf. could prove that
Integrity was being maintained, it didn't really matter what mask angle
was chosen...

But it did/does. Effects such as local multipath come into play at the
low angles.

When examining the Availbility/Integrity tradespace, those on the
conservative side would rather take the Availability hit in order to
maintain Integrity. Conservative in this context meaning 'safe' as
opposed to Right Wing

Ron Lee

Regards,
Jon