IFR GPS certification

Marco Leon wrote:

The GNS430 is compatible with many CDI's on the market. There is a
requirement around the annunciator for the CDI itself where the user needs
to know if it is tracking the GPS or the VLOC (NAV). The 430 has an
indication on its display which may satisfy that requirement, I'm not sure.
The Garmin GI-106 CDI has it on the CDI face as well but the unit will run
you $1,100+. There is also an electronic CDI on the default NAV screen but
that of course has no glideslope.

So do you go to your trash bin and keep sending this?

The GNS430 is compatible with many CDI's on the market. There is a
requirement around the annunciator for the CDI itself where the user needs
to know if it is tracking the GPS or the VLOC (NAV). The 430 has an
indication on its display which may satisfy that requirement, I'm not
sure.
The Garmin GI-106 CDI has it on the CDI face as well but the unit will run
you $1,100+. There is also an electronic CDI on the default NAV screen but
that of course has no glideslope.

The CDI on the GNS430 screen only shows GPS. It does not ever show VOR or
LOC deviation. The annunicator in the bottom left corner of the screen
which says either GPS or VLOC is there to tell you what the external
mechanical CDI is showing.

You wouldn't believe how many 430 users out there still think they can
follow a VOR based course deviation on the unit's display.

As long as the 430 is mounted in the radio stack near the flight
instruments, you don't need to install an external annunciator panel.

I don't know why the hell my newsreader keeps doing this!!! Whenever it
fails to upload a message because of an unreachable server, it thinks
there's another one there and sends out multiple posts. Damn annoying.

I apologize folks.

Marco Leon

"Newps" wrote in message
...


Marco Leon wrote:

The GNS430 is compatible with many CDI's on the market. There is a
requirement around the annunciator for the CDI itself where the user
needs
to know if it is tracking the GPS or the VLOC (NAV). The 430 has an
indication on its display which may satisfy that requirement, I'm not
sure.
The Garmin GI-106 CDI has it on the CDI face as well but the unit will
run
you $1,100+. There is also an electronic CDI on the default NAV screen
but
that of course has no glideslope.

So do you go to your trash bin and keep sending this?




Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

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

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.

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.