In-Panel 396/496 Setups with the 430/530?

Does anyone have this setup where the 396/496 (particularly the 496) is
in their panel hooked up through an RS232 cable to a 430 or 530? I saw
a post by Mikem with very good specifics on the pin-outs but I have a
couple of questions:

1) Does the 496 pick up the inputted flight plan/route from the
430/530?
2) If yes, what's the procedure? Does it act like another IFR box where
you need to use the cross-fill function or is it automatically filled?
3) Again, if yes, how critical is it to keep the 496 up to date with
the same database? Will it behave badly if it is not in sync and there
is a renamed fix in the active plan? I plan on updating the 496 only
once or twice per year while I have the 430 on the IFR-mandated 28-day
cycle (OK guys, don't get hung up on the term "mandated"--you know what
I mean).

One last question, has anyone done the panel mounting of the 396/496
themselves or is everyone going to an avionics shop? I may need to
travel a bit to do this since the nearest [reasonably-priced] avionics
shops are in Connecticut and the word that their local FSDO is very
strict and does not approve of the Airgizmos installation on certified
aircraft. The local FSDO at my location (Farmingdale) is OK with it and
looks at it as an installation that does not require a 337 (although
recommended). However, I will want to do the RS232 conx so doing it
myself is out of the question.

Marco

Marco Leon wrote:

3) Again, if yes, how critical is it to keep the 496 up to
date with the same database? Will it behave badly if it
is not in sync and there is a renamed fix in the active
plan? I plan on updating the 496 only once or twice per
year while I have the 430 on the IFR-mandated 28-day
cycle (OK guys, don't get hung up on the term
"mandated"--you know what I mean).

I have my 496 fed from either my KLN-94 or my KLN-90B, and the
databases are way out of sync. It works fine. The 496 will create a fix
if it has to, and it's position is different from that in the data from
the IFR unit, you just end up with an aliased user waypoint, offset
slightly from the 496's version.

Marco Leon wrote:
Does anyone have this setup where the 396/496 (particularly the 496) is
in their panel hooked up through an RS232 cable to a 430 or 530?

I have my crusty 195 attached to my 430. Should be simular.

1) Does the 496 pick up the inputted flight plan/route from the
430/530?

Yes. Change the route on the 430 and it is automatically sent to the
handheld.

2) If yes, what's the procedure? Does it act like another IFR box where
you need to use the cross-fill function or is it automatically filled?

No cross-fill necessary.

3) Again, if yes, how critical is it to keep the 496 up to date with
the same database? Will it behave badly if it is not in sync and there
is a renamed fix in the active plan? I plan on updating the 496 only
once or twice per year while I have the 430 on the IFR-mandated 28-day
cycle

Don't know, never noticed, and my 195 hasn't been updated in a couple of
years. On the other hand the airports or other way points don't move
change much.

One last question, has anyone done the panel mounting of the 396/496
themselves or is everyone going to an avionics shop?

Someone else will have to address this question. My avionics shop was
fine with giving me a unterminated serial cable. I put on the connector
and finished the handheld mounting to my satisfaction. Probably would
give some FSDO fits.

--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR

Mike Granby wrote:
I have my 496 fed from either my KLN-94 or my KLN-90B, and the
databases are way out of sync. It works fine. The 496 will create a fix
if it has to, and it's position is different from that in the data from
the IFR unit, you just end up with an aliased user waypoint, offset
slightly from the 496's version.

Sounds like it plays nicely with a non-Garmin mate. Thanks.

Marco

Frank Stutzman wrote:
I have my crusty 195 attached to my 430. Should be simular.

Yes. Change the route on the 430 and it is automatically sent to the
handheld.

No cross-fill necessary.

Don't know, never noticed, and my 195 hasn't been updated in a couple of
years. On the other hand the airports or other way points don't move
change much.

Someone else will have to address this question. My avionics shop was
fine with giving me a unterminated serial cable. I put on the connector
and finished the handheld mounting to my satisfaction. Probably would
give some FSDO fits.

Thanks for your PIREP. If it plays nicely with the 195, sounds like it
should be fine with the 496. When I called my local FSDO, they stressed
that each FSDO was different in their point of view. I may take a look
around for a local avionics shop since In know my local FSDO is mostly
OK with it.

Marco