What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

certified NAV source suggestions

T

Tom Martin

Well Known Member
I am working in my IFR status and I need another certified NAV source in my panel to meet the Transport Canada rules and for my own piece of mind.
Currently I have a W430, certified, tied to my Advanced EFFIS. I also have a 496, not certified, that is tied to my autopilot.
I also have a SL40 com in my stack.
The easiest thing to do would be to swap the SL40 for an SL30. However in the next few years quite a few of our local airports will have precision RNAVs based totally on the gps system.
As I already have one VOR in the 430 I would rather have another certified gps in my panel then a second VOR and I am looking for some suggestions.
Panel space is already maxed out and this might be my main limitation for options other then the SL30. Any ideas?
 
Can you not use the VOR receiver built-in to your 430W?

In US we are required to do a monthly test on that and just record the error and compare with the allowed error in the type of test, easily done and that becomes a valid source of NAV. Changing the SL40 to SL30 will not add any thing extra with the exception that now you have two sources for your VOR.
 
Garmin SL series

Tom,

Look at the Garmin SL-50 GPS and the SL-60 GPS/Comm

I know the SL-50 is certified for enroute navigation, but not certified for approaches.

I'm not sure about the SL-60.

Tim
 
I have the same setup as you currently and wish that if I had anything else, it would be a second VOR. The reason being is the ability to identify fixes. Sure the GPS has the published fixes but having the ability to use 2 VORs to identify a cross radial is something I find myself wishing I had the ability to do from time to time.
 
Thanks guys, all good suggestions. Yes I can use the VOR in the 430 but that box also holds the gps and so technically this counts as just one NAV source.
The SL 50 and 60 are interesting as they would likely fit in the same panel space as the SL40. I will have to check and see if they can be displayed on the EFFIS. I will do a bit of research on the XL 300 but I think it might be a bit large for my space, not that things cannot be changed but it would be nice to keep it simple.
 
The SL50 and SL60 are both certified for enroute and terminal IFR. Only difference is the com in the SL60. Not very large at 1.3" tall. You might ck on screen reliability reports. Garmin has tried to get the GX series off the market due to unavailability of parts to replace the screens.

I agree with your preference for a second GPS vs. a second VOR.
With the AFS EFIS you can drive the 2nd bearing pointer with an external GPS if
1) you have an available serial port on youR AFS
2) your external GPS has NMEA serial output
3) you select a destination waypoint in the external GPS

The beauty of this is that you now have an RMI that can point to any fix (apt., VOR, NDB, intersection, user wpt., etc. that is in the GPS database.

Stan Blanton
 
Bavafa said:
Can you not use the VOR receiver built-in to your 430W?
Click to expand...
The Canadian regs on IFR navigation equipment requirements are quite different than the ones in the US. To operate IFR in Canada, Canadian Aviation Regulation 605.18(j) says:

CAR 605.18(j) said:
No person shall conduct a take-off in a power-driven aircraft for the purpose of IFR flight unless it is equipped with sufficient radio navigation equipment to permit the pilot, in the event of the failure at any stage of the flight of any item of that equipment, including any associated flight instrument display,

(i) to proceed to the destination aerodrome or proceed to another aerodrome that is suitable for landing, and

(ii) where the aircraft is operated in IMC, to complete an instrument approach and, if necessary, conduct a missed approach procedure.
Click to expand...
A failure of the GNS430W screen effectively renders both the GPS and the VOR/ILS useless. Thus to fly IFR you would need the GNS430W + some other suitable IFR navigation source.

Note that CAR 605.18 would also apply to foriegn registered aircraft flying IFR in Canada.
 
Kevin
That sentence is the reason that I am looking for other equipment. The older garmin SL50 coupled to my EFFIS might provide the ability to shoot an approach but I would need to check on compatibility. The beauty of the GX300 is that it has it's own display which would meet the criteria should my effis fail. In the event of an effis failure my 430 also has a screen shot but with another gps with a screen I could have one set in map mode and the other as a CDI.
The SL30 VOR would meet those criteria but I just hate the thought of spending a lot of $s for an additional VOR at this stage.
It is too bad that some of these new portables are not certified.
 
Just a datum point

As you may already know, the SL-30 can identify a VOR intersection by using its "monitor" feature. It's almost as good as having two VOR's.
 
In some posts on this forum, MGL has alluded to a Nav radio to compliment their new Com radio and provide similar functionality to an SL30. I, for one, would love to see some competition for the SL30 Nav radio.
 
TSO'd?

jbagley said:
In some posts on this forum, MGL has alluded to a Nav radio to compliment their new Com radio and provide similar functionality to an SL30. I, for one, would love to see some competition for the SL30 Nav radio.
Click to expand...

I'm only 99% sure about this, but to fly IFR legally in USA or Canada, the instrument - in this case the VOR - must be TSO'd. Again, I'm not 100% sure, but MGL may not be making theirs to that specification and more importantly may not have the paperwork. Caution is advised until these questions are 100% answered.

There is an exception - ADF. When I looked into it, I could not find a TSO for ADF and concluded that you don't need a TSO'd ADF to use it for an approach. Of course, it's not a precision approach and there are fewer of these all the time. And, of course, I could be wrong.
 
hevansrv7a said:
I'm only 99% sure about this, but to fly IFR legally in USA or Canada, the instrument - in this case the VOR - must be TSO'd. Again, I'm not 100% sure, but MGL may not be making theirs to that specification and more importantly may not have the paperwork. Caution is advised until these questions are 100% answered.
Click to expand...

Oh gee, I hadn't thought of that.

Personally, I'm kindof on a budget. So, an SL30 (or similar nav radio) is pretty attractive. Unfortunately, best price I can find is near $3k. I can also pickup a garmin 430W for $5200; for the price difference, you get a huge amount of capability. It doesn't make sense to me that the SL30 costs this much and seems like there should be a less expensive nav radio on the market.
 
In order to fly IFR legally, you need an IFR approved Nav source, such as the SL30 or an IFR approved GPS (meeting the enroute and/or approach TSO). You can also legally fly routes, such as direct routes IFR legally, with a handheld GPS, such as a 496, as long as you are in ATC radar contact and have the IFR approved NAV source, such as the SL30 onboard. You can't legally file /G with a handheld, but you can use it to navigate in radar coverage areas. If ATC radar were to fail, you'd need to revert to your IFR approved navigation source, and you couldn't legally shoot a GPS approach with nothing but a 496, but you can use it enroute with radar coverage. If you want a minimalist IFR panel, you don't need a certified GPS to enjoy some of the conveniences of flying GPS routes.
 
TSO

hevansrv7a said:
....There is an exception - ADF. When I looked into it, I could not find a TSO for ADF and concluded that you don't need a TSO'd ADF to use it for an approach. Of course, it's not a precision approach and there are fewer of these all the time. And, of course, I could be wrong.[/FONT]
Click to expand...

You didn't think the FAA would miss a chance at a TSO specification did you...:)

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_G...abbd7cf602b3636186256e930061182d!OpenDocument

TSO C-41c
 
Tom,

Another option may be a Garmin GNC 420W. It's a certified WAAS GPS with a map and a comm, (basically a 430W without the NAV radio). It's 1.35" taller than the SL-40 though, so that may not meet the space requirements, but if you have about 1.5" to work with in the stack, it may be an option.

The avionics guy here at Stead told me about the 420 when I was talking with him about a used second radio. He suggested this as a way to get a comm 2 and an IFR /G capability. He said he sees them on the used market from time to time. I see them new at 7K, and there's a used one on ebay now for 4K (though its a 28V unit...not sure if that can be changed to 12V).

Slick Cone's SL-50/60 rec looks good too...I'll ask our avionics guy about its capabilty to display on an EFIS (you have an AFS 4500, right?). The 420 gives you an independent map display, but if this is a back-up, and you can at least get a CDI on the EFIS with the SL-60, not a bad back-up.

Good luck in the search! See ya next week in Taylor!

Cheers,
Bob
 
Kevin Horton said:
Note that CAR 605.18 would also apply to foriegn registered aircraft flying IFR in Canada.
Click to expand...

Excuse me for dragging this up again, but I think I've come up with an anomaly that contradicts that:

The standard validation states:
the aircraft shall be operated under Day VFR only, unless the operating limitations issued for the aircraft authorize night or instrument flight (IFR) operations, in which case the aircraft shall be appropriately equipped in accordance with section 605.18 of the Canadian Aviation Regulations or 14 CFR part 91.205;
Click to expand...

The requirement for a second independent nav source is quoted in CAR 605.18, but not mentioned in 14 CFR part 91.205

So a single Nav/Com would satisfy 91.205 and hence meet the requirements of the standard validation (for US experimentals only).

Or am I mis-interpreting it?
 
Mark Albery said:
Excuse me for dragging this up again, but I think I've come up with an anomaly that contradicts that:

The standard validation states:


The requirement for a second independent nav source is quoted in CAR 605.18, but not mentioned in 14 CFR part 91.205

So a single Nav/Com would satisfy 91.205 and hence meet the requirements of the standard validation (for US experimentals only).

Or am I mis-interpreting it?
Click to expand...
Excellent question, and I certainly don't have the answer. Looking at it from a pure legal point of view (and keep in mind that I am not a lawyer), I don't see how that Standardized Validation can overrule a regulation. It takes an exemption to do that, and this thing isn't an exemption.

But, from a practical point of view, the Standardized Validation was published after the reg, and its wording and intent are quite clear. At the very least the discrepancy between the reg and the Standardized Validation would provide a pretty good basis for a defence if anyone ever tried to claim that you had violated the regs by flying IFR in Canada with only one approved nav source in your N-registered aircraft.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top