What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Minimal Compliance with 91.205 for IFR

Bcone1381

Well Known Member
FAR 91.205 says that for IFR an aircraft must have all the VFR day instruments (airspeed, altimeter, compass, engine instruments) plus a comm radio, a navigation equipment, attitude indicator, and Turn Coordinator, clock and electrical system.

In order to minimally comply with intent of 91.205, it appears that one could install a single EFIS display like a GRT HXr, plus remote radios and xpnder (which allows the tuning of remote radios) plus a separate turn and bank indicator and the EIS package.

It provides all necessary engine instruments, control of nav and comm radios, and all the flight instrumentation.

If one has to push a button to see the Engine instruments, is he still in compliance?

Am I missing something?
 
Nope. You can display engine instruments across the bottom of the screen, no button pushing. And you don't need a turn coordinator since the HXr will display rate of turn. But, you should ask yourself if it is wise to fly in IMC where the failure of a single box (HXr) could leave you in a very bad situation. Alternator, regulator, battery failure - same question. Is there more than enough one nav source?
 
Last edited:
What Bob Said

In the "old days", the electric turn coordinator provided a level of backup to the vacuum driven instruments, i.e. failure of one would not result in failure of the other. Keep the wings level (or limit turns to standard rate) and use the altimeter and a bit of the VSI to hold altitude or establish a steady climb/descent.
Today, there are plenty of battery supported mini EFISs (Garmin G5, GRT Mini, etc.) to provide backup beyond your electrical system.
What I'm not seeing in your proposal is an adequate/TSO'd navigation system. While you might be able to get by legally with a single VOR, this becomes less rational as VORs continue to get decommissioned and are supplanted by GPS fixes. Think certified WAAS GPS.
As someone who is just now seeking an instrument rating or already has one with minimum time/experience, perhaps the best question for you to ask is "how do I maximize capabilities at the least cost" rather than "what's the least equipment I can get by with".
Terry, CFI
RV9A N323TP
 
Instruments

In the "old days" it was a turn and bank, not a turn coordinator. The late Bob Buck, author of Weather Flying and North Star Over My Shoulder, taught himself instrument flying in a Pitcairn Mailwing with just a turn and bank. He climbed up into the clouds and flew a cross country to a destination where the weather was better. No radios involved.
 
Thanks Bob, thats the kind of information I am looking for.

Terry, I asked a hypothetical question to help me understand todays regulatory environment. My question is an effort to accurately understand and apply the FAR's in todays experimental amateur built aircraft certification environment.

I start my planning by ensuring that the basics are installed, then add the backups that I feel are prudent for me. After that the electrical system gets designed.

I have been out of the GA industry since about 1989, but have been using IFR certified GPS that uses RNP criteria (Not WAAS) in a different segment of the aviation industry since the early part of this century. Trust me, that regulatory arena has little resemblance to what we are doing with amateur built sport aircraft.

I don't fully understand the application of the 1989 regulations to the 2017 experimental aircraft industry segments and am thankful for your mentorship.

By asking the question it helps me to begin to understand what equipment my FAA friends expect me install to file IFR in VFR & MVFR conditions. Sure would be nice to complete a X/C mission in comfort when the water is not all that bad, but not all that good...do you know what I mean?

Regarding the TSO'd navigation system...I included in my hypothetical senario a nav radio. I did not include a GPS on purpose, because my past attempts trying to sift thru opinions about what is approved for Enroute phase and the Approach phase made my head spin.

To everyone...Since Terry asked, School me please. Will a WAAS GPS (like the GRT Fly-Safe 2020 product) fulfill the FAR navigational requirements for IFR in the enroute and approach phases of flight as long as it is giving data to a suitable software/display?

Additionally, will an iPad connected to an iLevel AW via bluetooth using one of the flight instrument panel applications that provides all of the required instrumentation meet the FAR 91.205 criteria?

Thanks
 
Last edited:
Regarding the TSO'd navigation system...I included in my hypothetical senario a nav radio. I did not include a GPS on purpose, because my past attempts trying to sift thru opinions about what is approved for Enroute phase and the Approach phase made my head spin.

To everyone...Since Terry asked, School me please. Will a WAAS GPS (like the GRT Fly-Safe 2020 product) fulfill the FAR navigational requirements for IFR in the enroute and approach phases of flight as long as it is giving data to a suitable software/display?

Additionally, will an iPad connected to an iLevel AW via bluetooth using one of the flight instrument panel applications that provides all of the required instrumentation meet the FAR 91.205 criteria?

Thanks

1. A nav radio (VOR/ILS) does not need to carry a TSO.
2. A GPS radio used under IFR must meet the standards of TSO 129 (non-Waas) or TSO 145/146 (WAAS). This is much more than GPS accuracy, it includes a comprehensive data base, even rules regarding management controls on software writers. New TSO 129 boxes are no longer sold (used boxes are available). TSO 129 boxes can only be used if VOR is also available, TSO 145/146 boxes can be used legally with no backup. Short answer, the Fly Safe has no database, is not TSO'd under 145/146, it cannot be used for ifr navigation.
3. I suspect a panel mounted iPad fed by an iLevel meets the letter of the EAB law. But is it wise? IMHO, maybe for the #4 backup.
 
By asking the question it helps me to begin to understand what equipment my FAA friends expect me install to file IFR in VFR & MVFR conditions. Sure would be nice to complete a X/C mission in comfort when the water is not all that bad, but not all that good...do you know what I mean?

Yep, I do know what you mean. IFR in MVFR is usually quite benign. BUT, it has bitten me and I imagine others. I have finished a flight that began and nearly completed in MVFR but wound up shooting ILS to minimums because the weather deteriorated (unforcasted) while I was on approach. :eek:

As Bob mentioned, the approval nature of IFR GPS navigators is not just the GPS accuracy. It also (very importantly) includes the navigation database and its revision control.

My advice would be to not go minimalistic on the instrumentation. Be ready to fly to minimums since it can happen unexpectedly. Be ready for stuff to fail because it will.
 
I would like to stay focused regulatory requirements, and stay away from opinions about what is prudent and safe.

You have helped me understand the flight instrument engine instrumentation requirements for IFR. Lets further direct what Bob Turner said about IFR GPS.

The navigational expectations and requirements that the FAA mandates for us is a TSO 145/146 GPS. Does the experimental marketplace have a host of GPS offerings that dont legally allow GPS IFR operations? Here is a post from Dynon I just came across.

http://dynonavionics.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1362597418

Some of the key words in the Dynon Post is
-Use GPS for Primary Navigation requires a TSO 146 unit.
-An approach must be flown from an FAA approved database
-Manual waypoint entry is no authorized instrument approaches.

So, lets conclude that a certified WAAS gps with a nice software/display package adds no legal IFR capability...it just adds a colorful, safe, effective, accurate navigation source. But if one used it, one would be (willfully?) non-compliant with the FAR's.

What are the IFR GPS products that are being used by everyone? Seems like Garmin 635 turns up as an option a "low end" option.
 
The navigational expectations and requirements that the FAA mandates for us is a TSO 145/146 GPS. Does the experimental marketplace have a host of GPS offerings that dont legally allow GPS IFR operations?
Yes -- I think all of the major EFIS manufacturers provide a VFR WAAS GPS solution as part of their basic EFIS packages. Plus there's lots of portable options.

So, lets conclude that a certified WAAS gps with a nice software/display package adds no legal IFR capability...it just adds a colorful, safe, effective, accurate navigation source. But if one used it, one would be (willfully?) non-compliant with the FAR's.

No, as long as you it used only as a backup to your primary NAV (ie VOR/LOC/GS, etc) for the purposes of increased situational awareness. But you couldn't use it as sole source enroute Nav or to shoot any GPS approaches.

What are the IFR GPS products that are being used by everyone? Seems like Garmin 635 turns up as an option a "low end" option.

I would say that there's still quite a few WAAS and Non-WAAS GNS 430/530s still in service. WAAS gives you lots more capability so I'd steer clear of a non-WAAS box. On the new side, the GTN 650/750s are probably the biggest sellers as most want the radios the 625/635s lack.
 
Last edited:
$10,600 is "low end"?

Seems like Garmin 635 turns up as an option a "low end" option.
$10,600 is "low end"? I must be way out of touch... I'm in the same position as you and would like to upgrade my VFR panel to "minimalist" IFR. I guess I could be "legal" with a cheap VOR but don't see the point. The cheapest GPS that I know of would be a used GNS-430W for around $8,000. I just can't afford that.
 
GPS-400W are going for around $4000.

$10,600 is "low end"? I must be way out of touch... I'm in the same position as you and would like to upgrade my VFR panel to "minimalist" IFR. I guess I could be "legal" with a cheap VOR but don't see the point. The cheapest GPS that I know of would be a used GNS-430W for around $8,000. I just can't afford that.
 
You do not "need" a GPS of any kind to fly in the IFR system. In fact the required equipment is very minimal. Here is a good eaa article https://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/aviation-communities-and-interests/homebuilt-aircraft-and-homebuilt-aircraft-kits/frequently-asked-questions/equipping-a-homebuilt-for-ifr-operations You don't even "need" a transponder (but that sure would keep to out of a lot of airspace). Most any EFIS will provide the flight instruments. Then a single COM for communications and then Navigation equipment suitable for the route being flown. A single Nav radio would allow you to fly IFR vor to vor and then vor approaches. Intersections would be a challenge with a single Nav, but it would meet the requirement.

A magnetic compass, EFIS, alternator or generator, COM radio and Nav Radio would meet the minimum requirements. Would it be prudent or practical, NO, but it would meet the minimums
 
Equipment

When you have a total electrical failure it no longer matters how many navs, comms, etc you have installed. A far better consideration for "light" IFR is a hand held navcom and GPS to back up the required panel mounted equipment.
 
Better yet... Take electrical failures into consideration when you design you electrical system.

When you have a total electrical failure it no longer matters how many navs, comms, etc you have installed. A far better consideration for "light" IFR is a hand held navcom and GPS to back up the required panel mounted equipment.
 
Magnetic Direction Indicator 14 CFR 91.205

To pick a nit, and this has been discussed thoroughly in other threads, a magnetic compass is not the requirement, although that will meet the requirement. An EFIS displaying magnetic direction will also meet the requirement.

Best regards,

Merrill
 
The bottom line to this post is that Flying isn't cheap. Flying IFR is more expensive. The reasons are regulatory and political (so I won't go there). I'm sure that there are pilots out there shooting LNAV approaches using the GPS in an iPad. To be honest, that option is about #6 on my list of backups if everything goes kaput. But it certainly ups the risk factor, and definitely is illegal.
 
My RV9A Was A Minimalist IFR Platform

After flying a very well loaded Cessna T210 for many years, I built my 9A to be a really bare bones instrument machine - No vacuum system, ADI (with backup battery) for heading and attitude, an electric turn coordinator to provide some attitude redundancy, whiskey compass, SL70 transponder and SL40 Comm. Navigation was limited to a Val429 and a Garmin396. This was backed up by a handheld Nav/Comm.

The problem going forward was the de-proliferation of VOR stations and outer markers, which were being replaced by GPS fixes. While the 396 was recognized by ATC as an enhancement for positional awareness, I was increasingly being blocked out of more and more VOR and ILS approaches.

Could I still function without installing a GTN650 and multiple EFISs? Sure, but as has already been pointed out, if your going to be "in the system", sooner or later you'll find the need to fly an approach and not just enroute. Rather than continue with just enough gear to get by, I can now get into any airport with a published approach. Financially it doesn't make any sense, but neither do most of the things I do for "fun".
Terry, CFI
RV9A N323TP
 
Thanks for that. I see them advertised on eBay for as low as $2,500. That's more in my price range.

That's seems to be the starting bid, but I don't see much chance of snagging one for under $4-5k. Not to mention the ongoing costs of keeping the database current.

[Thread drift] It's a shame, because I think there would be a number of cost effective, 'experimental' solutions that would be far more reliable than the 'approved' 20-50 year old technology that people are flying with. I understand the point of the TSO for IFR GPS, but I would still contend that my odds of a critical failure affecting the safety of an IFR approach would be much higher in the steam gauge 172 I learned in than in my 9A with dual EFIS, battery backup, and a non-approved WAAS GPS. Another case of regulations keeping us less safe.

Chris
 
I now understand better the regulatory requirements of VOR navigation and GPS navigation. Now lets move the discussion towards Practicality.

Because I don't fly into small airports, I don't understand the IFR environment there, but will be operating into them in the future. I get the feeling as though it may not be practical these days to fly IFR with no GPS. Is it common for runways at smaller non controlled airports to be served only by an RNAV GPS IAP? Are the days of practical VOR/ILS approaches history? I do recall the vast number of airports with no VOR approach, and only an NDB IAP.

BTW, the university where I was trained in the 1980's we flew a LOC/BC (Loc/BC = Localizer Back Course approach...i don't see them much any more) in a C-152 with a single Nav radio. The IAP had a step down fix defined by a crossing VOR radial. We would switch back and forth a few times checking the radial as we proceeded inbound on the Back Course. If the instructor was nice we could ask ATC to call out passing the step down fix. Back then it was the prudent legal thing to do.

BTW, if I subtract the cost of the equipment that the Garmin GTN635 could replace, the real cost comes in at around $7000. $8000 for the GTN650 which ads VOR/ILS.
 
Another case of regulations keeping us less safe.
Amen to that! I would feel quite comfortable flying a GPS approach using my $1,500 iPad/Foreflight/Stratus2 setup, but it's "illegal" on a number of levels. Clearly the FAA is holding us experimental guys back.
 
. Is it common for runways at smaller non controlled airports to be served only by an RNAV GPS IAP?

In short, yes.

In long, yes and thats all there will ever be for them.

I've been looking at the same equipage issues and regs as yourself for at least 3 yrs (as I continue to build) and in the end, I keep coming back to the only practical/cost effective IFR solution is a WAAS GPS, 430W or better. Thats why their prices, which should have gone down to the 1k range, remain in the 6-7k range. Still very painful.
 
"The requirements for a second system"

Hopefully not off topic. I have recently been alerted to this need.

In the AIM there is this statement:

"To satisfy the requirement for two independent navigation systems, if the primary navigation system is GPS−based, the second system must be independent of GPS (for example, VOR or DME/DME/IRU). This allows continued navigation in case of failure of the GPS or WAAS services."

In the AIM search for "The requirements for a second system"

It is stated that this avoids the single point of failure (GPS jamming or outage) for an IFR flight.

As a result I am adding an antenna to my 650, but is there some exception to this statement? Do we experimental need to address this "requirement"?
 
Hopefully not off topic. I have recently been alerted to this need.

In the AIM there is this statement:

"To satisfy the requirement for two independent navigation systems, if the primary navigation system is GPS−based, the second system must be independent of GPS (for example, VOR or DME/DME/IRU). This allows continued navigation in case of failure of the GPS or WAAS services."

In the AIM search for "The requirements for a second system"

It is stated that this avoids the single point of failure (GPS jamming or outage) for an IFR flight.

As a result I am adding an antenna to my 650, but is there some exception to this statement? Do we experimental need to address this "requirement"?

That para and requirement refers to air carrier/commercial operations. What you referenced is sub-para (d) to para (5) Air carrier and commercial operators must meet the appropriate provisions of their approved operations specifications , under para (b) Database Requirements, under para 2. IFR Use of GPS, under section 1-1-17 Global Positioning System (GPS). The rest of sub-para (d) states "Recognizing that GPS interference and test events resulting in the loss of GPS services have become more common, the FAA requires operators conducting IFR operations under 14 CFR 121.349, 125.203, 129.17 and 135.65 to retain a non-GPS navigation capability consisting of either DME/DME, IRU, or VOR for en route and terminal operations, and VOR and ILS for final approach. Since this system is to be used as a reversionary capability, single equipage is sufficient."

For part 91 ops if you have a TSO-145/146 IFR WAAS GPS then you are approved for standalone IFR ops. Having said that, I'd recommend retaining VOR/LOC/GS capability in the event of a GPS outage. The latest AIM has a new section that talks to the VOR MON architecture and capabilities to support such a GPS outage.
 
Last edited:
For part 91 ops if you have a TSO-145/146 IFR WAAS GPS then you are approved for standalone IFR ops. Having said that, I'd recommend retaining VOR/LOC/GS capability in the event of a GPS outage. The latest AIM has a new section that talks to the VOR MON architecture and capabilities to support such a GPS outage.

Great input, one thousand times over. VORs are not "going away", but sure will get thinned out (and already are). They considered many backup systems to the VOR, including LORAN (seriously, they did), but try as they may...they settled with the MON system and it's VORs. GPS is the way to go, no arguments there. But a VOR backup is still very much in fashion.
 
Lets move the discussion on to the next step....what to do.

The consensus I sense is that the experimental IFR operator is provided with a number of very nice, safe, cutting edge, navigation options with capabilty of safely and reliably delivering guidance information to minimums on an LPV or LNAV instrument approach procedure. Am I right?

But, these avionics designed for the EAB market are merely "tantalizing & illegal" eye candy for primary IFR navigation, outside of a $10,000 price tag.

If paragraph #2 is accurate, we should speak up as a group.

Do we need to be requesting for a more honed product from the avionics suppliers? (Maybe its already there, but it lacks approval?) (It just dawned on me that the Suppliers are the experts to solving this. They know why its not approved, and what the hurdles are that prevent approval.)

Do we collect and organize flight data from ourselves, using the data recorders that many of you have, and present a truthful, data driven presentation with our request?

Do we need to start asking the public servants at the EAA, and FAA some tough questions? What are those questions?

Could we even get the suppliers, the EAA, and the FAA to sit down with us and discuss our problem? This ought to maybe be a group focus as we go to OSH next week.
 
But, these avionics designed for the EAB market are merely "tantalizing & illegal" eye candy for primary IFR navigation, outside of a $10,000 price tag.
For now, yes.


(It just dawned on me that the Suppliers are the experts to solving this. They know why its not approved, and what the hurdles are that prevent approval.)

Precisely - and some are working on it, but won't announce anything publicly until they have a final product ready for sale. Don't expect an acknowledgment or discussion of the pending product from them until then.
 
Lets move the discussion on to the next step....what to do.

The consensus I sense is that the experimental IFR operator is provided with a number of very nice, safe, cutting edge, navigation options with capabilty of safely and reliably delivering guidance information to minimums on an LPV or LNAV instrument approach procedure. Am I right?

No-absolutely not. The VFR GPS's out there do not have the full approach databases to legally shoot any approach nor do they have the fault detection and annunciation required to safely do so (that's there the TSOs comes in).

I'm sorry but there is no cheap way to add an IFR GPS approach capability at this time. Nor does having a E-AB certificated aircraft give anyone a pass around the legal requirements.
 
What Todd said +1! There are no short cuts for IFR for E-AB. We do have some real nice EFIS systems and integrated auto pilot options though, that are much cheaper than certified.
Been following this thread since the beginning and still trying to figure out your angle. What RV are you flying???
 
Amen to that! I would feel quite comfortable flying a GPS approach using my $1,500 iPad/Foreflight/Stratus2 setup, but it's "illegal" on a number of levels. Clearly the FAA is holding us experimental guys back.

The FAA is holding EAB to the same IFR standards as the normally certified guys. Remember the FARs limit EAB to day-VFR. It's only if your OpLimits contain a waiver that you can operate IFR at all. And that waiver says "only if you equip like the normally certified guys" (my paraphrase). I see little hope for a change there. If change is to come, it will be in the form of dropping the strict "must be TSO'd" requirement for IFR GPS, for everyone, much like the recent change allowing non-TSO'd Garmin and Dynon attitude indicators in standard category part 91 airplanes. Or allowing non-TSO'd ADSB-out equipment for EAB. Or non-TSO'd ILS receivers for part 91 operations. So there is precedent. Of course the existing TSO holders will scream that they've been scr...d, and they're correct. So if pilots are to win, someone else will lose, and they won't be happy.
 
The bottom line to this post is that Flying isn't cheap. Flying IFR is more expensive.
Very well said.

Minimal IFR equipment investment is probably a VAL INS-429. To add GPS IFR, then minimal is probably a G400.

:cool:
 
Last edited:
Very well said.

Minimal IFR equipment investment is probably a VAL INS-429. To add GPS IFR, then minimal is probably a G400.

:cool:

This is probably the route I will end up going, or with the Val Nav 2000. The VOR's may be going away, but ILS isn't going away anytime soon at the larger airports. Would at least give me the ability to complete a trip, even if it meant diverting to a larger airport. For most of my trips, that isn't a huge inconvenience. I frequently fly to Siler City, NC (SCR), but RDU is just as close to my parents' house, with an ILS, bright lights, and lots of runway. The cost differential of ~$5k between a nav radio and GPS, without figuring updates will pay for a lot of Uber rides, FBO fees, and avgas.

Chris
 
No-absolutely not. The VFR GPS's out there do not have the full approach databases to legally shoot any approach nor do they have the fault detection and annunciation required to safely do so (that's there the TSOs comes in)

I think the point that is trying to be made is that the GPS units that you can get with most of the EFIS units today are as capable as the $10k TSO'd units from a hardware perspective (accuracy, reliability, etc). The primary issue, as you point out, is the nav database, but that is just software (and as an IT guy I realize this is not a trivial addition). There is no practical reason why the database, fault detection, and annunciation functionality could not be added to the EFIS software to do an approach. The problem is essentially regulatory due to current FAA rules (which translates to $$$).

Re: the OP, the minimum and cheapest route to "practical and usable" IFR is a used NAV radio (VOR/LOC/ILS) along with an older non-WAAS approach GPS (like a KLN-89B or Apollo GX-50). With scrounging, this can be accomplished for about $2k-$3k if you are willing to do the installation work yourself.

-Dj
 
Last edited:
So there is precedent.
Exactly. For all other equipment, the FAA allows the EAB pilot to determine if it is "suitable for use". But not IFR equipment. I just question the inconsistency here. Heck, we EAB guys can't carry passengers for hire so it's not like we're risking anyone's life but our own. My panel space is extremely limited and I would hate to spend thousands of dollars and waste my precious real estate by installing equipment that I would rarely use just to become "legal". As someone up-thread mentioned, this TSO requirement actually decreases safety by forcing us poor folks to go without.
 
Exactly. For all other equipment, the FAA allows the EAB pilot to determine if it is "suitable for use". But not IFR equipment. I just question the inconsistency here. Heck, we EAB guys can't carry passengers for hire so it's not like we're risking anyone's life but our own. My panel space is extremely limited and I would hate to spend thousands of dollars and waste my precious real estate by installing equipment that I would rarely use just to become "legal". As someone up-thread mentioned, this TSO requirement actually decreases safety by forcing us poor folks to go without.

I think the point that many people miss is that if you are VFR (even in the system), you are using see and avoid to make sure you don't hit someone else. If you are IFR, you (and everyone else in the clouds) has to depend on the accuracy of YOUR equipment to keep from bending mettle. Think about flying an ILS to a parallel runway with airliners operating next to you.

Now I am the first to realize that modern GPS receivers - even cheap ones- are more than adequate to do the job well. Up to date databases - well, that is a sticky wicket. And....if they say "you can use any GPS you want", then folks can be using some really old (slow) junk - and again - its not just YOU that are at risk, it is everyone else in the sky.

That is the reason for the tight requirements for IFR equipment - they don't care about you, they care about everyone else.
 
Think about flying an ILS to a parallel runway with airliners operating next to you.
I completely understand what you're saying and you're correct, of course. But let's consider personal responsibility for a moment. Personally, I would never consider flying an ILS into...say...LAX or SFO in my little homebuilt. As a wise man once said, "A man's gotta' know his limitations". ;) I don't even intend to file IFR on a cross country because, without an autopilot in my twitchy little aircraft, it's doubtful that I could maintain my altitude +/- 100' for long. All I want is a means to fly an approach if I get somewhere and unforecast weather closes in on me. It's a safety issue. I'd like to know what Vlad thinks about this issue (evil grin).
 
Last edited:
I completely understand what you're saying and you're correct, of course. But let's consider personal responsibility for a moment. Personally, I would never consider flying an ILS into...say...LAX or SFO in my little homebuilt. As a wise man once said, "A man's gotta' know his limitations". ;) I don't even intend to file IFR on a cross country because, without an autopilot in my twitchy little aircraft, it's doubtful that I could maintain my altitude +/- 100' for long. All I want is a means to fly an approach if I get somewhere and unforecast weather closes in on me. It's a safety issue. I'd like to know what Vlad things about this issue (evil grin).

Exactly. If I could legally equip at a reasonable price, I could stay instrument current, which in and of itself is a big plus; and should the need arise I would be safer flying an instrument approach than I would be flying a legal VFR arrival in marginal conditions.

Chris
 
But let's consider personal responsibility for a moment. Personally, I would never consider flying an ILS into...say...LAX or SFO in my little homebuilt.

But someone else WILL. And as long as the equipment is satisfactory (in this case, meets the standards/specs), then there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

But if it hasn't...I sure don't want to be on the airliner paralleling the guy with the substandard or out-of-spec equipment.
 
The problem is essentially regulatory due to current FAA rules (which translates to $$$).
-Dj
+1
But it goes a bit further. The $$$ is so large (I have heard several million) that the GA market may just not be large enough to support more than one manufacturer. OR, once one manufacturer has established dominance in the market, he can easily drive new-comers bankrupt since the established guy has already written off the $$$ while the new guy hasn't. [Chose which scenario you like.] Either way, there's a monopoly, which means high prices.
 
IFR

Wise old man, 87 years old, two young girl friends, net worth 375mil, would that be the one????
Seriously an option not mentioned is to do as much as you can practicing in your airplane, with a safety pilot. It does not need to be completely IFR equipped or legal for practice as long as you don't file IFR. When you get good enough at that find a simulator, preferably with at least a Garmin 430 and log some time in that.
 
But let's consider personal responsibility for a moment.

I think the FAA has made it very clear: they don't trust private pilots any further than they can spit. Unfortunately there has been at least one airliner brought down by a wayward GA pilot, (and I personally know of an Air Force tanker that suffered the same fate) and the FAA is doing everything in its power to see that that never happens again. If that means less freedom for GA, that's what they will do. Why do you think ADSB-out is being made mandatory only (for the most part) in the airspace where airliners fly? Personal responsibility? As the famous cartoon character said, "We have met the enemy, and he is us".
 
+1
But it goes a bit further. The $$$ is so large (I have heard several million) that the GA market may just not be large enough to support more than one manufacturer. OR, once one manufacturer has established dominance in the market, he can easily drive new-comers bankrupt since the established guy has already written off the $$$ while the new guy hasn't. [Chose which scenario you like.] Either way, there's a monopoly, which means high prices.

Don't we have at least 3?

Garmin
Bendix-King
Avidyne

others?
 
Don't we have at least 3?

Garmin
Bendix-King
Avidyne

others?

How many of those 3 will sell you an IFR TSO'd GPS for under 10K? I think the answer is only one. The others are careful not to compete on price at the low end; instead, they cater to the high end, for those who will buy on features regardless of price. So yes, at the high end, there is competition. But in the context of this discussion I don't think $14K boxes are what people had in mind.
 
How many of those 3 will sell you an IFR TSO'd GPS for under 10K? I think the answer is only one. The others are careful not to compete on price at the low end; instead, they cater to the high end, for those who will buy on features regardless of price. So yes, at the high end, there is competition. But in the context of this discussion I don't think $14K boxes are what people had in mind.

Well, I don't know the full-up prices for all the boxes plus whatever doodads one needs for any given box, but just looking at the front page at GCA (e.g.) shows a 650 for 10K, a KSN770 for 12K, and an IFD440 for 11K.

The prices aren't that far apart...not insignificant, but not horrible. But then again, that's not really the issue.

I suspect that people are looking for something like a Skyview with approach capability, for a few hundred more than without it. Unlikely that will happen, but more power to Dynon or whomever if they can do it.

It's a lot more than just the WAAS capability and validating the database, though...*lots* of software requirements, for starters.
 
Ratings

I don't categorize pilots based on ratings. A wise old man once told me: you can take any airline in the world and apply the 10/40 rule. The top 10% are outstanding pilots. The next 40 are above average, the next 40 are below average, the bottom 10 are, well, not very good.
What has mitigated this is CRM. The copilot MUST intervene if the Capt. starts to do something even remotely dangerous.
In two years of full time instructing in the Pitts I had maybe 4 or 5 standout customers. One day a gentleman walked in the door with no appointment, just wanted to see if he could land a Pitts. He was a wide body Capt on international routes for one of the largest airlines. He had quite a bit of T6 and Cessna 180 time. If I had owned the airplane I would have let him go solo after 3 landings, he was that good. At the other end of the airline spectrum is some poor guy who could never learn to fly a Pitts. For example the 747 Capt who crashed his new Pitts fatally on a cross country.
I knew one airline pilot who bragged about flying his antique airplane thru the middle of Class B with the transponder turned off, not talking to anyone.
 
Minimum equipment to comply with 91.205? From an IFR navigation equipment stand point, it's the minimum equipment needed to navigate via what you have filed for. Minimally, this would be VOR airway navigation, so - you are legal to file and fly IFR with nothing more, navigation wise, than a VHF nav reciever - a VOR receiver, or Nav/Com of some kind (SL30, KX170, etc). Can you ask for and legally fly routes, either direct or not, based on GPS information with nothing more than a handheld, or non-certified GPS receiver for the enroute phase of flight? Of course you can, as long as you're in a radar environment with ATC radar coverage. You have to be able to revert to your onboard IFR approved navigation equipment (VOR in this case) if the ATC radar goes down, and you can't shoot a GPS based approach at your destination without TSO approach certified GPS equipment, but you can still do an ILS, LOC, or VOR based approach at your destination with the VHF nav equipment you have onboard. Enroute certified GPS equipment is necessary for filing GPS based routing for the enroute phase of flight, but it's not necessary if you are in a radar environment (almost everywhere) and you want to go direct based on your Garmin 396, etc. A VHF nav receiver will work all the time for IFR flying and work almost as efficiently as a $10K+ certified GPS navigator, with nothing more than a handheld GPS most of the time.

After 2020 when radar is replaced with satellites for ATC traffic separation (it won't), it won't make any difference, because you'll need to have a GPS based position information source (ADSB) that is highly accurate, and going direct will not be an issue. When all the rest of the VORs are decommissioned, then you'll need a TSO'd GPS nav source for IFR. Not til then though.
 
Last edited:
Equipment

Minimum equipment to comply with 91.205? From an IFR navigation equipment stand point, it's the minimum equipment needed to navigate via what you have filed for. Minimally, this would be VOR airway navigation, so - you are legal to file and fly IFR with nothing more, navigation wise, than a VHF nav reciever - a VOR receiver, or Nav/Com of some kind (SL30, KX170, etc). Can you ask for and legally fly routes, either direct or not, based on GPS information with nothing more than a handheld, or non-certified GPS receiver for the enroute phase of flight? Of course you can, as long as you're in a radar environment with ATC radar coverage. You have to be able to revert to your onboard IFR approved navigation equipment (VOR in this case) if the ATC radar goes down, and you can't shoot a GPS based approach at your destination without TSO approach certified GPS equipment, but you can still do an ILS, LOC, or VOR based approach at your destination with the VHF nav equipment you have onboard. Enroute certified GPS equipment is necessary for filing GPS based routing for the enroute phase of flight, but it's not necessary if you are in a radar environment (almost everywhere) and you want to go direct based on your Garmin 396, etc. A VHF nav receiver will work all the time for IFR flying and work almost as efficiently as a $10K+ certified GPS navigator, with nothing more than a handheld GPS most of the time.

After 2020 when radar is replaced with satellites for ATC traffic separation (it won't), it won't make any difference, because you'll need to have a GPS based position information source (ADSB) that is highly accurate, and going direct will not be an issue. When all the rest of the VORs are decommissioned, then you'll need a TSO'd GPS nav source for IFR. Not til then though.
Scott-
That is the most coherent explanation I have seen so far. As recently as late 2015 I flew 135 cargo flights with no GPS, no autopilot. Prior to that I had occasionally used my handheld GPS just as you described. I took the further precaution of listing the GPS as VFR only in remarks on IFR flight plan. For about two years I parked every morning very close to a certain FSDO office, so I wanted to cover all the bases.
I had not thought of the Collins Microline radios for a long time. The company just got an additional airplane and the #2 radios are all Collins.These radios can be found VERY cheap and I much prefer them to the King 170. A careful shopper could find a Navcom with glideslope and transponder for well under 2k. Back it up with a Sportys handheld navcom for 4330 and you're good to go IFR.
 
One wrinkle: as I understand it (not instrument rated yet), you need to verify that the missed approach point for an ILS approach doesn't require an ADF or IFR appproved gps to identify the missed approach point. If it does, you need an IFR GPS as well as an ILS.
 
One wrinkle: as I understand it (not instrument rated yet), you need to verify that the missed approach point for an ILS approach doesn't require an ADF or IFR appproved gps to identify the missed approach point. If it does, you need an IFR GPS as well as an ILS.

On an ILS the missed approach point is always determined by the altimeter and glide slope. I think you meant the 'missed approach procedure' and you are correct, some of them require an ADF or TSO'd GPS in lieu of. You can buy a used adf pretty cheaply these days!
 
Back
Top