What's new
Van's Air Force

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

IFR without VHF?

sloengineer

Active Member
This question is looking for folks with GPS only IFR aircraft....

The plan for our 14A build is Garmin G3X displays with a GNX375 navigator for IFR. No VHF radio installed. I would have a handheld VHF backup, but nothing installed.

Does anyone have a GPS only IFR setup? I will finish my IFR cert before the kit is finished, but would one be able to take the IFR check-ride or subsequent flight reviews without a VHF radio installed?

The regulations say 1 precision and 2 non-precision. Would LPV or LNAV/VNAV for the precision and LNAV and/or LP for the non-precision suffice?
 
Are you referring to not having a NAV radio installed for VOR/ILS? I don't think a handheld radio would be a good idea.
 
Did you mean VOR?

If so, some folks have not included the VOR capability and have successfully done their IFR checkrides --- I am old school and love the additional VOR capability from my 650 and 430. I even left the CDIs for both radios, even though I have the HSI on my AFS 5600T.

Ron
 
Just as a counter point my local examiner said no dice with just a GPS, needed VHF nav capability. I have heard rumors of people in other areas being able to take the check ride without VHF nav.
 
Can't shoot an ILS that way - what would you do when the GPS loses lock?

With something as mission-critical as an IFR approach, I can't figure out for the life of me why people continuously try to find the cheapest, most ill-equipped way to get there.
 
You probably need VHF NAV for an ILS approach for your check ride, but you don’t need it for a flight review, or to legally fly IFR if you have an IFR approach capable GPS installed. If are are capable of flying an LPV approach, your minimums will be almost as low in most places. My last RV8 had a Garmin 625, which is IFR approach capable, and no VHF NAV equipment. That never slowed me down, or affected any trip I took with it.
 
The check ride question is one for your examiner. Some will likely not want to do a check ride without an ILS. But then again, some won't do a check ride in an experimental no matter how well it's equipped.

As others have said, It's no big deal for a BFR.

Checkride question aside, theres no way would I fly hard IFR to low minimums without the capability to do an ILS. That's my opinion, others have their own comfort level.

If you're more of an enroute IFR guy that stays home when the ceilings are less than 800' then yeah sure.

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to shoot LPV approaches, but the idea of having all my eggs in the GPS basket and maybe being stuck if it craps out and everywhere within reasonable is socked in leaves me a little uneasy.

Also, If you're doing vectors to final, Approach will vector you closer in on an ILS that they will on a GPS approach.
 
The preface to the ACS (nee PTS) says the two non-precision approaches must use different ‘nav aids’. Some examiners will say that gps is a nav aid, the second one has to be something else. Others say it means different procedures, so LNAV and LPV to 300’ agl or higher are different ‘nav aids’. Ask your examiner what he thinks. BTW, the rules for an IPC are the same. I do have a work around for GPS only aircraft, which I think meets the spirit of the law.
As to the ‘gps only’ question: I have seen the GTN 650 degrade from LPV to LNAV, then to no nav (big red X) while shooting the rnav approach into LVK, so I know it can happen. We were in vmc at the time, so we just landed. But if in IMC and no other navigation, it would have been an interesting missed approach. LVK is in a valley, with 4000’ hills north and south, and below radar coverage. So you can guess my opinion as to carrying a vhf nav receiver around.
 
Thanks all for the feedback. I know people have very passionate arguments around VHF which I completely respect. My light IFR mission profile is completely satisfied with GPS only. Red or magenta dots on Foreflight keep me in the hangar telling flight tales around the coffee pot.

I was just polling for feedback from GPS only aircraft owners as it relates to flight reviews. I guess worst case I have to rent the local 172 for reviews.
 
I was just polling for feedback from GPS only aircraft owners as it relates to flight reviews. I guess worst case I have to rent the local 172 for reviews.

The content of an FAA Flight Review (nee BFR) is entirely at the discretion of the cfi. There is certainly no specific requirement to demonstrate ILS or VOR approaches. You should be fine in your aircraft.
 
I don’t know about the rules where you are. But in Europe if the destination is forecast to be IFR on arrival you must have an alternate that you are equipped to use by alternative means. If you are planning an RNAV approach. So in reality that means an ILS is most likely.
 
Last edited:
I don’t know about the rules where you are. But in Europe if the destination is forecast to be IFR on arrival you must have an alternate that you are equipped to use by alternative means. If you are planning an RNAV approach. So in reality that means an ILS is most likely.

With one exception (non-WAAS gps non-precision approach) this is not the case in the US, where you can legally fly ifr with a single gps.
 
Flying is all about having a plan B. What if? Back up com, backup Nav, closest vfr Wx etc. it is is no fun runnning out of options including gas. What is the cost of backup Nav. Be safe out there. Resale value is a thought also.
 
Flying is all about having a plan B. What if? Back up com, backup Nav, closest vfr Wx etc. it is is no fun runnning out of options including gas. What is the cost of backup Nav. Be safe out there. Resale value is a thought also.

I considered the GPS only option for my current build. I fly for fun, and even though I'm instrument rated, mostly will fly it VFR (I'll plan to get and maintain IFR currency) and even IFR would be the high minimums variety - mostly I'd use it to get on top and fly to good weather. But considering the need for back-up options, resale, and the issues with potential loss or degradation of GPS signals, having VHF makes sense. Price difference in the context of an entire airplane is relatively trivial. And who wants to be fumbling around with a handheld in IMC, trying to keep eyes on that and primary instruments as part of a scan?

Still makes sense to have the handlheld as a "3rd" option though, and wiring up an external antenna connection is probably worth the effort. (and we should never forget the PAR / surveillance radar options if it really hits the fan)
 
G3X, GNX 375, and G5 only for met too. But I dont fly hard IFR in a single engine airplane. My setup allows me to shoot an LPV if I need too, but I wont launch without having an alternate that is VFR (1000/3). To each his own.
 
One thing to keep in mind when doing your IFR flight planning is to pick an alternate when conditions are less than 2000 and 3 miles For alternate purposes a RNA LPV approach using the GPS is a non-precision approach and the forecast needs to be 800 and 2 miles visibility versus 600 and 2. Marty
 
The check ride question is one for your examiner. Some will likely not want to do a check ride without an ILS. But then again, some won't do a check ride in an experimental no matter how well it's equipped.

theres no way would I fly hard IFR to low minimums without the capability to do an ILS.

If you're doing vectors to final, Approach will vector you closer in on an ILS that they will on a GPS approach.

Good summary.
 
Contingency Plans

Weather changes.

About once a year in my day job, the weather takes an unforecasted turn for the worse and causes some real "pucker factor". A few years back, the forecast was 2000'/5sm, I showed up at my alternate to find 1/4sm. More recently what was supposed to be a beautiful 1000'/3sm turned into a missed approach at a 480' LNAV approach, divert to the alternate 40 miles away and 350' on the ILS.

My point being, additional capability means increased safety. Just because one doesn't see the need for ILS capability, doesn't mean an unexpected situation won't make it invaluable equipment.
 
Weather changes.

About once a year in my day job, the weather takes an unforecasted turn for the worse and causes some real "pucker factor". A few years back, the forecast was 2000'/5sm, I showed up at my alternate to find 1/4sm. More recently what was supposed to be a beautiful 1000'/3sm turned into a missed approach at a 480' LNAV approach, divert to the alternate 40 miles away and 350' on the ILS.

My point being, additional capability means increased safety. Just because one doesn't see the need for ILS capability, doesn't mean an unexpected situation won't make it invaluable equipment.

Yep, like that. Every instrument pilot I know (at least 2 in my household) loads every radio and nav solution with at least something. Sure, we're going to fly the LPV with the easy button, but... Going into a bigger airport, it will probably be a lot easier and quicker to get vectors onto the ILS (what they're probably going to prefer), hey, there is a VOR approach here. Might as well have that loaded up. Load it every which way you can. I've just recently started adding the onboard consumer devices (foreflight) to that mix. I'm not comfortable calling the consumer device in my pocket a proper navigation solution. But there was a day in the west Texas desert a decade or so ago that it would have been very handy in a 172RG.

I know good friends that fly VFR without any VHF nav at all, but I certainly can't imagine it IFR today. We come off of our uncontrolled field often enough with no option to return, but we're right under the 250' LPV to the airport 7mi away. If that doesn't work, it is direct the ILS at the local class C.

I guess geography and expectations factor in. Geography is pretty static if you're in a cub, but expectations change all the time. Oh, and I think there was a time that I might have uttered the words "light IFR", but I claim to not remember them. As my "wisdom" fills in, there have been enough times that we show up to nowhere near as expected weather. As the skills and equipment application meter passes 75%, the "light ifr" conversations go off in your head like a big master caution warning light.

In our household, single pilot IFR in the RV is pretty much, "there might be a cloud between here and there. The front is right over there with the clear line behind... IFR flight." "Ok, have fun hunny." Otherwise, neither of us is launching into it without the SIC onboard.

I suspect not too many people know the experience of sitting on the porch watching the airplane you built in the garage disappear into the clouds on climbout with the most important part of your existence in command. OR, sitting on the ramp at the closest airport with an ILS, and see your airplane with the same come into view with wigwags flashing on a really crappy day, just sliding down that VHF like there is nothing to see here. The occupants popping out happy, "That was a hoot, the easiest approach ever, it was only like 200' thick!" "Where are we going for lunch!?" (heart pounding, ****, that looked very ugly down here.)

I digress. Install a VHF nav radio if you have any intent of flying IFR.
 
Last edited:
Scott hit it on the head.

"Light IFR" is nothing but a lie we like to tell ourselves. Equip it properly, and use it frequently, and you'll be much better off.
 
Enroute IFR

The check ride question is one for your examiner. Some will likely not want to do a check ride without an ILS. But then again, some won't do a check ride in an experimental no matter how well it's equipped.

As others have said, It's no big deal for a BFR.

Checkride question aside, theres no way would I fly hard IFR to low minimums without the capability to do an ILS. That's my opinion, others have their own comfort level.

If you're more of an enroute IFR guy that stays home when the ceilings are less than 800' then yeah sure.

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to shoot LPV approaches, but the idea of having all my eggs in the GPS basket and maybe being stuck if it craps out and everywhere within reasonable is socked in leaves me a little uneasy.

Also, If you're doing vectors to final, Approach will vector you closer in on an ILS that they will on a GPS approach.

I totally agree with the above statements. I also believe in practicing filing IFR even in VFR conditions. I have VOR/ILS and non certified GPS including an IPad using Foreflight. My most reliable GPS is my IPad until it flames out do to excessive heat. Keeping the screen shaded helps but is not always reliable against ultraviolet rays. I have had several GPS signal failures but no intermediate ILS failures. In my experience with VOR/ILS either works or it needs repaired. I have never experience intermediate shut downs due to excessive heat and signal loss like I have with a G5, Ipad and instrument mounted GPS.

About that 800ft ceiling, numerous times over the years forecasts aren't always that accurate. I returned to Fresno last week after a trip to Oregon just after the Creek Fire. Visibility dropped unexpectedly to less than a mile and skies were obscured. I was fortunate to be IFR rated, current and equipped. These RV aircraft are superior cross country airplanes capable
of traveling into different weather systems on the same flight. The good news is that they are also capable of navigating around weather and especially now with en-route weather provided by ADSB-IN.
 
With something as mission-critical as an IFR approach, I can't figure out for the life of me why people continuously try to find the cheapest, most ill-equipped way to get there.

That is why "aviation regulations are written in blood". :(
 
I’ve come to think that VFR assumes the pilot will never fly into A below minimum weather condition based on their ability. “Light IFR” allows us to assume they/we Will.

I speak from my own mistakes and experiences. This is obviously a topic that we pilots hash out repeatedly, which is ok. We’re afforded more words if we survive our mistakes as we move forward. If we come up short, the conversation goes quiet.
 
I think this issue is that if one is flying basic VFR (3 miles or more) the wx really is pretty good. It takes a big change in humidity, temp, etc., to make the wx get significantly worse. Pilots who do the vfr into ifr thing almost always (1) had no wx briefing, or (2) continued to fly into deteriorating conditions. It's rare for the wx to just go that bad, unforecasted. OTOH the difference between 2 miles and 1/2 mile, or 800 OVC and 100 OVC, isn't really that great. If the vis is 2 miles, that means it's already humid, close dew point-temp spread, etc. Or a missed forecast of 700' in ceiling. So 'easy'IFR and "hard" ifr aren't that far apart, wx-wise.
 
I think this issue is that if one is flying basic VFR (3 miles or more) the wx really is pretty good. It takes a big change in humidity, temp, etc., to make the wx get significantly worse. Pilots who do the vfr into ifr thing almost always (1) had no wx briefing, or (2) continued to fly into deteriorating conditions. It's rare for the wx to just go that bad, unforecasted. OTOH the difference between 2 miles and 1/2 mile, or 800 OVC and 100 OVC, isn't really that great. If the vis is 2 miles, that means it's already humid, close dew point-temp spread, etc. Or a missed forecast of 700' in ceiling. So 'easy'IFR and "hard" ifr aren't that far apart, wx-wise.

Depends a lot on where you live. Out here in west Texas, it takes a LOT of weather to go from our standard 20+ visibility and unlimited ceiling to 2000' overcast with 5 miles viz - but from there it is a very short leap to true low IFR conditions and 500-foot viz in fog with obscured ceiling.

The first time you fly an approach to actual no-BS minimums and then go missed for real, it changes your perspective. Done that, been there. Come to think of it, the second time that happened to me I had about 1/8" of unforecasted ice on the airplane. Things get very real, and very fast, like that. It's not a place you want to be without options.

Shortly after I got my IFR, I was expanding my personal minimums into lower and lower ceilings - and the perfect day came up where Midland was calling 200-300 foot ceilings, and there was a breakfast fly-in at Abilene that was calling for 800-1000. Bingo, gear up, lets go - I had a good "out" in case the weather got worse and I could dip my toes in the pool without much danger. The three approaches I shot into Midland were all 300-400 foot breakouts, and I went to Abilene for breakfast - and broke out at 250 feet. There were about 50 people there for breakfast that morning, and I was the only idiot that flew in. Forecasts are like politicians - don't trust 'em.
 
Last edited:
I went to Abilene for breakfast - and broke out at 250 feet. There were about 50 people there for breakfast that morning, and I was the only idiot that flew in. Forecasts are like politicians - don't trust 'em.

Nothing like flying into genuine 1/2 mi vis at night. At DH(A), you see blurry approach lights. Nothing else; no runway lights, no vasi, ... You have no horizon reference, you need to stay on the gauges. At 150’ agl you see the lights at the beginning of the runway. This is no place for a 100 knot approach. I’m “blessed” to have this sort of wx available fairly often in CA’s central valley, while solid vfr airports are only 15 minutes away.
 
IFR Minimum Equipment

This has been a good thread and appreciate the opinions expressed. I use my 9A as a commuter and have logged 150 flights from the Texas panhandle to eastern Kansas over the last couple of years. All flights were flown VFR. I will upgrade my panel soon to IFR. My expectations are to be able to punch through the clouds on one end or the other if needed but will not fly hard core IFR for the whole mission. I do not believe the RV line of planes are designed for this mission. Without deicing equipment, why take the chance? airguy jabs about cheap ill-equipped IFR aircraft in one breath then gives examples of poor decision making leading to icing in one instance and low minimums in the other. No thank you!

I understand that FAA is removing VORs and expanding GPS. If this is true, why invest in a buggy when the Model A has arrived? I prefer my ball bearing ******* to a horse. I love the convenience of rolling into the barn, turning it off, and walking away. There are many that continue to use a horse for all sorts of reasons and that is great but don't look down on me because I choose to wear comfortable shoes and shorts. My home airport does not have an ILS approach but does have a GPS approach. Should I just not invest in IFR equipment because of this? Can I be safe without ILS? I believe the answer is No and Yes. On several flights, I have had to land somewhere else because of clouds and a vfr equipped aircraft. I don't care how good my instrumentation is, I'm unlikely to attempt to land with 200' minimums and an icing problem...I don't care how good I expect the breakfast to be. IFR will widen my mission but I will still have to make good piloting decisions.

Sure, I could spend $25,000 to $30,000 for the new panel that includes VHF nav, but is it really going to make me safer than spending $10,000 to $12,000 for a nice waas setup? Money does matter for many of us. It came hard and I squeak as it goes out! Please let me know your thoughts.
 
I don't care how good my instrumentation is, I'm unlikely to attempt to land with 200' minimums

Once you start flying IFR, how can you assure that you will have this choice before running out of gas. Wx changes.

Yes, you can eliminate the risk. No sense getting the IFR ticket though if you minimums are close to MVFR. If you are willing to fly through 800 OVC, then you better be prepared for the possibility that you may need to shoot an approach to 200.

You can find inexpensive VHF receivers for around $2K. Some even include the CDI. If money is tight, drop the need for high end brand name stuff and learn to wire it up yourself.

Larry
 
Last edited:
Very well said Sam!

Just because your RV has a cockpit like a 777 doesn’t mean it has those capabilities. Safety is paramount when flying IFR. Most IFR pilots have some form of in cockpit weather. Monitor it constantly for changing conditions and divert if it goes below your minimums. You shouldn’t be surprised that visibility or ceilings are suddenly lower than expected. Don’t assume that having VHF NAV is going to always save you. Someday you might come up short. These aircraft are awesome but they are light, single engine, piston aircraft. I would suggest everyone set realistic person minimums for flight.

Here are my personal limits for GA flight.
1000/3 is my IFR WX limit. Departure/enroute/arrival. At my planned takeoff time.
Never takeoff from an airport you can’t immediately return to and land.
Always have an exit plan or plan B, C, D, etc
Never takeoff in the dark.
If I have to be someplace I take the airlines.

Be safe out there!
 
Last edited:
Without deicing equipment, why take the chance? airguy jabs about cheap ill-equipped IFR aircraft in one breath then gives examples of poor decision making leading to icing in one instance and low minimums in the other. No thank you!

Once you start flying IFR, how can you assure that you will have this choice before running out of gas. Wx changes.

Larry

Which was kinda my point about the ice on the airplane - it was not forecast and I didn't go into it intentionally - but weather changes and forecasts are frequently wrong. Ignoring facts won't make them go away.

To each their own. Fly safe.
 
Last edited:
Here is perhaps an opposing view. Not mine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQZAm0EnBrc

Not sure why this is an opposing view but this is a great video. He pretty much covers all aspects of equipping your aircraft for IFR. One thing is for sure, flying IFR varies depending on the region your flying in and what equipment you may require. Even though you cant legally fly IFR in some circumstances, being current and comfortable with your equipment makes you a much better and safer pilot. I am sure people who unintentionally fly VFR into IFR and subsequently killing themselves were never really comfortable flying on instruments.

Fly often, keep current and practice flying on the instruments regardless of how your airplane is equipped is my recommendation.
 
One of the issues with my RV is it is twitchy. It was designed to have a fast roll rate and be slippery. Turbulence is tricky especially night IFR turbulence.

It’s always a matter of degree. If you have a choice between a truck like stable plane with high altitude and anti-icing capability you would certainly choose that over an RV in hard IFR. I think the point is Weather is marginally predictable.

That’s why having radios and gps is nice because just like the weather equipment function is not 100% reliable.
 
I am neither IFR equipped or competent (never mind rated). I am however squeaky cheap, so I have some standing in this conversation 😀.

With that preamble, I vote the post below among the top 10 wisdoms to be found on VAF.

FWIW: My opinion is that once in VMC you might as well expect it to *not* get any better when or where you hope/want/expect/forecast it to. Equipment, competency, currency, information, fuel and alternates are your friends. Horde them.

Peter

Yep, like that. Every instrument pilot I know (at least 2 in my household) loads every radio and nav solution with at least something. Sure, we're going to fly the LPV with the easy button, but... Going into a bigger airport, it will probably be a lot easier and quicker to get vectors onto the ILS (what they're probably going to prefer), hey, there is a VOR approach here. Might as well have that loaded up. Load it every which way you can. I've just recently started adding the onboard consumer devices (foreflight) to that mix. I'm not comfortable calling the consumer device in my pocket a proper navigation solution. But there was a day in the west Texas desert a decade or so ago that it would have been very handy in a 172RG.

I know good friends that fly VFR without any VHF nav at all, but I certainly can't imagine it IFR today. We come off of our uncontrolled field often enough with no option to return, but we're right under the 250' LPV to the airport 7mi away. If that doesn't work, it is direct the ILS at the local class C.

I guess geography and expectations factor in. Geography is pretty static if you're in a cub, but expectations change all the time. Oh, and I think there was a time that I might have uttered the words "light IFR", but I claim to not remember them. As my "wisdom" fills in, there have been enough times that we show up to nowhere near as expected weather. As the skills and equipment application meter passes 75%, the "light ifr" conversations go off in your head like a big master caution warning light.

In our household, single pilot IFR in the RV is pretty much, "there might be a cloud between here and there. The front is right over there with the clear line behind... IFR flight." "Ok, have fun hunny." Otherwise, neither of us is launching into it without the SIC onboard.

I suspect not too many people know the experience of sitting on the porch watching the airplane you built in the garage disappear into the clouds on climbout with the most important part of your existence in command. OR, sitting on the ramp at the closest airport with an ILS, and see your airplane with the same come into view with wigwags flashing on a really crappy day, just sliding down that VHF like there is nothing to see here. The occupants popping out happy, "That was a hoot, the easiest approach ever, it was only like 200' thick!" "Where are we going for lunch!?" (heart pounding, ****, that looked very ugly down here.)

I digress. Install a VHF nav radio if you have any intent of flying IFR.
 
I love the VAF forum!

Hello there, OP here. This is why I like this forum. I really enjoy seeing such healthy discussion. It shows passionate people and relevant topics. Since this drifted slightly into a VHF or not discussion, I thought I'd give my single data point opinion on that subject.

I am perfectly happy to fly my missions in my area without VHF. Perhaps it's a matter of semantics, but my "light IFR" means I was out on a VFR flight and then there was a broken cloud layer to go through. Words like scattered and broken are light IFR to me. Words like overcast and low single digit visibility keep me grounded. I fly regionally for pleasure and not cross country for travel.

To that end, the GNX375 is an enhancement to my primarily VFR mission. If and when my mission profile ever changed to cross country and there might be the notion of a scheduled departure or arrival, then I'd add a mounted VHF for backup.

To the network reliability discussion, I will provide my personal experience, again as a single data point. I fly in the south east. Every airport to which I have flown in recent years has multiple RNAV approaches. A few have ILS, but the ILS systems are costly to install, certify, and maintain. So it's common here to have only one out of the multiple approaches available be a an ILS or VOR. I have never personally had a GPS outage, but I know they happen. I am, however, regularly plagued with "glideslope unavailable" or "ILS out of service" NOTAMs due to maintenance or repair problems.

At the end of the day, prudent aeronautical decision making is the foundation of safe flight. Weather, equipment, and pilot proficiency are three critical components of that decision making process. A realistic evaluation of these three components, and sufficient safety margin on each will lead to a safe flight. Overconfidence in any one of the three, or elimination of safety margin in one can lead to trouble.
 
GPS Failure

About a month ago, I had the screen on the GPS go blank. It still displayed information on the HSI, but without the GPS screen, there was no way to tell what the HSI information meant.

Luckily, there was a second GPS and a second HSI in the plane that displayed everything needed!

Earlier in the thread, there was discussion of VFR vs IFR. An IFR pilot is on top of the weather and oblivious to all the nuances, varying ceilings, varying visibility under the layer. The IFR pilot shoots the approach to get a "snapshot" at a small area in hopes that the weather is good enough to see the runway. Long before a VFR pilot gets into 500' 2sm, they will have seen it coming as the ceilings and visibility slowly deteriorated and the pilot will hopefully divert. That sort of thing you simply can't see from the blue skies above the clouds. Weather is much easier to read when seeing the bottom of the clouds vs looking at the tops and trying to imagine the bottom.
 
This has been an interesting thread.. Almost like a primer war discussion. Bottom line is, build and fly what you are comfortable with. As long as we understand what is required to be legal, we are fine. A GPS enroute/approach navigator by itself is fine, so is a VHF navigator, or both. Is one more reliable than the other? I don’t know. From my thousands of hours of flying, I’ve never lost GPS NAV capability. I’ve lost countless VHF NAV functionality over the years, but that’s because they have been around for my entire career, and there are countless VOR’s, ILS’s, and DME’s across the country, but dwindling all the time. We don’t use ADF anymore as a back-up, or LORAN, although those are still viable NAV sources in certain parts of the world. If you are comfortable with GPS only navigation for IFR, there’s nothing wrong with that. I did just that on my last 2 RV’s. Never had a problem. If I had a problem with loss of a GPS signal, then I would have to put on my PIC hat and follow a plan, just the same as if I lost VHF NAV capability. Building in redundant NAV capability is an expense that you will have to justify based on it’s merits.
 
As long as we understand what is required to be legal, we are fine.

I agree that arguing over how much redundancy is needed for IFR is a primer war. But the legal minimum is no redundancy, and, imho, that’s equivalent to saying you don’t need any primer at all under your paint.
 
About a month ago, I had the screen on the GPS go blank. It still displayed information on the HSI, but without the GPS screen, there was no way to tell what the HSI information meant.

Luckily, there was a second GPS and a second HSI in the plane that displayed everything needed!

Not if, more like when.

For you a non-event because of redundancy.

You pays your dues you takes your chances.

I like to hear others thoughts. IMHO a great thread. Cheers.
 
Rationalization for the expense

When I read some of the rational for VOR/ILS and how it's critical for safety, I can't help but look at the folks writing the comments and think.

Gee, after having spent all that extra money for VOR/ILS for the extra redundancy, they can't believe it may never be needed. Yet, I keep seeing over and over how for years GPS has never caused a real problem and safety issue with GA. At least I'm not aware of any accidents caused by loss of GPS.

IMHO, that's my bottom line, I read all the notes with an open mind but haven't been convinced yet. So it's GPS all the way for me, with a hand held NAV/COM and G5 backup.
 
So it's GPS all the way for me, with a hand held NAV/COM and G5 backup.

You do understand, that sentence is a non sequiter? It’s not ‘gps all the way’, you’re carrying a back up nav! IMHO that is a reasonable solution. Just keep the batteries fresh. And a backup EFIS with the G5. (The idea of a single efis, with no attitude backup, is what scares me the most).
 
Yes

(The idea of a single efis, with no attitude backup, is what scares me the most).

Yes I'm in complete agreement with that thought.

I looked on-line for GPS interference incidents and find that loss of signal is rare, but signal interference where the user may not detect it is the real concern. This might send the aircraft or drone off course. In that case one would not know to switch to VOR until it was too late?
 
As another data point, I put a GNS430 in my Bonanza in 2002. When the WAAS upgrade became available I had the 430 modified for WAAS. I fly IFR 90% of the time regardless of weather. Since the install of the 430 I have never needed or used the VOR or ILS capability.
 
How many here fly IFR with single comm?

That is not the same. Landing in 200/1 without a comm is nothing like landing 200/1 with no Navigational aid. The system is set up to deal with Comm loss at most any airport. Very few airports are able to provide an ASR or PAR approach to a pilot with no navigational aid.

Larry
 
That is not the same. Landing in 200/1 without a comm is nothing like landing 200/1 with no Navigational aid. The system is set up to deal with Comm loss at most any airport. Very few airports are able to provide an ASR or PAR approach to a pilot with no navigational aid.

Larry
So if I am interpreting your statement correctly you’d prefer redundancy in Nav AIDS over com’s?
 
Back
Top