There have been many discussions on here about how to implement a GPS-only IFR panel in our airplanes, going the wrong direction in my opinion. If you intend to equip, and actually operate, your aircraft for true IFR operations you should have both GPS and VHF capability.
Yesterday morning is a perfect example (again, my opinion) as to why. I launched out of my home base out here in west Texas with a passenger needing to get to a sick kid in San Antonio. Plan A was to have her picked up at 5C1 airport (Boerne-Stage) on the northwest corner of San Antonio, forecast was marginal for the RNAV 17 there with a minimum of 500'. I arrived and shot the approach, and sure enough no joy and went missed. I went to my filed alternate of KSAT and shot the ILS 13R all the way down to 260' before I broke out, with about a mile of visibility. We parked at Signature and put her in an Uber and I launched back for home, life is good.
Now it's true that there are some RNAV approaches that will take you as low as 200 feet, but they are certainly not common and in the heat of the IMC battle you don't want to be going through your plates while in a holding pattern trying to find one. The ILS is a known quantity and a solid standby. There was a time before WAAS that with low weather forecasts, either the primary or alternate airport must have VHF capability, but that requirement has now been waived with WAAS equipment. Don't get me wrong, I love the GPS stuff, it's very accurate and normally does the job, but we also know that sometimes it's not available - either from jamming (more frequent these days) or the minimums are not low enough.
I suppose some will say "If the weather is that bad, I'm not going" - and fair enough, but then why even pretend to have an IFR airplane if you're not going to utilize it as such?
I'll keep my VHF capability, YMMV. My opinion only, and worth what you paid for it.
Yesterday morning is a perfect example (again, my opinion) as to why. I launched out of my home base out here in west Texas with a passenger needing to get to a sick kid in San Antonio. Plan A was to have her picked up at 5C1 airport (Boerne-Stage) on the northwest corner of San Antonio, forecast was marginal for the RNAV 17 there with a minimum of 500'. I arrived and shot the approach, and sure enough no joy and went missed. I went to my filed alternate of KSAT and shot the ILS 13R all the way down to 260' before I broke out, with about a mile of visibility. We parked at Signature and put her in an Uber and I launched back for home, life is good.
Now it's true that there are some RNAV approaches that will take you as low as 200 feet, but they are certainly not common and in the heat of the IMC battle you don't want to be going through your plates while in a holding pattern trying to find one. The ILS is a known quantity and a solid standby. There was a time before WAAS that with low weather forecasts, either the primary or alternate airport must have VHF capability, but that requirement has now been waived with WAAS equipment. Don't get me wrong, I love the GPS stuff, it's very accurate and normally does the job, but we also know that sometimes it's not available - either from jamming (more frequent these days) or the minimums are not low enough.
I suppose some will say "If the weather is that bad, I'm not going" - and fair enough, but then why even pretend to have an IFR airplane if you're not going to utilize it as such?
I'll keep my VHF capability, YMMV. My opinion only, and worth what you paid for it.
Last edited: