Buying Plane without Panel Mounted GPS

David Megginson said:
Agreed we don't really need a second comm radio these days -- you can always carry a portable for emergency use.
Click to expand...

I don't know, when our Com2 died in the Comanche I really missed it. It was nice to be able to monitor the ATIS/ASOS/AWOS without leaving the primary frequency. Even though the GTN has the ability to monitor the standby frequency, it would cut out so much when the frequency was congested that you would always miss the key information you were trying to get.
 
midwestpa24 said:
I don't know, when our Com2 died in the Comanche I really missed it. It was nice to be able to monitor the ATIS/ASOS/AWOS without leaving the primary frequency. Even though the GTN has the ability to monitor the standby frequency, it would cut out so much when the frequency was congested that you would always miss the key information you were trying to get.
Click to expand...
True, though I sometimes consider it a feature (rather than a bug) that the GTN mutes the standby frequency -- that way, I don't have to worry about missing calls on the primary frequency. Still, I've also experienced your frustration with having to listen to the ATIS 4 or 5 times through in a busy terminal environment.

On a tight budget, though, I think a second navcom is no longer the must-have item it used to be, even for IFR. It's a convenience rather than an essential safety feature.
 
midwestpa24 said:
It was nice to be able to monitor the ATIS/ASOS/AWOS without leaving the primary frequency.
Click to expand...

This is very true... Monitoring ground is a good reason... I get told to monitor ground 80% of the time after I land and want to taxi. So that involves having Tower on Com1 (tx/rx) and Ground on Com2 (rx only). I also like to keep ATC on Com1 and click over to listen to ATIS at the same time when approaching my arrival aircraft. Generally speaking, I like to keep 'in-air' frequencies separate from 'on-ground' frequencies.... Com1 is for Tower (yeah, that's in-air since after I take off I am on with them and vice-versa), departure, approach, center.... then com2 I use for ground and ATIS. Just me, but that makes it easier to work with. Also allows me to stay a bit more ahead of things.
 
I tune the ATIS/AWOS and/or destimation CTAF on #2 to peek at it while still having ATC on #1. Enroute, I monitor 121.5 on #2 like you are encouraged to do.
 
A lot of newer equipment can monitor two com frequencies on the same radio.
 
bnt83 said:
A lot of newer equipment can monitor two com frequencies on the same radio.
Click to expand...

That is true they can, the GTN650 we have does. But it mutes the monitored channel every time someone transmits on the primary. If you are in a busy environment it will do it a lot. Makes it really hard to get the information you need.

"Advise tower you have information...N123R make right traffic...XYZ information...N345X cleared to land...wind is 3...N456T contact departure...visibility...N345X turn right the next taxiway" :crazy:
 
Is a second panel-mounted navcom radio convenient? Yes.

Is it a second panel-mounted navcom a requirement for safety in 2021? No.

I think we're all saying the same thing, but people are giving lots of (good) examples for the "convenient" part.
 
David Megginson said:
Agreed we don't really need a second comm radio these days -- you can always carry a portable for emergency use. But the price difference between the GNC 355 (with comm) and the GPS 175 (without) is only $2,000, which wouldn't go far towards buying @murphey an autopilot.
Click to expand...

If flying IFR, I would consider a second COM as an important backup. A portable, unless wired to an external antenna, will have very limited range. With a second COM, it is still possible to get radar vectors if the primary NAV or COM crumps.
 
George Mohr said:
Yes, for IFR having two comm units is vital.
Click to expand...
I have two myself, and I probably would have agreed with you 15 years ago, but I think now it's more of a "nice-to-have" than a "need-to-have." In a busy terminal area, where you're most concerned about vectors, traffic, etc, you're close enough for a handheld to work. Enroute, far from a major airport, it's not as big a deal to be out of comms range in the unlikely event that your panel-mounted radio fails, especially since you can do emergency navigation using your phone these days.

Note that I'm not saying there are no benefits; just that a second navcom is no longer on my killer-items list (I wouldn't cancel an IFR flight just because one was pulled out for servicing).
 
bnt83 said:
A lot of newer equipment can monitor two com frequencies on the same radio.
Click to expand...
And an older nav/com - the tried & true SL30 that Garmin is trying to kill off but used ones are still in high demand, and still fetching a good price. I'm looking for one to replace an old TKM. The com works, but not the nav. There was one here a few months ago, missed it.
 
I have very recently come to the realization that an IFR legal GPS is becoming pretty much a necessity for IFR travel. There are numerous airports with RNAV approaches. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were twice as many airports with RNAV than ILS or even localizer approaches.
 
MBDiagMan said:
I have very recently come to the realization that an IFR legal GPS is becoming pretty much a necessity for IFR travel. There are numerous airports with RNAV approaches. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were twice as many airports with RNAV than ILS or even localizer approaches.
Click to expand...
Yes, I resisted as long as I could, but came to the same conclusion in 2017. Sure, VOR and ADF navigation work as well as they ever did, but once they've decommissioned most of the VORs and NDBs, what am I going to tune my radios to?
 
David Megginson said:
Yes, I resisted as long as I could, but came to the same conclusion in 2017. Sure, VOR and ADF navigation work as well as they ever did, but once they've decommissioned most of the VORs and NDBs, what am I going to tune my radios to?
Click to expand...

1960 airports in the U.S. are served by LPV. Of those 1191 (>60%) are not served by ILS. Data as of December 31, 2020. We used to have a VOR approach and 3 GPS approaches to our airport. Now we have only two GPS approaches, both LPV-capable. Decommissioning of ground-based approaches at non-metro airports is likely to continue as we move toward the VOR minimum operating system.
 
TBO has a devil put aside for meeee. FOR MEEEE. FOOOR MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
 
You’ll be fine for your training and cert. once you’re traveling, adding a way to do RNAV approaches, which is what the GPS brings to the party, will double the number of airports you can get into when the clouds are in the way.
 
Last edited:
Arnold said:
I keep seeing this and similar statements. Are DME required when no GPS is available?
Click to expand...

Not required, but with no GPS it gives you more approach options. On many VOR approach plates you will see DME required, so if no DME is available approach availability is decreased.
 
My home drone, KEWN (class D) has an ILS. I am told that it will remain as we are a commercially served airport. I notice that all of the class C and B airports that I have looked at, have one or more ILSs.
 
Training is one thing, utility is another.

Learning to fly on instruments without some sort of a moving map display in the aircraft is not the norm these days, but it can make for a very fundamentally sound instrument-rated pilot. SA (Situational Awareness) is like a muscle; it atrophies with disuse and that is what over-reliance on tools such as an IFR GPS/moving map display (nowadays it's rare to find one without the other) can do. I've only accomplished a handful of IRA practical tests in airplanes without an IFR GPS, but those pilots tended to be quite good in that department.

On the other hand, the practical utility of a non-IFR GPS airplane in the modern NAS has diminished steadily over the years. The transition to satellite-based navigation is a good thing; more "little" airports than ever are serviced by approaches with ILS-like minimums, yet have no physical navigation equipment on the property to maintain. This trend is only going to continue and the ability to fly where you want, when you want may very well ultimately be impacted by the lack of an IFR GPS in the panel.

If you have strong fundamentals, "learning" GPS later on will be a relatively simple affair so there's no need to let that affect your decision.

Best,
 
These days for instrument you need two radios and GPS at least
 
As I understand it, a plane is not required to be IFR certified for training unless it is flown in actual. It will n a VFR altitude encoder certification if that training is done in Charley or Bravo airspace.
 
I was under the impression that a plane must be IFR certified in order to fly under instrument flight rules, regardless of the weather. Practice procedures may be flown, but it must be done under visual flight rules.
 
Says me if there are three or more people in the partnership there should be a plan to upgrade. If not, walk. You don't want to be flying a fast plane like a Skylane VFR only (unless you're somewhere that never gets wx) and without the GPS the plane isn't entirely useful. Putting a modern GPS in the panel is expensive for one, not so much so for three or four.
 
Palmpilot said:
I was under the impression that a plane must be IFR certified in order to fly under instrument flight rules, regardless of the weather. Practice procedures may be flown, but it must be done under visual flight rules.
Click to expand...
This is a slightly different point, but should anyone happen to meander the Canadian border after the pandemic, you have to be instrument rated and current to fly IFR in Canada, even if it's in severe VMC. We don't have the same VMC loophole that the U.S. does.
 
David Megginson said:
This is a slightly different point, but should anyone happen to meander the Canadian border after the pandemic, you have to be instrument rated and current to fly IFR in Canada, even if it's in severe VMC. We don't have the same VMC loophole that the U.S. does.
Click to expand...
I don't think the U.S. has a VMC loophole for IFR flight.

14 CFR 61.3(e) Instrument rating. No person may act as pilot in command of a civil aircraft under IFR or in weather conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR flight unless that person holds:

(1) The appropriate aircraft category, class, type (if required), and instrument rating on that person's pilot certificate for any airplane, helicopter, or powered-lift being flown;

(2) An airline transport pilot certificate with the appropriate aircraft category, class, and type rating (if required) for the aircraft being flown;

(3) For a glider, a pilot certificate with a glider category rating and an airplane instrument rating; or

(4) For an airship, a commercial pilot certificate with a lighter-than-air category rating and airship class rating.
​
The way the opening paragraph is worded, the PIC must hold instrument privileges if flying under instrument flight rules, or if in less than VFR conditions. Consequently, either one is sufficient to trigger the requirement for instrument privileges.

That covers the pilot requirement. I think the aircraft requirements are covered in the limitations section of the POH, and in 91.205.
 
Last edited:
Palmpilot said:
I don't think the U.S. has a VMC loophole for IFR flight.
Click to expand...
Ah, maybe I was wrong then. I've heard many times that in the U.S., you're allowed to file IFR even without an instrument rating as long as it's VMC, and that you also don't have to file an alternate in VMC. I've just trusted what U.S. pilots have posted over the years, though, and never checked the FARs, because it has no impact on my own flying.
 
In the USA you can’t Legally file IFR without an instrument rating . But we do not have to file an alternate in the VMC conditions. It’s the 1,2,3 rule. One hour before and one hour after. Must forecast min 2k foot ceilings and 3 miles vis or you have to file an alternate.
 
Last edited:
AlphaMike said:
In the USA you can’t Legally file IFR without announcement reading. But we do not have to file an alternate in the VMC conditions. It’s the 1,2,3 rule. One hour before and one hour after. Must forecast min 2k foot ceilings and 3 miles vis or you have to file an alternate.
Click to expand...
Also, you have to file an alternate regardless of weather if the filed destination has no instrument approach.
 
steingar said:
Says me if there are three or more people in the partnership there should be a plan to upgrade. If not, walk. You don't want to be flying a fast plane like a Skylane VFR only (unless you're somewhere that never gets wx) and without the GPS the plane isn't entirely useful. Putting a modern GPS in the panel is expensive for one, not so much so for three or four.
Click to expand...


I agree, any partnership is well served by having common expectations on all aspects of the aircraft ownership. I am confused by the statement "You don't want to be flying a fast plane like a Skylane VFR . . . " (emphasis added). 75% cruise for a C-182 Skylane at 8500' = 162 MPH (140 Kts) per: https://www.scribd.com/doc/35440114/1967-Cessna-182-and-Skylane-Owners-Manual-Email.

I think it is fair to say that Lady Luscombe is slow at 100 mph. I'm just not sure I'd call a Skylane fast.

I do see the point, It is a capable airplane and IFR equipment enhances that utility.
 
Arnold said:
I agree, any partnership is well served by having common expectations on all aspects of the aircraft ownership. I am confused by the statement "You don't want to be flying a fast plane like a Skylane VFR . . . " (emphasis added). 75% cruise for a C-182 Skylane at 8500' = 162 MPH (140 Kts) per: https://www.scribd.com/doc/35440114/1967-Cessna-182-and-Skylane-Owners-Manual-Email.

I think it is fair to say that Lady Luscombe is slow at 100 mph. I'm just not sure I'd call a Skylane fast.

I do see the point, It is a capable airplane and IFR equipment enhances that utility.
Click to expand...

As a skylane owner, I smiled when I read that. Lol. My bird does a little better than 140 at 75% but it’s still not all that fast. It reminded me of a conversation I had with a F16 pilot at KTOL. I was just getting established on the GS of the ILS when the tower cleared a pair of F16s for takeoff and warned them to hurry up because there’s a Cessna 182 on final. The F16 replied he would be long gone before I got their. I replied back “you better hurry up, I’m coming in fast”. He laughed and said something like “you’re in a 182. In a minute I will be at 1.82.” The tower came back laughing and cautioned me for wake turbulence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top