GPS for IFR flying - do I need it?

[TexasAviation]

I'm in the market for my first plane (see this thread). I plan to do my instrument training in it and, presumably, a fair amount of IFR flying in it after I get my instrument ticket. I'm looking for a plane I want to keep for a good long while and ideally a real four-seater like the Cherokee 235.

I've been shopping for something with an IFR certified GPS in it, but my options sure would open up if I could do without it at my budget (under $60k). In the real world, how important/convenient is it to have GPS for instrument flying? Will the old steam gauges severely limit my utility of the airplane because I can't use GPS approaches and navigation?

Just wondering if IFR GPS needs to stay on my "must have" list or if it's just a nicety.

And for that matter, if I had to choose between them, do you appreciate autopilot or GPS more in real-world IFR flying?

Just looking for insights on my shopping decisions.

 

[frfly172]

If your going to actually do true IFR flying,the GPS and autopilot,make it much safer ,and easier overall

 

[TexasAviation]

If your going to actually do true IFR flying,the GPS and autopilot,make it much safer ,and easier overall

I figured that was the case. I'm looking for a plane with both autopilot and IFR GPS, but boy it's hard to find it in the ones I'm looking at (fixed gear, under $60k, 200+ hp). Might need to save some more and up the budget. Typical in this hobby

 

[jordane93]

It will help out a lot especially if you fly into smaller airports because they all pretty much have RNAV approaches. You don't need anything fancy. A plane with a 430 makes IFR stupid easy.

 

[MAKG1]

It really depends on the details of your mission.

My home airports don't have usable terrestrial approaches (one has a VOR, but it hasn't been approved in recent memory as the VOR is on the field at SJC), so not having a GPS means getting stuck if the overcast gets low. If it's a higher overcast, there are ILSs at nearby airports (including SJC) to punch through and transit VFR.

Enroute isn't really necessary. You can get where you need with VORs or vectors.

For an autopilot, it's a nice to have for a short flight, much nicer for a long one. But you have to turn them off when it gets bumpy. Even good ones don't handle variable winds very well. I find I can easily outfly a KAP140 in light turbulence, for instance, to the point where nonpilot passengers notice (they really suck when you're getting blown around). GFC700 does it better, but there is no way that's in your price range.

 

[TexasAviation]

... so not having a GPS means getting stuck if the overcast gets low. ...

That's what I was afraid of. So I really want autopilot and GPS, ideally. Will keep shopping/saving 'til I find the right match.

 

[ARFlyer]

You'll need a GPS to future proof your plane. VORs are on their way out besides the few that will be left behind for MON. Also you'll find GPS will get you into vastly more fields, especially the smaller more rural ones.

I'd start with a 430W or a 650.

 

[RotorDude]

That's what I was afraid of. So I really want autopilot and GPS, ideally. Will keep shopping/saving 'til I find the right match.

Absolutely. If you want to fly real IFR, the kind that helps you turn your plane into the transportation tool it can (and should) be, you definitely want both GPS and A/P. I would add that GPS must be WAAS certified (i.e. LPV capable), and the A/P should have a minimum of alt and heading hold.
BTW, I have never had issues flying my A/P in turbulence, of any kind. I have S-Tec for alt hold, and it pretty much freezes the altimeter in place, regardless of up/downdrafts. My old Cessna ARC autopilot does a reasonable of job of holding things in place, at least in heading mode, which is a tremendous help when distracted by weather planning or ATC issues.
I have flown missions when all the above failed (or before it existed), and there is simply no comparison. It's like running on one cylinder, relatively speaking.

 

[Shawn]

After getting my PPL, IFR and having owned my plane now for three years using it mostly for 200-300nm XC missions, an autopilot and 430 is my minimum equipment I would buy in a plane knowing what I know now.

...but that is me for my missions. Do you NEED it? NO, but it opens up a lot more options when flying in real IMC and the AP significantly lessens the workload.

If I had to choose one or the other, personally I would choose the AP taking into account the technology you can get relatively inexpensively like Foreflight and Stratus that provides you GPS info for situational awareness.

 

[edo2000]

I got my instrument rating before gps was available. Flew a lot of IFR for several years in lots of piston aircraft. I agree about IFR gps being very useful, in that many destinations have approaches with lower minimums using it, but if you don't have it, you can still fly "real" IFR. Lots of people do. On autopilots: very, very handy for single pilot IFR. However, a lot of them do not have altitude hold and yet are still extremely useful. IMO...

 

[frfly172]

For your budget you may be able to find an older Cherokee 180, with some updated avionics.

 

[azure]

OP, I did what you are doing - waited until I had my own airplane with an IFR GPS and a decent A/P before finishing my instrument training. In the end I am glad I did, but be aware that doing this can add considerable time to your IR training as you make your way along the avionics learning curve, particularly if your CFII is not familiar with your setup. I don't regret doing it the way I did it since I was ready for hard IFR as soon as I passed the checkride. But I could have had my ticket a lot sooner if I had stuck with the club planes my CFII knew well.

As others have said, it all depends on your mission. If you need a TAA for the kind of flying you want to do, then you will need to learn its avionics, either before or after you receive your rating. There is definitely a learning curve to such a plane beyond that involved in getting your instrument rating. In the end there just aren't any shortcuts to being mission ready.

And hopefully, you won't need to choose between A/P and IFR GPS. They are both very useful to have when flying long X/Cs. If I had to choose though, I would choose the GPS (preferably WAAS-equipped). The A/P is very nice to have, but not having an IFR GPS really limits your options.

 

[somorris]

Hi again, TexasAviation.

As some have said, you really don't "have to have" GPS and autopilot for IFR. However, since you are plane shopping (and don't already have an airplane not so equipped), if I were in your shoes, that is what I would be looking for in an airplane. Both add utility and safety to instrument flying. Don't get in too big a hurry. You can continue to save $$ and be particular about what you will settle for.

 

[ircphoenix]

I'd pick an autopilot over a GPS for the same reason Shawn mentions. You can use any other device as a supplement for situational awareness... but you don't have that luxury with autopilot. You either have it or you don't. Autopilot makes single pilot CRM a breeze.

That being said, I'm buying a Cherokee that has a 530 instead of one with an autopilot. I'm sure I will regret not finding an autopilot later. LoL

Just remember when you buy that the cheapest way to upgrade is to have the stuff already on the plane. If you go into a plane thinking you'll add what you want later, your total budget will be much higher than if you just saved and waited for the 'right' one to come along.

 

[somorris]

That being said, I'm buying a Cherokee that has a 530 instead of one with an autopilot. I'm sure I will regret not finding an autopilot later. LoL

I believe, for single pilot IFR flying, an autopilot is more important, but each of us has to pay our money and make our choice. .

 

[weilke]

- Adding an autopilot is a bigger job than adding a GPS. So if the options are 'working autopilot vs GPS', financially going with the AP is the better option.
- Remain weary of the plane with a VFR GPS installation and a seller who tells you 'oh it just needs the paperwork'. There are some specific requirements for an IFR GPS installation and unless they have already been fulfilled, it can be more involved than someone filling out some STC paperwork.
- Some of the earlier Garmin 430 versions are reaching the end of support by the company. While they are perfectly fine and give you LNAV approaches, if a button falls off or the screen dies, you need to find someone who can work on them. I would look for a 430W if that is in the budget (upgrading from 430 to 430W can be involved if the coax used for the initial install doesn't conform to the specs required for the WAAS antenna).
- An IFR approved KLN89b will give you LNAV, terminal and en-route capability. It is ancient and doesn't have a moving map, but it'll tell you where you are and where you are going. The 89b (not the 90) is tray compatible with KLN94 which gives you a rudimentary map and faster GPS updates. All of those King boxes are ancient but still supportable.
- Try to find the plane with the equipment installed. Many tales of woe have started with people putting 30k into a Cherokee or 172 just to find out that the market doesn't give you that back when you upgrade.
- I had a Warrior with a plain 430 and that was fine for IFR flying. I now have an autopilot, but it is more of a convenience. IFR without AP requires a higher degree of organization. It is a bit easier now with Foreflight etc., you still want to have all your data for the flight readily available as you don't have the luxury to go digging in your flight bag while you are in the clouds.

 

[ircphoenix]

I believe, for single pilot IFR flying, an autopilot is more important, but each of us has to pay our money and make our choice. .

Absolutely. Which was my first sentence. =D

But turns out the price and other equipment I couldn't pass up so... here I am, already knowing I'm gonna wish for an autopilot. =P

 

[fiveoboy01]

Given the choice between autopilot OR an IFR GPS, I'd choose the autopilot. The workload can get high in some phases of flight and having the airpla

For your budget you may be able to find an older Cherokee 180, with some updated avionics.

When I was shopping, there was a nice Cherokee 180 with 200 SMOH, an aspen, a G750, and an autopilot for 60-ish K. Almost an unbelievable value.

I wanted the room of the stretched cabin and the taperwing, so I passed for an Archer(which has a 430W and an autopilot).

If you plan to fly IFR with any regularity and want that tool available to you, my recommendation is a WAAS IFR certified GPS, and an autopilot with GPS steering. Those two things combined make terminal operations and approaches a joyful proposition. Save a little extra if you have to... The investment is well worth it.

I agree that if you can only choose one, get the autopilot over the GPS. You can still use the other IFR avionics onboard, and add an ipad and Stratus for fairly cheap.

 

[Palmpilot]

Given the choice between autopilot OR an IFR GPS, I'd choose the GPS.

Autopilots are nice to have, but not having one wouldn't keep me from getting to my destination. I feel that when I'm not proficient enough to hand fly, I shouldn't be flying IFR.

 

[fiveoboy01]

Which increases workload? No GPS, or no autopilot?

It's not about proficiency. It's about not being worn the hell out when it comes time to shoot the approach. Lack of GPS won't keep you from getting there either, and you'll be have mental real estate left over when you do get there.

 

[Palmpilot]

...It's about not being worn the hell out when it comes time to shoot the approach...

...for you.

Lack of GPS won't keep you from getting there either...

It will at some destinations.

 

[Sundancer]

Offered as an opinion, FWIW; if you won't fly IFR a lot, or fly professionally, single pilot IFR without an autopilot (or a wing levler) can be hard work, especially in four-place singles, unless you have a steady diet of it.

Altitude hold isn't necessary, or even GPSS; a STEC-20 will track a VOR or GPS, and you can use the DG heading bug to assist in the approach phase, if you don't have GPSS; just something to keep the shiny side up if things get sideways, or complicated.

 

[fiveoboy01]

...for you.

Fair enough. I'll take the lesser pilot label and keep my autopilot for extended periods of hard IFR. Being newly rated, I will take all the help I can get when single pilot.

It will at some destinations.

Flight planning destinations and alternates revolves around what approaches the aircraft is equipped to shoot. No GPS, then you pick different airports.

 

[James331]

Real world, having a /G is a huge benifit, even if non WAAS having a GNS 430 or better is really a real world deal breaker for IMC.

 

[Palmpilot]

Fair enough. I'll take the lesser pilot label and keep my autopilot for extended periods of hard IFR. Being newly rated, I will take all the help I can get when single pilot.

I'm not any kind of super pilot. I think the reason that hand flying has seldom been tiring for me is that I'm very used to it, due to flying rental planes that don't have autopilots for most of the time that I've been a pilot.

Flight planning destinations and alternates revolves around what approaches the aircraft is equipped to shoot. No GPS, then you pick different airports.

That's part of what I'm saying. Not having an IFR GPS limits where you can go when the weather is IFR, whereas lack of an autopilot does not.

 

[MAKG1]

Which increases workload? No GPS, or no autopilot?

It's not about proficiency. It's about not being worn the hell out when it comes time to shoot the approach. Lack of GPS won't keep you from getting there either, and you'll be have mental real estate left over when you do get there.

You need to practice hand flying. It should not be that tiring. Even in light turbulence. It IS about proficiency. I can hand fly for 2+ hours in light turbulence and then fly an approach, and I'm hardly an extraordinary instrument pilot.

There are times when the autopilot will not be usable. Like in moderate or worse turbulence.

Though we'll never know for sure, there are those of us who think the Lance crash in Bakersfield last winter came from over-reliance on an autopilot altitude hold in the presence of a strong updraft.

 

[fiveoboy01]

The entirety of my IFR training was hand flown, except for perhaps 15 minutes were I used the autopilot once. I know what it's like, and I can do it just fine.

If I can reduce my workload single pilot IFR, I'll do it.. and that includes autopilot use. If it breaks, or it's too turbulent, I'll hand-fly. I've never heard a pilot say they enjoyed hand flying for 3 hours straight, but of course it's possible.

The question wasn't that anyways, it was which would you rather have given one choice, and I'd take the autopilot first, GPS second. I have both and use both though

 

[Palmpilot]

When it comes to pilot preferences, it's a personal decision. There's no "one size fits all."

 

[azure]

Which increases workload? No GPS, or no autopilot?

It's not about proficiency. It's about not being worn the hell out when it comes time to shoot the approach. Lack of GPS won't keep you from getting there either, and you'll be have mental real estate left over when you do get there.

Lack of GPS can mean you won't get in at all. It all depends on your destination.

I agree with palmpilot. The A/P is effectively a luxury, though a very useful one. The GPS is getting to be a necessity, and will only be more so in the future.

 

[Fearless Tower]

I'm in the market for my first plane (see this thread). I plan to do my instrument training in it and, presumably, a fair amount of IFR flying in it after I get my instrument ticket. I'm looking for a plane I want to keep for a good long while and ideally a real four-seater like the Cherokee 235.

I've been shopping for something with an IFR certified GPS in it, but my options sure would open up if I could do without it at my budget (under $60k). In the real world, how important/convenient is it to have GPS for instrument flying? Will the old steam gauges severely limit my utility of the airplane because I can't use GPS approaches and navigation?

Just wondering if IFR GPS needs to stay on my "must have" list or if it's just a nicety.

And for that matter, if I had to choose between them, do you appreciate autopilot or GPS more in real-world IFR flying?

Just looking for insights on my shopping decisions.

5+ years ago, I would have said differently, but today and for the foreseeable future, it is hard to consider a non approach certified GPS equipped aircraft to be truly IFR capable. Sure, there are still some places you can get away without it, but as more and more Navaids are decommissioned, it is getting harder and harder to do without the GPS. You really are limiting yourself if you plan do do serious IFR.

If you do want to look at non-GPS equipped aircraft, you should budget to add the GPS yourself later.

 

[flyingron]

GPS isn't the key but the moving map is, in my opinion. Of course, you won't find a moving map these days that doesn't use GPS as the position input.

 

[Shawn]

If I can reduce my workload single pilot IFR, I'll do it.. and that includes autopilot use.

I am with ya on this one...early in my IFR flying had a flight where my destination airport did not burn off anywhere nearly as was forecast and was well below minimums by time I arrived...So I diverted to the neighboring Class C since it was literally right next door and had lower minimums...I had not briefed any approaches there as my "alternate" was back home if needed...so it was a rapid reset for an unfamiliar approach...then right at the last second, they turned the airport around...myself and two other airplanes were vectored for the opposite runway, but they could not tell us which approach just yet. Did not get the approach till literally last second.

Could I have hand flown?..yup, but it was that flight with all of the last second scrambles that I was thankful I had my AP during a high workload time. Anyone can hand fly and not need GPS when things go right, but they most certainly help in keeping from things going wrong when it is most critical.

While I agree that having a GPS opens more door and more opportunities I look at it this way IF you had to choose between the two...having GPS or not is more critical in the pre flight planning of you airport and approaches...AP or not is critical during the in flight phase where things can become more unpredictable which can be both a convenience AND safety consideration.

My CFII was a 9000 hour pilot that hand flew EVERY flight IFR with no GPS for no other reason than that is what he enjoyed...so to each his own.

 

[jordane93]

It all depends on the mission. If you're near airports that have all ILS approaches or other land based approaches you can probably forego a GPS. If you plan on flying into a small non towered podunk airport in the middle of no where, chances are it won't have an ILS but will have an RNAV approach. The autopilot won't matter if you can't get into the airport. Again, it all depends on your mission and what kind of airports you fly into.

 

[Fearless Tower]

It all depends on the mission. If you're near airports that have all ILS approaches or other land based approaches you can probably forego a GPS. If you plan on flying into a small non towered podunk airport in the middle of no where, chances are it won't have an ILS but will have an RNAV approach. The autopilot won't matter if you can't get into the airport. Again, it all depends on your mission and what kind of airports you fly into.

Even then, you need to really take a close look. Availability of an ILS or Loc approach alone may not cut it.

As more and more marker beacons and cross-fix Navaids disappear, you are going to need DME or other (GPS) means of identifying points on the approach for many ILS/Locs.

 

[jordane93]

Even then, you need to really take a close look. Availability of an ILS or Loc approach alone may not cut it.

As more and more marker beacons and cross-fix Navaids disappear, you are going to need DME or other (GPS) means of identifying points on the approach for many ILS/Locs.

Exactly. It's all preference. Personally, I'd want an IFR GPS before an AP.

 

[James331]

On many flights not having a IFR GPS is a go or no go item, not much you can do if you can navigate your way down to the runway.

The A/P, well that's important too for single pilot IFR, there is a reason for single pilot IFR in the 135 world you NEED a autopilot in lieu of a SIC.

For me, for real world flying where I live, GPS #1, because I just can fly where I need to without one, A/P #1.5, for heavy IMC work it's not needed, but man is it important when you're writing down a new route, or have your head in the GPSs with a approach, or....

 

[Fearless Tower]

True story.

I was at KMYF on Friday which was under a marine layer. An incoming airplane asked for the ILS, the controller said the glide slope just went out and he got "say intentions." The pilot asked for the RNAV approach...problem solved.

He could have still shot the localizer. MDA is only 200' above DH and pretty close the the MDA on the GPS.

 

[TexasAviation]

This answers my question. Thanks! I'm going to keep shopping for a plane with both autopilot and IFR GPS in it.

 

[Palmpilot]

It all depends on the mission. If you're near airports that have all ILS approaches or other land based approaches you can probably forego a GPS. If you plan on flying into a small non towered podunk airport in the middle of no where, chances are it won't have an ILS but will have an RNAV approach. The autopilot won't matter if you can't get into the airport. Again, it all depends on your mission and what kind of airports you fly into.

There are plenty of airports in major urban areas where the only instrument approaches are RNAV. HAF, SQL, RHV, and E16 are nearby examples here in the SFO area.

 

[flyingron]

On many flights not having a IFR GPS is a go or no go item, not much you can do if you can navigate your way down to the runway.

The A/P, well that's important too for single pilot IFR, there is a reason for single pilot IFR in the 135 world you NEED a autopilot in lieu of a SIC.

For me, for real world flying where I live, GPS #1, because I just can fly where I need to without one, A/P #1.5, for heavy IMC work it's not needed, but man is it important when you're writing down a new route, or have your head in the GPSs with a approach, or....

Yep, much as I love my autopilot, I'd give it up before I gave up the IFR GPS/Moving Map.