Regret not having VOR ability if new plane has GNX 375 instead of GTN 650?

G

groundflyer

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Oct 4, 2017
Messages
15
Display Name
Display name:
groundflyer
Selecting GARMIN IFR panel for new plane. The GNX 375 should get the GPS IFR approaches task completed in the Experimental plane.

Does one need to splurge on the GTN 650 to add the Navigation feature to IFR flights? Or GPS good enough?

Adding a navigator with GNC255A seems almost as expensive as just getting the GTN 650.

thoughts?
 
Last edited:
GPS should be sufficient if this plane is going to see areas of "widespread LIFR" as often as the median American pick-up truck purchase sees unimproved surfaces... or a construction load. Personally, I can find and old nav, especially in an experimental where I can do the installation mee-self, and gain localizer capability for cheap. No need for an expensive box for it. Twofer if whatever indicator you're using for the GPS can feed the legacy localizer signal (it should), saves on a second indicator.
 
Here in the desert Southwest, GPS outages are more common than in many other places.

A couple of years ago, I had this happen while I was flying on an airway between restricted airspace areas. I had the VOR already up and as secondary, so the GPS outage was a non-event. But the 121 guys in the BoeingBus planes above me weren't too happy.

I still like having VOR (single) and the potential for an ILS approach. YMMV.
 
You won''t miss it at all unless
(a) there's a GPS failure
(b) you get a simple instruction from ATC to intercept for follow a specific radial, have no idea what to do, and say to yourself, "crap. This would have been so easy with a VOR."

Everyone mentions the first one but don't laugh at the second. It's very common in some parts of the US. There's a reason intercepting a course or radial. and loading an airway when the entry point is behind you are two of the 6 tasks I rotate in recurrent instrument training. Both are no-brainers with VOR and waaaaaaay too many pilots get deer-in-the-headlights looks when I give one to do with their GPS. So, leaving aside the jamming/MON issue, if you dump your VOR, you better know that 375 at an expert level.
 
midlifeflyer said:
You won''t miss it at all unless
(a) there's a GPS failure
(b) you get a simple instruction from ATC to intercept for follow a specific radial, have no idea what to do, and say to yourself, "crap. This would have been so easy with a VOR."

Everyone mentions the first one but don't laugh at the second. It's very common in some parts of the US. There's a reason intercepting a course or radial. and loading an airway when the entry point is behind you are two of the 6 tasks I rotate in recurrent instrument training. Both are no-brainers with VOR and waaaaaaay too many pilots get deer-in-the-headlights looks when I give one to do with their GPS. So, leaving aside the jamming/MON issue, if you dump your VOR, you better know that 375 at an expert level.
Click to expand...
I’m finding it scary how many pilots can’t figure out how to do it with a VOR anymore, either.:hairraise:
 
I think it would actually be cheaper to get a 375 plus a GNC 355 than a GTN 650. Add in the cost of a transponder and that’s definitely true.

Correction: 255, not 355.
 
Last edited:
MauleSkinner said:
I’m finding it scary how many pilots can’t figure out how to do it with a VOR anymore, either.:hairraise:
Click to expand...
That's part of the reason they are on my list. I don't care which way they do it, but I'm not sure they don't know how with VOR. What I see happening is a mindset that they should be able to do it GPS and getting brain locked rather than tuning a radial.

...or using a glass bearing pointer. It's kina funny ... I absolutely hated ADF. Relative bearing while in motion made absolutely no sense to me. Just one of those things. But in today's glass world, I love bearing pointers!
 
midlifeflyer said:
That's part of the reason they are on my list. I don't care which way they do it, but I'm not sure they don't know how with VOR. What I see happening is a mindset that they should be able to do it GPS and getting brain locked rather than tuning a radial.

...or using a glass bearing pointer. It's kina funny ... I absolutely hated ADF. Relative bearing while in motion made absolutely no sense to me. Just one of those things. But in today's glass world, I love bearing pointers!
Click to expand...

In all fairness, you aren’t using a bearing pointer today as primary navigation on an approach.
 
Thanks for inputs. With VORs part of the past and not definitely part of the future, not sure how to invest in equipment.

For intercepting radials, can't the GNX 375 can fly radials and VOR navigation with its GPS feature, but not legal to fly ILS approach on a GNX 375 since its not using ground based radio signals (except for WAAS).

Agree question about GPS jamming interesting.

Going with Garmin G3X PFD and 2 or 3 axis autopilot, so trying to make sure if a NAV radio is added, it works seamlessly with G3x. Are there other NAVs that can be added for cheaper than a $5000 GNC255A?
 
If I were building an IFR panel, I would want one I could take an IFR checkride in, both to get the hint from the FAA and for resale. That means a nav receiver of some sort.

If I was only going to have one nav receiver, I think I’d want it in a different box than the GPS to manage failure modes. So I’d go with the GNX345 and a nav/comm. Depending on the rest of the panel, you could likely find some good nav/comm units on the used market. The SL30 is a great radio in a tiny package, although it’s price seems to be going up again (sigh).
 
groundflyer said:
Going with Garmin G3X PFD and 2 or 3 axis autopilot, so trying to make sure if a NAV radio is added, it works seamlessly with G3x. Are there other NAVs that can be added for cheaper than a $5000 GNC255A?
Click to expand...
Trig for sure. I know the G3x can talk to the VAL units (remote control) but I don't recall if the VAL units can talk back (course/deviation). I'd have to check back later.
 
asicer said:
Trig for sure.
Click to expand...
(You may have answered this elsewhere) Do you have experience w the Trig? I have a TY91 (and TT 22) in my gyro and like them a lot. Was wondering about the TX56A instead of the Garmin 255A to update my Warrior.
 
midlifeflyer said:
You won''t miss it at all unless
(a) there's a GPS failure
(b) you get a simple instruction from ATC to intercept for follow a specific radial, have no idea what to do, and say to yourself, "crap. This would have been so easy with a VOR."

Everyone mentions the first one but don't laugh at the second. It's very common in some parts of the US. There's a reason intercepting a course or radial. and loading an airway when the entry point is behind you are two of the 6 tasks I rotate in recurrent instrument training. Both are no-brainers with VOR and waaaaaaay too many pilots get deer-in-the-headlights looks when I give one to do with their GPS. So, leaving aside the jamming/MON issue, if you dump your VOR, you better know that 375 at an expert level.
Click to expand...

I make sure all my instrument students can load an airway to intercept when it means loading an entry point in the wrong direction so that you will have a solid line to intercept.
 
Easy day. Sorted it out. Had a GTR 200 for comm radio swapping that with GNC 255 to have nav and comm separate from 375. And have remote gtn 20 for backup comm

Thanks all

Almost bought that used eBay nav for $50 :)
 
Autoland?..

reality check. A couple of turbines with Garmin 3000 glass have that. You’re not getting this off-the-shelf. You’ll have to build this yourself if you want it. And while you’re at it build a VOR receiver into the box you just built. Easy peasey.
 
DesertNomad said:
I make sure all my instrument students can load an airway to intercept when it means loading an entry point in the wrong direction so that you will have a solid line to intercept.
Click to expand...

That's called loading the anchor (intersection or VOR if a Victor airway).

As far as intercepting/tracking a radial all the WAAS receivers I've used have an "OBS" mode whereby the current waypoint, whether a VOR or not, acts like a VOR and you can select the course (radial) from that point.
 
Llewtrah381 said:
(You may have answered this elsewhere) Do you have experience w the Trig? I have a TY91 (and TT 22) in my gyro and like them a lot. Was wondering about the TX56A instead of the Garmin 255A to update my Warrior.
Click to expand...
Not yet, but I have been keeping a really close eye on them.
 
Groundpounder said:
How will you shoot an ILS approach?
Click to expand...
The point is that you don't need to fly an ILS any more than you need to fly a VOR or NDB approach - only when GPS is down. There is already a significant group of pilots who will ask for the RNAV instead of the ILS. How many airports do you know with an ILS without a colocated RNAV approach?
 
midlifeflyer said:
The point is that you don't need to fly an ILS any more than you need to fly a VOR or NDB approach - only when GPS is down. There is already a significant group of pilots who will ask for the RNAV instead of the ILS. How many airports do you know with an ILS without a colocated RNAV approach?
Click to expand...

Just cause its there doesn't mean ATC will let you fly it.
 
Is there an equipment code for/G minus VOR capabilities?
 
FORANE said:
Is there an equipment code for/G minus VOR capabilities?
Click to expand...
What's /G?

No problem with the required ICAO codes. Basically, VGBR instead of SGBR, plus the proper transponder/ADS-B and PBN codes,

Edit: missed a code. Added it.
 
Last edited:
midlifeflyer said:
How many airports do you know with an ILS without a colocated RNAV approach?
Click to expand...
According to my script that scrapes the d-TPP...
Airports with ILS and not GPS (excluding RNP AR and military): KEAT KMCC KVNY
 
I have never been denied the RNAV even if the ATIS is advertising the ILS. Why would ATC care? You're basically going to fly in the same horizontal and vertical space. Expect VTF of course.

May be a local thing, but more and more am seeing ILS NOTAM'd out at anything but the "big" (Class B in this case) airports. Three fields within 15 nm near me; 2/3 have no GS for their ILS.
 
Steamflyer said:
As far as intercepting/tracking a radial all the WAAS receivers I've used have an "OBS" mode whereby the current waypoint, whether a VOR or not, acts like a VOR and you can select the course (radial) from that point.
Click to expand...
coma24 said:
OBS mode to the rescue.
Click to expand...

OBS is pretty cool. I will use it on the airport destination and dial in the actual runway heading. Another element of situational awareness that I find helpful.
 
Mongoose Aviator said:
OBS is pretty cool. I will use it on the airport destination and dial in the actual runway heading. Another element of situational awareness that I find helpful.
Click to expand...

Very helpful. As is the visual approach mode on Garmin navigators that does the same thing in two planes.
 
asicer said:
According to my script that scrapes the d-TPP...
Airports with ILS and not GPS (excluding RNP AR and military): KEAT KMCC KVNY
Click to expand...
Good job. So there will a a few airports you can't fly to. Any idea why VNY has no RNAV approaches at all?
 
midlifeflyer said:
Good job. So there will a a few airports you can't fly to. Any idea why VNY has no RNAV approaches at all?
Click to expand...

Wonder if it's geographic - IAFs to the east might be difficult what with Burbank being there. To the west mountains so maybe hard to get down. I think RNAV's typically have a T or similar arrangement even if they will be flown VTF. ILS can pretty much just be straight lines if needed. Maybe someone will have a counter example.
 
Steamflyer said:
Wonder if it's geographic - IAFs to the east might be difficult what with Burbank being there. To the west mountains so maybe hard to get down. I think RNAV's typically have a T or similar arrangement even if they will be flown VTF. ILS can pretty much just be straight lines if needed. Maybe someone will have a counter example.
Click to expand...
There are plenty of RNAV approaches without terminal arrival areas. There's one less than 5 NM from VNY at WHP. And I can see a possible issue about mountainous terrain, but can point to the VNY/WHP difference - terrain is a bigger factor with WHP.

Sounds like a job for @RussR!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top