What about an HSI?

[Piloto]

You could do that technically, but then which one do you follow when they disagree? And I'd expect them to disagree given the fact that the Area is taking a GPS signal and drawing a straight line, whereas the ILS is a ground-based signal and will probably have some bends in it due to the waves getting moved around with terrain.


And what are you basing this on? I'm doubting that you have all the equipment that Flight Check has when they check the approaches.

That's the beauty of using both. The most likely reason to disagree is that you have dialed the wrong ILS frequency, specially for when approaching parallel runways.

No I just have a good pair of eyes and can crosscheck at the MAP point.

José

 

[Ted]

That's the beauty of using both. The most likely reason to disagree is that you have dialed the wrong ILS frequency, specially for when approaching parallel runways.

So are you saying that you don't identify the ILS? And that you aren't capable of dialing in the wrong thing into your Area?

No I just have a good pair of eyes and can crosscheck at the MAP point.

Somehow, I'm less than convinced that this makes the Area "better"...

 

[Henning]

So we just went from replacing a KI-202 to a G-500? In a 1963 PA28? (Though I did see an all glass Cessna 150 when I dropped it off at the Avionics shop )

New KI-202 ordered from SEA Avionics, who gave me a killer deal on an overhauled unit.

I can take a $15,000 150, put a new engine in it and a glass panel, paint and interior and be in it for <$80k; what other IFR legal SVT equipped plane can I buy for that? Same thing goes for your PA-28. If you want to move into a SVT airplane for IFR, the cheapest way to do it is upgrade. There are more people out there like me who look at the capability as the prime value rather than resale. Resale value only matters to dealers.

 

[Piloto]

So are you saying that you don't identify the ILS? And that you aren't capable of dialing in the wrong thing into your Area?



Somehow, I'm less than convinced that this makes the Area "better"...

You don't have to convince me wether a blonde or a brunette is better for me because I like both wether they are legal or not even though I have gray hair.

I am experienced enough to assess what's work best for me. Even though the Aera is not a TSOd product the engineers and testing criteria used in it is the same as that on the GTN 750. This explains the similarities. Unlike IPads products were the only testing is on a desk.

José

 

[Ted]

You don't have to convince me wether a blonde or a brunette is better for me because I like both wether they are legal or not even though I have gray hair.

Yeah, but the difference is there the laws protect the blondes and brunettes, rather than for you.

I am experienced enough to assess what's work best for me. Even though the Aera is not a TSOd product the engineers and testing criteria used in it is the same as that on the GTN 750. This explains the similarities. Unlike IPads products were the only testing is on a desk.

José

What you're talking about is using a handheld GPS with its potential unreliabilities as an HSI for shooting an approach that isn't even a GPS approach. That's not just illegal, it's dumb.

We're not talking about emergency situations where the handheld is all you've got. At that point, you're using the best tool you have at your disposal, and it makes sense. As a matter of regular course, though, you're asking for trouble when you're using the incorrect navigational tool because "I know better."

But hey, it's your life.

 

[poadeleted20]

All you need to know if you are going to do an HSI is that for anything but the NSD 360, you're gonna be cheaper off putting in an Aspen.

Concur.

Installing a mechanical HSI now is just insanity.

You mean an electric/slaved HSI? The NSD-360 is still mechanical, but is a pretty good choice at that price point.

 

[Henning]

An HSI is a poor choice in today's environment IMO. It used to be better than sliced bread but now belongs in a museum. It's yesteryear's technology.

 

[Everskyward]

An HSI is a poor choice in today's environment IMO. It used to be better than sliced bread but now belongs in a museum. It's yesteryear's technology.

So what should people use to stay on course?

 

[poadeleted20]

So what should people use to stay on course?

I believe Henning is suggesting a modern technology Aspen PFD is a better choice at that price point ($12K or so installed) than an electric/slaved HSI. However, even if an NSD-360 is "yesteryear's technology," for half the cost of an Aspen, it might make a lot more sense in a 140 Cherokee, which is also "yesteryear's technology."

 

[Henning]

So what should people use to stay on course?

Either repair your old stuff or upgrade to modern; upgrading to an antique is a waste of money unless you have an antique show plane.

 

[Everskyward]

I believe Henning is suggesting a modern technology Aspen PFD is a better choice at that price point ($12K or so installed) than an electric/slaved HSI. However, even if an NSD-360 is "yesteryear's technology," for half the cost of an Aspen, it might make a lot more sense in a 140 Cherokee, which is also "yesteryear's technology."

As far as I can see a mechanical HSI displays the same as a HSI on a screen so I don't see how one would have an advantage over the other when you are talking about just that one instrument. Of course you get other things on a PFD. I can't comment on the pricing.

 

[TMetzinger]

Oh with the Aspen or Sandel you get so much more.... moving map if you've got a GPS. RMI for your other navaids, and higher reliability.

If you NEED an HSI and you've only got 4K for purchase and installation, then perhaps the NSD is the solution.

But otherwise I'm with Henning. Just fix your existing DG/CDI combo for a little money, or spend the big money and get something that offers a lot of value for the money spent.

 

[Henning]

I believe Henning is suggesting a modern technology Aspen PFD is a better choice at that price point ($12K or so installed) than an electric/slaved HSI. However, even if an NSD-360 is "yesteryear's technology," for half the cost of an Aspen, it might make a lot more sense in a 140 Cherokee, which is also "yesteryear's technology."

A Cherokee 140 is current technology as far as airframe and engine are concerned, it's just the panel that has been superseded with technology worth the price of replacement. If you want to replace a Cherokee 140 with a factory SVT equipped plane, you will spend well in excess of $100,000 even on the used market. If you own a plane and want the safety of modern technology, the cheapest way to get it is to put it in your old plane. Between the cost of the deal and the extra cost of the other plane, you'll save at least $100,000.

With an NSD 360, you'll spend $5000 to do no more than repair the old instrument and combine it with the DG. It makes no sense; repair the instrument and buy a 796 and get 100 times the capability and situational awareness as well as an emergency eSVT set for less than half the price.

It's funny, but the cheap internet pilots are the most vocal about how poor a deal upgrading to glass is. When you go into avionics shops all over the country though, you see $20k planes on up getting glass because it revolutionizes operational safety. Owners of these planes like their planes and do not want to continue on without the extra safety factor that SVT gives them and their passengers. Resale value only matters at sale, SVT has operational value that counts every time you fly.
Now, for an owner operator who keeps a plane for years (often decades), which is the more significant value, the operational one or the resale one?
When you're fumbling around with gear in the soup controlling the plane and trying to figure out a problem at the same time, you can just comfort yourself knowing that you left money safe in the bank for when you get yourself killed in a workload-overload situation.

 

[poadeleted21]

I can take a $15,000 150, put a new engine in it and a glass panel, paint and interior and be in it for <$80k; what other IFR legal SVT equipped plane can I buy for that? Same thing goes for your PA-28. If you want to move into a SVT airplane for IFR, the cheapest way to do it is upgrade. There are more people out there like me who look at the capability as the prime value rather than resale. Resale value only matters to dealers.

I agree, but I'm not holding on to this Cherokee forever, if it finishes me up on my IR and does what it can for my commercial, it's for sale, maybe before then if I walk into my next rig before that. I just can't imagine there's much of a resell market for a $90,000 glass panel 50 year old 150 HP Cherokees.

 

[rpadula]

I agree, but I'm not holding on to this Cherokee forever, if it finishes me up on my IR and does what it can for my commercial, it's for sale, maybe before then if I walk into my next rig before that. I just can't imagine there's much of a resell market for a $90,000 glass panel 50 year old 150 HP Cherokees.

Or for 50 year old 310's. (sorry, couldn't resist)

 

[Henning]

I agree, but I'm not holding on to this Cherokee forever, if it finishes me up on my IR and does what it can for my commercial, it's for sale, maybe before then if I walk into my next rig before that. I just can't imagine there's much of a resell market for a $90,000 glass panel 50 year old 150 HP Cherokees.

Then just repair what you have and buy a Bo and put glass in it....

 

[poadeleted21]

Then just repair what you have and buy a Bo and put glass in it....

KI-202 is on a UPS truck heading my way as I type and a Bo is at or near the top of my list.

 

[poadeleted20]

With an NSD 360, you'll spend $5000 to do no more than repair the old instrument and combine it with the DG. It makes no sense;

If you'd trained as many instrument pilots as I have, you'd know it makes a lot of sense for many of them. For the guy with the 140 Cherokee, the extra $7000 is enough to put in an early approach GPS with money to spare. Which makes more sense if somone has has $12,000 and a dual nav/comm 140 Cherokee -- putting in an Aspen PFD, or putting in an NSD-360 and a KLN-94 GPS?

 

[poadeleted21]

If you'd trained as many instrument pilots as I have, you'd know it makes a lot of sense for many of them. For the guy with the 140 Cherokee, the extra $7000 is enough to put in an early approach GPS with money to spare. Which makes more sense if somone has has $12,000 and a dual nav/comm 140 Cherokee -- putting in an Aspen PFD, or putting in an NSD-360 and a KLN-94 GPS?

I have KN53 (not yet installed)

KLN-89B attached to a annunciator panel and a KI202 indicator installed all IFR legal like.

A KX155 W/GS

A KY197 2nd COMM and AT150 transponder.

I just thought I might be able to pickup an old HSI and drop it in place of my INOP KI202 and the 89B/KN53 drive it for an extra AMU or so over replacing my KI202. I've learned that I cannot and the new KI202 is on the way, which SEA Avionics gave me a screaming deal on compared to the alternatives.

 

[poadeleted20]

I just thought I might be able to pickup an old HSI and drop it in place of my INOP KI202 and the 89B/KN53 drive it for an extra AMU or so over replacing my KI202. I've learned that I cannot and the new KI202 is on the way, which SEA Avionics gave me a screaming deal on compared to the alternatives.

What will the KI202 cost? What prices have you seen on used NSD-360's?

 

[poadeleted21]

What will the KI202 cost? What prices have you seen on used NSD-360's?

Overhauled warrantied KI-202 purchased during the "Silver Crown Promotion" at SEA, $500.

Bennett wants like $3600 for the NSD360, only one on eBay I'd consider is 2,500.

 

[TMetzinger]

I agree, but I'm not holding on to this Cherokee forever, if it finishes me up on my IR and does what it can for my commercial, it's for sale, maybe before then if I walk into my next rig before that. I just can't imagine there's much of a resell market for a $90,000 glass panel 50 year old 150 HP Cherokees.

Ah, in that case, don't bother with the HSI. Finish your IR, then get into the plane you really want.

 

[Henning]

If you'd trained as many instrument pilots as I have, you'd know it makes a lot of sense for many of them. For the guy with the 140 Cherokee, the extra $7000 is enough to put in an early approach GPS with money to spare. Which makes more sense if somone has has $12,000 and a dual nav/comm 140 Cherokee -- putting in an Aspen PFD, or putting in an NSD-360 and a KLN-94 GPS?

You think a NSD 360 has $5000 value over a KI 202+ DG? If so from the results of your students? Then perhaps you should brush up on your instructional techniques with regards to instruments.

When an HSI was the best you could get, it made sense which is why I put one in my Travelair. Now I wouldn't waste $.25 considering one. If you can't afford the glass now, save up. A Cherokee 140 driver isn't going to see a $5000 benefit out of combining the Kx 202 with a DG.

As for a KLN 94 I wouldn't waste my money there either. If you want a non WAAS/ no Vertical guidance IFR GPS, you might as well buy the cheapest one you can get, not the most expensive & especially not from a company whose support and service gets worse with every waking moment. I would install no less than a 430W for an IFR GPS; they're popping up pretty frequently on the used market now for decent prices. At least that won't be wasted money down the road because it will full drive the Aspen or Garmin glass.

 

[poadeleted20]

Overhauled warrantied KI-202 purchased during the "Silver Crown Promotion" at SEA, $500.

Bennett wants like $3600 for the NSD360, only one on eBay I'd consider is 2,500.

At those prices, in your plane, I like your decision.

 

[Ted]

Or for 50 year old 310's. (sorry, couldn't resist)

We just got the Aspen installed in Cloud Nine's 44-year-old 310, and it will be going back to the avionics shop soon for a stormscope and KWX56 install. But, this is a plane that we're intending on keeping for a long time (if not forever), and given how we use it, it's a worthwhile investment. Plus, since the old HSI and AI were trying to fly me into the side of mountains, they both needed to go anyway.

 

[Piloto]

Yeah, but the difference is there the laws protect the blondes and brunettes, rather than for you.



What you're talking about is using a handheld GPS with its potential unreliabilities as an HSI for shooting an approach that isn't even a GPS approach. That's not just illegal, it's dumb.

We're not talking about emergency situations where the handheld is all you've got. At that point, you're using the best tool you have at your disposal, and it makes sense. As a matter of regular course, though, you're asking for trouble when you're using the incorrect navigational tool because "I know better."

But hey, it's your life.

You are are right about the blonde and brunetts. I have been abused by them in bed with no possibility of defense but to accept my luck.

I guess your argument didn't convinced those thousands of buyers of portable GPS with approach plates (like the 696, 796 and others) and synthetic vision. Why would they spend thousand of $$$$ on something illegal and unreliable (as you indicated) Hey, at least I use paper plates (couldn't afford the expensive ones)

José

 

[TMetzinger]

Ted's point is NOT that the 696/796 or other portable units are "bad". It's just that navigating with them on an instrument approach is STUPID. Sure, when I'm flying an approach, if I'm using VORs for navigation I may have the approach loaded into my GPS and portable, but I'm using a moving map screen zoomed out enough that it's only giving me "supplemental situational awareness" and NOT a course line to track.

I think our brains find the geo-referenced displays "better/easier/whatever" and one of those things will suck up all your attention when compared to a CDI or HSI or ADF. That's somewhat ok when your eye-sucking GPS is approved for IFR navigation and approaches, but it can be deadly when it's not.

 

[Piloto]

Ted's point is NOT that the 696/796 or other portable units are "bad". It's just that navigating with them on an instrument approach is STUPID. Sure, when I'm flying an approach, if I'm using VORs for navigation I may have the approach loaded into my GPS and portable, but I'm using a moving map screen zoomed out enough that it's only giving me "supplemental situational awareness" and NOT a course line to track.

I think our brains find the geo-referenced displays "better/easier/whatever" and one of those things will suck up all your attention when compared to a CDI or HSI or ADF. That's somewhat ok when your eye-sucking GPS is approved for IFR navigation and approaches, but it can be deadly when it's not.

BTW FAA AC No: 120-76A allows the use of portables enroute and approach phases of flight.

José

 

[TMetzinger]

BTW FAA AC No: 120-76A allows the use of portables enroute and approach phases of flight.

José

Nobody said they weren't allowed. But when folks were getting the iPad approved for 135 and 121 operators, one of the things that came out of that as I understand it was no "ship position" could be displayed on approach charts (and I think on airport charts too). I don't know where the policy was on the enroute charts.

My experience in flying with portable computers for charting (since JeppView beta in the 90s) and in teaching them and students who have them is that they are great for all sorts of stuff, but not for navigation, and that it's HARD for a pilot to ignore the "magenta line of death" on his foreflight or his 696 when he's in the clouds and his only other source of position information is a VOR CDI. So when I'm flying and teaching, I turn off the ships postion on an EFB for the approach phase, and on something like a 696 I leave it in a moving map mode as opposed to a CDI mode. IT make it easier to focus on the certified systems.

 

[Everskyward]

Nobody said they weren't allowed. But when folks were getting the iPad approved for 135 and 121 operators, one of the things that came out of that as I understand it was no "ship position" could be displayed on approach charts (and I think on airport charts too). I don't know where the policy was on the enroute charts.

My experience in flying with portable computers for charting (since JeppView beta in the 90s) and in teaching them and students who have them is that they are great for all sorts of stuff, but not for navigation, and that it's HARD for a pilot to ignore the "magenta line of death" on his foreflight or his 696 when he's in the clouds and his only other source of position information is a VOR CDI. So when I'm flying and teaching, I turn off the ships postion on an EFB for the approach phase, and on something like a 696 I leave it in a moving map mode as opposed to a CDI mode. IT make it easier to focus on the certified systems.

I don't know about what displays on the iPad but Jeppview flight deck definitely displays the ships position on the approach charts and runway diagrams but not on the SIDS and STARS. I don't see how you could possibly even attempt to fly an approach using it, though. It's just a reference. This is what it looks like.

 

[poadeleted20]

BTW FAA AC No: 120-76A allows the use of portables enroute and approach phases of flight.

José

As an EFB, yes, but not as a navigational instrument.

 

[Piloto]

As an EFB, yes, but not as a navigational instrument.

But it definitely improves your situational awareness, specially during a missed approach procedure. Try that with an HSI alone and your hands are full switching frequencies and the HSI CRS. Not to mention your entry at a holding waypoint. Thats the beauty of showing your position on the approach plate, you just fly to where you need to without fumbling with the HSI.

José

 

[poadeleted21]

But it definitely improves your situational awareness, specially during a missed approach procedure. Try that with an HSI alone and your hands are full switching frequencies and the HSI CRS. Not to mention your entry at a holding waypoint. Thats the beauty of showing your position on the approach plate, you just fly to where you need to without fumbling with the HSI.

José

 

[TMetzinger]

I don't know about what displays on the iPad but Jeppview flight deck definitely displays the ships position on the approach charts and runway diagrams but not on the SIDS and STARS. I don't see how you could possibly even attempt to fly an approach using it, though. It's just a reference. This is what it looks like.

Mari, is that a display on a portable device?
JeppView is frankly better than the ones using NACO charts, as Jepp does georef their stuff properly - I've never seen a GPS position look "off" on Jeppview.

As for navigating with it... well you'd be surprised how people behave, is all I'll say. When they have a CDI indicating they're left of the radial and the iPad indicating they're right of the radial (on a VOR approach), they believe the iPad. To be fair, I'm 99% certain it's a flaw in the geocoding for the particular plate, as it's been consistent every time we've flown that procedure, while on other procedures the ipad and CDI have agreed.

I'm gonna keep digging and see if I can find the guidance about showing ship's position.

 

[TMetzinger]

But it definitely improves your situational awareness, specially during a missed approach procedure. Try that with an HSI alone and your hands are full switching frequencies and the HSI CRS. Not to mention your entry at a holding waypoint. Thats the beauty of showing your position on the approach plate, you just fly to where you need to without fumbling with the HSI.

José

Watch out for the rocks, is all I'll say. You've proven my point. You're required to set and trust the HSI, with good reasons. If the EFB shows information that differs from the nav radio, which will you believe?

 

[Alexb2000]

Watch out for the rocks, is all I'll say. You've proven my point. You're required to set and trust the HSI, with good reasons. If the EFB shows information that differs from the nav radio, which will you believe?

My answer is neither, until I've triple checked everything, then the HSI. However, that is a huge often under valued aspect of a portable, it visually warns you of a possible problem. How many times have we all fat fingered the HSI? Those of us still here probably caught it, but it really gives you pause.

In a world where we can have Geo-Ref approach plates on an IPAD with 3 meter accuracy for $150 a year, its crazy not to have it.

 

[TMetzinger]

My answer is neither, until I've triple checked everything, then the HSI. However, that is a huge often under valued aspect of a portable, it visually warns you of a possible problem. How many times have we all fat fingered the HSI? Those of us still here probably caught it, but it really gives you pause.

In a world where we can have Geo-Ref approach plates on an IPAD with 3 meter accuracy for $150 a year, its crazy not to have it.

See some of the other posts on just how accurately Geo-Ref'd those plates are.

 

[Alexb2000]

See some of the other posts on just how accurately Geo-Ref'd those plates are.

All I can say is using an IPAD, foreflight, and a Bad Elf GPS. I've been impressed by the accuracy. Point still remains, it's a good failsafe (even if it's off and just makes you recheck the HSI), and a cheap one IMO.

 

[Everskyward]

Mari, is that a display on a portable device?
JeppView is frankly better than the ones using NACO charts, as Jepp does georef their stuff properly - I've never seen a GPS position look "off" on Jeppview.

As for navigating with it... well you'd be surprised how people behave, is all I'll say. When they have a CDI indicating they're left of the radial and the iPad indicating they're right of the radial (on a VOR approach), they believe the iPad. To be fair, I'm 99% certain it's a flaw in the geocoding for the particular plate, as it's been consistent every time we've flown that procedure, while on other procedures the ipad and CDI have agreed.

I'm gonna keep digging and see if I can find the guidance about showing ship's position.

The display pictured is in the panel. It's one of several displays which can be selected for that screen. The AFM clearly states that it is not to be used for navigation. I've seen the ship's position a little off on the taxi diagrams but I can't comment on the accuracy of the approach charts because I don't use them to stay on course. I would find that very difficult and counterintuitive, even harder than trying to stay on the magenta line which I have no inclination to do either.

 

[flyingron]

That's odd... The iPad flight desk only shows georef on the taxi charts. I use foreflight for that with the NACOs but I have the ChartView Jepp plates in the MX20.