What are the Necessary IFR Navaid Instruments in 2020???

[MauleSkinner]

Have you tried flying a box-of-hammers approach in a crosswind?

The only place that doesn’t happen is a simulator.

 

[Maas885]

I'm wondering what avionics is needed to make my 182Q qualified to use for a IFR Checkride?

 

[TCABM]

I'm wondering what avionics is needed to make my 182Q qualified to use for a IFR Checkride?

What make you think it isn’t?

 

[Maas885]

What make you think it isn’t?

What make you think it isn’t?

?

 

[TCABM]

?

What instruments and systems checks are required for flight in IMC or under IFR?

 

[tsts4]

The equipment necessary to fly the available approaches in your area that fulfill the ACS requirements.

 

[Maas885]

I'm more asking what I would need to do to my 182Q to make it IFR Check Ride capable. Haven't started IFR training yet but want to get it ready to do so. Just because its IFR capable doesn't mean it has the Avionics need for a IFR check ride. Could I just put a Garmin GPS 175 In or would I also need to add like a Bendix/King KX 155 with Glide slope and another HSI/CDI? Just trying to get an idea, as I'm just starting to dig into it.

 

[Maas885]

It had its IFR cert when I bought the 182Q but it's very primitive Avionics and non WAAS. Defiantly needs updating and am looking for an idea of where to start with out spending 100k on redoing the whole panel. Just want to be able to eventually be able to take my IFR check ride in it and have a decent platform to stay proficient with. Not looking to fly hard IFR days. Thanks for any help!

 

[tsts4]

Looks to me you have the equipment, assuming it all works, to do the training and take a checkride. However, if I was you I’d replace the 90 with a WAAS box—Garmin GNC 355 or GPS 175. In any event I’d also sit down with your CFII and have him/her go over your questions and chart out a path.

 

[Maas885]

Looks to me you have the equipment, assuming it all works, to do the training and take a checkride. However, if I was you I’d replace the 90 with a WAAS box—Garmin GNC 355 or GPS 175. In any event I’d also sit down with your CFII and have him/her go over your questions and chart out a path.

Thanks! Would I need a second HSI/CDI with glide slope too? Is the GPS 175 capable of precision and Non precision approaches or will the radios I have handle what a Garmin GPS 175 won't do?

 

[tsts4]

Thanks! Would I need a second HSI/CDI with glide slope too? Is the GPS 175 capable of precision and Non precision approaches or will the radios I have handle what a Garmin GPS 175 won't do?

Your radios give you ILS (precision approach) and LOC/VOR (non-precision approach) capability—plenty for your checkride. The 175 will also give you LPV (technically not a precision approach but will count as a precision approach per the ACS on a checkride as long as the DA is low enough) and of course GPS non-precision approach capability. My recommendation to replace your 90 is more about practical IFR utilization of the NAS after you get your ticket— WAAS will do that.

 

[Maas885]

Your radios give you ILS (precision approach) and LOC/VOR (non-precision approach) capability—plenty for your checkride. The 175 will also give you LPV (technically not a precision approach but will count as a precision approach per the ACS on a checkride as long as the DA is low enough) and of course GPS non-precision approach capability. My recommendation to replace your 90 is more about practical IFR utilization of the NAS after you get your ticket— WAAS will do that.

Thanks for the Help, tsts4! I sure do appreciate it. I'm going to do some more looking in to the Garmin GPS-175. That's probably what I'll go with. Would there be any benefit in putting a nice used GNS430W or GNS530W over the GPS-175?

 

[Pinecone]

A 430 or 530 (or Avidyne) would give you GPS and VOR/ILS and Com in one box, and visual guidance for all types of approaches. MUCH easier to maintain situation awareness with one.

First time I shot an approach with a 430, I thought that a 5 year old could do this.

 

[asicer]

Would there be any benefit in putting a nice used GNS430W or GNS530W over the GPS-175?

Looks like the SL30 is your only VOR/LOC/ILS radio. A GNS will give you a second one in case of a failure. On the other hand, the GNS is a lot less repairable and is on the verge of going obsolete. But other than the NAVCOM the GPS175/GNX375/GNC355 is way more modern and even easier to fly.

 

[brcase]

I agree if it all works and the KLN90 is IFR certified and you can update the database you could do your instrument training with what you have.
But there would be a fair amount of benefit to training with a more modern GPS like the GPS175/GNX375/GNC355 series and a lot of benefit if you actually fly IFR.
I don't think I would invest in a 430, if you wanted to go that route I would recommend springing for at least a 650. The 430's are just to old with limited support, and 1/2 the cost is the installation labor which is about the same for a new unit or a used unit. Now that math might change if you are able to get it installed for minimal cost, like being able to do it yourself, or supervised.
The concern I would have is that with any of the GPS upgrades is if the the HSI/CDI is reusable with them, I am going to guess it is not and you may need CDI also. Might be a good excuse to get a G5. Or might also be a good excuse to go with the 650 ie. able to use only one CDI. . But then it is easy for us to spend other peoples money

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

 

[luvflyin]

I'm doing a lot of research online, and I'm new BTW. I'm finding lots of new and older material to learn from for free before I start a tab with the pros. Makes me look sharp.

Thing is that I think some of the instruments used and explained in the free online archives are out of use on the planes these days or going out of use. It may be useful to learn how to use them all since who knows what's going to be in every plane or airport, eh.

Which instruments going out of service these days, and what's the absolutely necessary to fly with for approach/depart? Thanks

Here’s the rule:
(2) Two-way radio communication and navigation equipment suitable for the route to be flown.

Here’s a route where all you would need is ADF.
KEYW FIS B646 MTH KMTH

 

[schmookeeg]

Just because its IFR capable doesn't mean it has the Avionics need for a IFR check ride.

Hmmm? What examiner is going to pooh-pooh an IFR capable plane for an IFR checkride?

That panel has more than my plane had (2 navs, one Glideslope, DME -- high falutin' ) when I did my IR ride in 2008.

 

[asicer]

The concern I would have is that with any of the GPS upgrades is if the the HSI/CDI is reusable with them, I am going to guess it is not and you may need CDI also.

The HSI looks like a King 525 so I'd guess that it would work with a GPS upgrade. I'd also guess that it is currently hooked up to the SL30, which brings us back to square one.

 

[Steamflyer]

All the GPS can output the signals needed by the King HSI since it was the standard for several decades. The plane in question is IFR capable and check ride worthy (assuming the KLN90 is up to date). You can shoot a non-precision GPS and VOR approach, and a precision ILS.

Nice panel, a 175 or 650 in place of the KLN90 would make life much easier and bring you WAAS. Since ILS precision approaches are getting far and few between, the utility of the airplane will greatly increase with a WAAS GPS.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Here’s the rule:
(2) Two-way radio communication and navigation equipment suitable for the route to be flown.

Here’s a route where all you would need is ADF.
KEYW FIS B646 MTH KMTH

But perhaps only until the next time FIS or MTH goes OTS?

 

[pfarber]

I've heard and read that statement several times from various folks, including a local CFI. In a plane w/out an approved panel GPS navigator, but in a plane only equipped with a single VOR/CDI/GS, wouldn't an ILS, a LOC, and a VOR approach meet the "three different types of approaches" requirement for the checkride and currency? I'm not suggesting that a plane so equipped would be ideal for actual useful IMC flight as VORs are increasingly decommisioned and GPS approaches increasingly become the norm, but couldn't one at least complete the training and checkride for an IR?

Asking for a friend...

Are you saying that a VOR is just going to be turned off mid flight with no notice?

 

[pfarber]

you

All the GPS can output the signals needed by the King HSI since it was the standard for several decades. The plane in question is IFR capable and check ride worthy (assuming the KLN90 is up to date). You can shoot a non-precision GPS and VOR approach, and a precision ILS.

Nice panel, a 175 or 650 in place of the KLN90 would make life much easier and bring you WAAS. Since ILS precision approaches are getting far and few between, the utility of the airplane will greatly increase with a WAAS GPS.

Anything WAAS is gonna be $5k plus install. A KLN can be had for $1500 and installed for a few hundred more.

Does that extra $4-6k add that much value for PPL that might see 100hours of flying a year?

 

[Steamflyer]

you

Anything WAAS is gonna be $5k plus install. A KLN can be had for $1500 and installed for a few hundred more.

Does that extra $4-6k add that much value for PPL that might see 100hours of flying a year?

Yes, the 175 (lower end of the dollar amount) brings a tremendous amount of utility compared to a KLN94. The latter can only do non-precision approaches. In many places the difference may be only a few hundred feet, but it won't drive the vertical guidance at all, even to the higher minimums of an LNAV approach if I recall correctly.

With a WAAS receiver you get nearly ILS performance at pretty much every paved airport > 3500' in the country. With an ILS only you'll find many times lately the glide slope is out of service anyhow. I had to go to a bravo field just to test a recent install in a major metro area that advertises numerous other ILS approaches. So the enroute utility is diminished greatly IMHO having only an ILS for precision approaches in a light GA airplane.

 

[mandm]

I’m not familiar with your GPS but it looks like you already have what you need.

VOR is rarely used it seems but you have that for VOR approaches.

You have your GPS with the annu. lights, so you can use that for RNAV? You’re not going to be shooting approaches to 200 feet but that’s fine, in my opinion flying to an airport with LIFR 200-500’ ceilings is dangerous, you’d need to spend a TON more to get it where it needs to be to fly that (autopilot gps radios transponder etc). You can do approaches with higher minimums and if weather is spotty around your airport only you can always special VFR inbound.

I would use your current GPS to keep you legal and use foreflight or even buy a portable gps like a Garmin Aera for situational awareness, be sure you have adsb in and out as well. That combo will go a long way until you’re ready for a faster? airplane.

 

[tee]

Looks like the SL30 is your only VOR/LOC/ILS radio. A GNS will give you a second one in case of a failure. On the other hand, the GNS is a lot less repairable and is on the verge of going obsolete. But other than the NAVCOM the GPS175/GNX375/GNC355 is way more modern and even easier to fly.

I use GTN 650 which provides bot precision and none precision. I have it connected to my PortaPilot autopilot. Very easy to manage since all is transparent, and fewer steps required. You don’t need to have a source switch nor GPSS as to do with the old autopilot.

 

[RyanB]

If you don’t have WAAS you’ve limited yourself tenfold.

I’d want at minimum:
A glide slope
WAAS GPS
2-axis autopilot

If you’re going to fly IFR, you can’t go without the above mentioned tools imho.

 

[Steamflyer]

If you don’t have WAAS you’ve limited yourself tenfold.

I’d want at minimum:
A glide slope
WAAS GPS
2-axis autopilot

If you’re going to fly IFR, you can’t go without the above mentioned tools imho.

Even a 1-axis (wing leveler) is a tremendous boon in IMC/cross-country flying. Went from a 2-axis coupled autopilot in one aircraft to a wing leveler in a current one. Initially thought it was barely worth having, turns out it's about 85% of all the autopilot one needs if current and proficient.

Completely agree that in 2024, not having a WAAS receiver and accompanying glideslope is a serious handicap to utility of the plane.

 

[Ventucky Red]

In answer to the OP question, upgrade to a GPS and convert vacuum instruments to electronic (digital) ones.

To put it in reference, I learned at an airport with an ILS, three different VORs, and a NDB approach. There were two planes I mainly used for training, and I used one of them for the check ride. I was very proficient with those approaches and keeping my Jepps binder current...

That was 30 years ago.

The little scooter I just got was IFR "practice" capable for ILS and VOR approaches; however, our airport is a.) will be shutting down the VOR approach (even though from what I have been told, Pt. Mugu NAS/DOD demanded they keep the CMA, FIM, and VTU VORs in operation), b.) Well below VOR minimums when we are in marine layer season.

Hence, I need to use GPS to fly on semi-snottie days.

As for the equipment, many recommended me: "If you upgrade to a GPS, you may as well go with a digital flight instrument (G5, AV-30, 275, Avidyne, etc....). Before doing so, I flew in a few planes with these configurations and was sold. I can't believe I held on to my Luddite ways for so long. Now, I am like a kid waiting for Christmas morning.

 

[tee]

All the GPS can output the signals needed by the King HSI since it was the standard for several decades. The plane in question is IFR capable and check ride worthy (assuming the KLN90 is up to date). You can shoot a non-precision GPS and VOR approach, and a precision ILS.

Nice panel, a 175 or 650 in place of the KLN90 would make life much easier and bring you WAAS. Since ILS precision approaches are getting far and few between, the utility of the airplane will greatly increase with a WAAS GPS.

Agree, WASS GPS units are very accurate. I’m amazed at the lateral accuracy of the PortaPilot (AP) it typically brings my C172M to within 60 feet of the center line at the DA, be it ILS/LOC or RNAV. It relies on a WASS GTN 650. Can’t think of any other autopilot that is this accurate.

 

[pfarber]

Yes, the 175 (lower end of the dollar amount) brings a tremendous amount of utility compared to a KLN94. The latter can only do non-precision approaches. In many places the difference may be only a few hundred feet, but it won't drive the vertical guidance at all, even to the higher minimums of an LNAV approach if I recall correctly.

With a WAAS receiver you get nearly ILS performance at pretty much every paved airport > 3500' in the country. With an ILS only you'll find many times lately the glide slope is out of service anyhow. I had to go to a bravo field just to test a recent install in a major metro area that advertises numerous other ILS approaches. So the enroute utility is diminished greatly IMHO having only an ILS for precision approaches in a light GA airplane.

"734 WAAS LP approaches to 734 runways at 537 airports—most of which do not have ILS."

there are over 14,000 airports in the USA. WAAS assisted approaches is only applicable to 537.

spending a few thousand dollars for a 200 or so foot lower decision altitude does not take into account the proficiency and the skill of the pilot. Good ADM is that, good ADM

 

[tsts4]

"734 WAAS LP approaches to 734 runways at 537 airports—most of which do not have ILS."

there are over 14,000 airports in the USA. WAAS assisted approaches is only applicable to 537.

spending a few thousand dollars for a 200 or so foot lower decision altitude does not take into account the proficiency and the skill of the pilot. Good ADM is that, good ADM

Where'd you get that WAAS is applicable to only 537 approaches? Every LPV approach is WAAS enabled and there are way more than 537 GPS RNAV approaches out there with LPV minima.

 

[Steamflyer]

"734 WAAS LP approaches to 734 runways at 537 airports—most of which do not have ILS."

there are over 14,000 airports in the USA. WAAS assisted approaches is only applicable to 537.

spending a few thousand dollars for a 200 or so foot lower decision altitude does not take into account the proficiency and the skill of the pilot. Good ADM is that, good ADM

That seems like a number almost related to the number of certificated fields with scheduled service (from memory it's in the mid-500s, though of dominated by some 30-40 principal airports of course, which do also have ILS).

Here is the actual status of runways with LPV (the lowest minima approach using WAAS) in 2023 from the FAA:

"WAAS LPVs Outnumber Category I ILS Approaches Within the U.S.
As of April 20, 2023, there are 4,119 LPVs serving 1,998 airports, 1,238 are non-ILS airports. The FAA is adding more new WAAS procedures each year."

https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/WAAS_QFacts_04202023.pdf

WAAS is a very useful thing to have. Note that the 14,000 airports figure is roughly the number of charted airports, the majority of which are private use, and can range from a nice 5000' runway (rare) to a 1000-2000' grass strip (mostly what this number is, and often not in use anymore).

 

[kontiki]

Honestly, it depends on how big you are, what your operating rules are and in who's airspace you are want to operate in. CFR part 91 tells everyone what they need on the airplane to operate in US airspace. If operating under 135 and 121 and you have a lot of seats, for example, there are more certification rules and additional airplane requirements. Are you going to operate at RVSM altitudes? Are you going to need Cat2 & 3 Autoland? If you want to fly in EASA airspace, they may have additional rules. Are you going to need 8.33MHz spacing on your VFR radios or can you get away with 25MHz. Then there is ETOPS! Depending on how you operate you might need HF and/or SATCOM. There's mandates for different versions of TCAS and if you need TCAS you need Mode S with ADS-B not sure all continents are need ADS-B to DO-260B, some used to accept DO-260A. I know this probably isn't what the OP was looking for, but every time I try to get my head around the whole enchilada it blows my mind.

 

[kontiki]

Trying to reel it back just a bit, most of the standard terms a pilot is familiar with for identifying equipment in a cockpit are not effectively defined in a Websters dictionary. The FAA attourneys really don't want the FAA tech folks making the FARs any more unreadable than they already are with a bunch of technical terminology too.

So when the FAA refers to a device it will usually tell you what the Type Specification Order (TSO) requirement is. TSOs often point to other industry and specification groups. TSOs are especially important when equipment on your airplane has to interact with equipment on other airplanes or with ATC. Somtimes it's a simple accuracy requirement. The Airman Information Manual (AIM) identifies some TSO requirements. Sometimes they are listed in the FARs. What you really need to know are the TSO requirements for your operation. When a manufacturer demonstrates their equipment meets the necessary requirements they are allowed to put the TSO number on the device data plate.

At a large airline there are typically flight ops and engineering groups that track the requirements and ensure the airplanes are properly equipped to support operations that support the business model. There are also records groups that maintain the required modification records, as well as AD compliance and MX records. That responsibility falls to the owner/operator for someone that owns and operates their own airplane. Learning all the configuration management rules and keeping good records can be a lot of work. I am talking about Certificated airplanes here. I don't keep up with rules for Experimentals at all.