What do YOU consider minimum in an IFR panel?

jsstevens

jsstevens

Final Approach
PoA Supporter
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
6,809
Display Name
Display name:
jsstevens
I'm sure this question will generate many different opinions. And folks do very different types of IFR flying.

But if you're going to do the flying you want, what do you feel you _need_ in the panel for IFR? And what type of IFR flying is that? (Minimum approaches, hours of hard IMC, punching through the occasional overcast layer, serious travel...)

I'm working on my IR now (currently working through the ground school material) and realizing that the trainer I currently have access to is not equipped for anything beyond punching through an occasional overcast (if that). It is certified, but has one VOR (non-flip-flop), no glide slope, two com radios, an out of date GPS (non-certified even if it had a current database) and an inoperative ADF.

I'm interested in the collective wisdom as I consider changing clubs, partnership or whatever to not only train, but use the rating.

John
 
If it meets the legal requirements for IFR flight in 91.205 and I have a portable GPS for backup, I'll fly just about anything. The one exception is that if it has a Venturi vacuum system vs an attached pump (like my personal airplane), I use the departure airport circling mins for my departure mins.
 
Besides the required ie clock w/ sweep second hand ( I much prefer digital for approaches) my personal minimums would be 2 nav/coms and corresponding OBS heads one with GS and an approach capable IFR GPS.

I know you can fly IFR with less but for example my field only has GPS approaches.
 
AdamZ said:
Besides the required ie clock w/ sweep second hand ( I much prefer digital for approaches) my personal minimums would be 2 nav/coms and corresponding OBS heads one with GS and an approach capable IFR GPS.

I know you can fly IFR with less but for example my field only has GPS approaches.
Click to expand...

This is very much in line with my thoughts. I'd prefer 2 GS enabled heads, but 1 would work.

John
 
If I'm flying passengers, bare minimum:
2 Nav/Comm with 1 GS:
Working Autopilot that will hold a heading.

Would much prefer to add:
IFR GPS (enroute and approach)
Two-Axis autopilot.
 
jsstevens said:
This is very much in line with my thoughts. I'd prefer 2 GS enabled heads, but 1 would work.

John
Click to expand...

TMetzinger said:
If I'm flying passengers, bare minimum:
2 Nav/Comm with 1 GS:
Working Autopilot that will hold a heading.

Would much prefer to add:
IFR GPS (enroute and approach)
Two-Axis autopilot.
Click to expand...


Well John you asked about minimum requirments. That is VERY different from what I'd prefer.
 
My biggest limitation with the airplane I have is the lack of either ADF or DME. I have 2 nav comm with one GS.. but without ADF or DME I'm not legal for many ILS/LOC approaches, including the one at my home field. Even though I have 2 VFR GPSs on board and I know exactly where that damn NDB is.

So, I would say at minimum i'd like

2 nav/comm - 1 GS
ADF

^ the above equipment is relatively cheap and you have a lot of approaches open to you.

Autopilot is not on the list. It would be in a complex and fast aircraft but I don't seem to have trouble keeping well ahead of a 152 or PA-28.
 
Last edited:
The legal mins for IFR flight are essentially one VHF comm transceiver and one VOR nav receiver. Yes, it's theoretically possible to fly IFR without a nav radio, but the FAA Counsel has made clear that this would be an invitation for legal trouble -- getting a clearance consisting entirely of radar vectors may not be possible, not to mention what happens if you lose comm or they lose radar.

In addition, for the IFR training and practical test, the plane must be equipped for a precision (i.e., ILS -- VOR/LOC with GS) or precision-like (i.e., WAAS GPS with LPV) approach. Also, you'll find instrument training much easier with a second VOR (unless you enjoy partial-panel single-VOR holds at an intersection).

Also, IFR without a transponder, while legal, is not very practical and will not make controllers happy (especially in busy airspace). While they can't stop you (other than in the DC SFRA), they can really make you wish you hadn't tried it.

Beyond that, my personal minimum is two comms, two navs (one with GS or LPV), and transponder. One of the navs might be an IFR GPS rather than a second VOR, but I want to know that one fried transistor won't make me deaf, dumb, and/or blind. That's also a pretty good minimum for comfortable IR training.

That said, with the disappearing NDB's and proliferation of RNAV(GPS) approaches, an IFR GPS is rapidly becoming a near-necessity for practical IFR flying in many areas. For that reason, a Garmin 430 (or better) as the #1 radio is becoming nearly ubiquitous (over 100,000 430/530 units sold), and a major issue for aircraft buyers. These days, I can't imagine redoing a panel for IFR use without an IFR GPS somewhere in the stack. By the same token, I can't see putting an ADF and/or DME in a panel that doesn't have one -- an IFR GPS will be a far better choice than either or both in that situation.
 
Last edited:
This is going to generate a lot of differing oppinions. It does depend on not only the type of IFR but the importance of the trips and the type of airplane. Some of the lists here I would be nervous doing touch and goes. OK, I am being sarcastic.
If I am going to do serious IFR and want to be able to fly in a large per centage of weather then I would need a little more than has been listed. In the Cheyenne I have the following which I consider adaquate. Dual WAAS GPS which solves the dual comm issue. I could live with the single GPS with a good modern flip flop #2. I have dual HSI's one electronic, one mechanical. I want a 3 axis auto pilot with altitude pre select. I can do without the Y/D but the third axis is nice. XM weather and on board radar (on board is a no go item). Of course dual Xponders. Important (not esential) items that I also have are GPSS, air data computer, traffic. So as you see it does depend on your mission. Rest of the equipment is just "nice to have".
 
Most of our cargo fleet is still /A. IFR minimum equipment with DME, and another NAV/COM is about what we have. Sometimes not even a heading bug on the DG. I am totally ok with that. Flying everyday helps the confidence.
 
Given an IFR legal airplane, for me as a non-professional pilot I need a heading following autopilot or a copilot if I expect anything beyond the most modest IMC.
 
Fearless Tower said:
That right there is probably the biggest factor in flying with min equipment. If you are proficient, you will be much more comfortable with minimum equipment.
Click to expand...

Yep, all year round we fly to a lot of places and shoot approaches down to mins, departures with 1/2 mile vis so we never really get IFR rusty. Hell there are a few airports we frequent that only have an NDB approach. Wanna talk about hardcore, shoot an NDB down to mins in Montana while picking up a bunch of ice lol.
 
I find it interesting to see comments about autopilots being part of personal IFR mins considering that you are required to demonstrate hand flown approaches to get an IR in the first place.

Autopilots are wonderful tools and I certainly use them whenever available. But my personal rule is that if I am not comfortable hand flying the airplane in the soup in the first place....I shouldn't be flying in the soup.
 
If I'm flying myself, I don't insist on an autopilot. But I think an autopilot (or a copilot) increases safety, and I would insist on it when flying passengers in IMC.

These are my rules. I make them up.
 
I could care less about an autopilot, they are nice to have so I can fill out paperwork more easily, but I know I can fly as well, or better than any autopilot in the airplane. Plus most of our planes don't have them so it doesn't matter lol.
 
In my oppinion there are no better pilots than a freight dog that has survived for 5 years or more. When I hired a baby sitter when I first started flying the Cheyenne I searched out a freight dog that also had lots of turbine hours. I did not give a flip if he was a CFI. They can and do fly anything, anywhere in any kind of weather.
Fearless, I have to demonstrate hand flying every year in sim training. However they encourage use of the AP. If I have to finish a flight hand flying with a failed AP I can and have. However it is a required item for me to launch IFR. I have no idea what kind of aircraft you fly but as they get faster and the weather gets worse the single pilot will rely more and more on "George". Bite you off three hours in the soup, light to moderate turblance followed by an approach to near minimums then see how important an AP is. As always, JMO.
 
Ron Levy said:
The legal mins for IFR flight are essentially one VHF comm transceiver and one VOR nav receiver. Yes, it's theoretically possible to fly IFR without a nav radio, but the FAA Counsel has made clear that this would be an invitation for legal trouble -- getting a clearance consisting entirely of radar vectors may not be possible, not to mention what happens if you lose comm or they lose radar.

In addition, for the IFR training and practical test, the plane must be equipped for a precision (i.e., ILS -- VOR/LOC with GS) or precision-like (i.e., WAAS GPS with LPV) approach. Also, you'll find instrument training much easier with a second VOR (unless you enjoy partial-panel single-VOR holds at an intersection).

Also, IFR without a transponder, while legal, is not very practical and will not make controllers happy (especially in busy airspace). While they can't stop you (other than in the DC SFRA), they can really make you wish you hadn't tried it.

Beyond that, my personal minimum is two comms, two navs (one with GS or LPV), and transponder. One of the navs might be an IFR GPS rather than a second VOR, but I want to know that one fried transistor won't make me deaf, dumb, and/or blind. That's also a pretty good minimum for comfortable IR training.

That said, with the disappearing NDB's and proliferation of RNAV(GPS) approaches, an IFR GPS is rapidly becoming a near-necessity for practical IFR flying in many areas. For that reason, a Garmin 430 (or better) as the #1 radio is becoming nearly ubiquitous (over 100,000 430/530 units sold), and a major issue for aircraft buyers. These days, I can't imagine redoing a panel for IFR use without an IFR GPS somewhere in the stack. By the same token, I can't see putting an ADF and/or DME in a panel that doesn't have one -- an IFR GPS will be a far better choice than either or both in that situation.
Click to expand...

This is a good thread. I have been getting quotes the last couple of weeks to upgrade the panel on my PA28 140. I want start IFR training, as well. Currently I have mostly old junk in the panel and I don't want to over invest in a $25,000 airplane (although a well maintained one). I can't see installing a 430, it is just too much money for a trainer. A friend has a used KNS-80 that has been yellow tagged and has VOR/LOC/DME/GS all in one. I have another VOR without GS or LOC and two working COMs. It seems to me that, while this will not be good for hard core IFR, it will serve its purpose as a trainer (I also have a 496 on the yoke for safety).
 
Attitude Indicator, T&B, Glideslope/Localizer, Standard VOR, flip flop or dual radios, digital timer.
 

Attachments

  • C140PanelNoTail.JPG
    C140PanelNoTail.JPG
    90.9 KB · Views: 28
John221us said:
This is a good thread. I have been getting quotes the last couple of weeks to upgrade the panel on my PA28 140. I want start IFR training, as well. Currently I have mostly old junk in the panel and I don't want to over invest in a $25,000 airplane (although a well maintained one). I can't see installing a 430, it is just too much money for a trainer. A friend has a used KNS-80 that has been yellow tagged and has VOR/LOC/DME/GS all in one. I have another VOR without GS or LOC and two working COMs. It seems to me that, while this will not be good for hard core IFR, it will serve its purpose as a trainer (I also have a 496 on the yoke for safety).
Click to expand...


There are so many people going to glass panels and modern avionics, that I understand there is lots of good used avionics in the back room at the avionics shops that can be had cheap.
 
John221us said:
This is a good thread. I have been getting quotes the last couple of weeks to upgrade the panel on my PA28 140. I want start IFR training, as well. Currently I have mostly old junk in the panel and I don't want to over invest in a $25,000 airplane (although a well maintained one). I can't see installing a 430, it is just too much money for a trainer. A friend has a used KNS-80 that has been yellow tagged and has VOR/LOC/DME/GS all in one. I have another VOR without GS or LOC and two working COMs. It seems to me that, while this will not be good for hard core IFR, it will serve its purpose as a trainer (I also have a 496 on the yoke for safety).
Click to expand...

Why does an individual who is not selling training own 'a trainer'? Upgrading airplanes is even more expensive than upgrading panels.
 
ronnieh said:
I have no idea what kind of aircraft you fly but as they get faster and the weather gets worse the single pilot will rely more and more on "George". Bite you off three hours in the soup, light to moderate turblance followed by an approach to near minimums then see how important an AP is. As always, JMO.
Click to expand...
Cessna 170 to a DC-3 and all types of singles and twins with pistons in between.

Totally agree that A/Ps cut down on the workload and if given a choice, I'll take an A/P, but again, if I am not completely comfortable hand flying it if the A/P fails - I don't think I should be launching in the first place. I have seen way too many pilots who take off, turn on George and are just along for the ride.
 
MBDiagMan said:
There are so many people going to glass panels and modern avionics, that I understand there is lots of crap avionics in the back room at the avionics shops that can be had cheap.
Click to expand...

FTFY:rolleyes: All the good stuff still fetches a pretty penny and the installation costs are completely modern regardless of what you buy.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Cessna 170 to a DC-3 and all types of singles and twins with pistons in between.

Totally agree that A/Ps cut down on the workload and if given a choice, I'll take an A/P, but again, if I am not completely comfortable hand flying it if the A/P fails - I don't think I should be launching in the first place. I have seen way too many pilots who take off, turn on George and are just along for the ride.
Click to expand...

I'll take SVT for workload reduction over A/P any day.
 
Henning said:
Why does an individual who is not selling training own 'a trainer'? Upgrading airplanes is even more expensive than upgrading panels.
Click to expand...

I originally bought the plane, when I had about 10 hours. I bought it to finish my ticket and I expected to trade-up shortly thereafter. Due to circumstances, involving a divorce and some business ups and downs, this became a more distant possibility. I still enjoy my plane and maybe I shouldn't refer to it as a trainer (if that is the offending word). I now have about 200 hours and would really like to start my IFR training, but my panel is not really up to it. I fly a fair amount for business and probably could use a little more airplane, but it is not in the cards. Nor is a $16,000 panel upgrade (what I was looking at to go with the 430 and fix the shotgun panel). Instead, I am looking at doing the minimum and hopefully keeping it under $5,000.
 
Henning, I have no experience with SVT but, I suspect you are correct.
 
John221us said:
This is a good thread. I have been getting quotes the last couple of weeks to upgrade the panel on my PA28 140. I want start IFR training, as well. Currently I have mostly old junk in the panel and I don't want to over invest in a $25,000 airplane (although a well maintained one). I can't see installing a 430, it is just too much money for a trainer. A friend has a used KNS-80 that has been yellow tagged and has VOR/LOC/DME/GS all in one. I have another VOR without GS or LOC and two working COMs. It seems to me that, while this will not be good for hard core IFR, it will serve its purpose as a trainer (I also have a 496 on the yoke for safety).
Click to expand...


John, I would have loved to put a 430/530 in my plane but knowing that I'm just the temporary care taker of it until I get my ratings, I simply couldn't put the money it it. I snooped around and finally landed a complete transplant KLN89B IFR system and a KY197 to go with my existing KX155, I pulled an old KX170B and pulled the KR86. All in all I got the IFR setup and a decent flip flop comm installed for less than the aquisition cost of a 430, all in all it was installed for about 3K. If I were keeping my plane I'd put an aspen and a GTN in it, my next plane will have that. I'd recommend a lower end GPS over a KNS80. The 89B isn't that bad, I actually like it.
 
Last edited:
Yes Fearless, synthetic vision technology. In reference to your earlier post remember the OP asked for min equipment for "your kind of flying". My kind of flying is different than others. The guy in the Lear is going to have different needs than the guy in the 140. Many jets have dual AP's because the AP is required equipment, can't launch with out working AP and they have two pilots a lot of the time. Single pilot 135 requires a functioning AP. Different missions different equipment.
 
Fearless Tower said:
I find it interesting to see comments about autopilots being part of personal IFR mins considering that you are required to demonstrate hand flown approaches to get an IR in the first place.

Autopilots are wonderful tools and I certainly use them whenever available. But my personal rule is that if I am not comfortable hand flying the airplane in the soup in the first place....I shouldn't be flying in the soup.
Click to expand...
AMEN! As it says in the IR PTS:

Satisfactory Performance​
Satisfactory performance to meet the requirements for certification is
based on the applicant’s ability to safely:
...
5. Demonstrate single-pilot competence if the aircraft is type​
certificated for single-pilot operations.
Click to expand...
...including a handflown ILS/LPV to mins and a hand-flown partial-panel nonprecision approach to mins. If you can't do both without an autopilot, you don't meet the standards, and you should get yourself trained up to where you can before you go SPIFR again, because you never know when George is going to decide he's done for the day.
 
ronnieh said:
Henning, I have no experience with SVT but, I suspect you are correct.
Click to expand...
I do, and I think he's wrong. SVT does not reduce the fatigue factor; an a/p does. If you're flying professionally in a single-pilot environment, fatigue is what gets you when you fly leg after leg after leg in a single day. If you're flying for fun and want to get somewhere, 8 hours of keeping the airplane straight and level in a single day leaves you exhausted, and SVT doesn't fix that, either. Finally, SVT doesn't keep the airplane upright and on course while you're dealing with other tasks such as charts, flight logs, or pubs, or trying to copy ATIS or interpret holding instructions. I'll take a/p over SVT any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

I remember doing fill-in runs for Air Kentucky in the Aztec between Louisville, Owensboro, and Paducah. I'd max out my eight hours of flight time in 9-10 hours -- generally ended up making the jump from Standiford back to Bowman under Part 91 because my 135 hours were blown. Even on clear blue days, giving it to George at 3000 feet was a relief when flying six or more legs in one day all by myself, and that was when I was young and strong. Given the outside view, SVT wouldn't have made a drop of difference. Throw in weather and approaches, and the fatigue factor gets even worse.
 
Last edited:
bartmc said:
John, I would have loved to put a 430/530 in my plane but knowing that I'm just the temporary care taker of it until I get my ratings, I simply couldn't put the money it it. I snooped around and finally landed a complete transplant KLN89B IFR system and a KY197 to go with my existing KX155, I pulled an old KX170B and pulled the KR86. All in all I got the IFR setup and a decent flip flop comm installed for less than the aquisition cost of a 430, all in all it was installed for about 3K. If I were keeping my plane I'd put an aspen and a GTN in it, my next plane will have that. I'd recommend a lower end GPS over a KNS80. The 89B isn't that bad, I actually like it.
Click to expand...

An 89B is interesting. I haven't priced them. I have a friend who will sell me KNS-80 pretty cheap and it is already yellow tagged. The labor is going to be more expensive than the equipment.
 
John221us said:
I originally bought the plane, when I had about 10 hours. I bought it to finish my ticket and I expected to trade-up shortly thereafter. Due to circumstances, involving a divorce and some business ups and downs, this became a more distant possibility. I still enjoy my plane and maybe I shouldn't refer to it as a trainer (if that is the offending word). I now have about 200 hours and would really like to start my IFR training, but my panel is not really up to it. I fly a fair amount for business and probably could use a little more airplane, but it is not in the cards. Nor is a $16,000 panel upgrade (what I was looking at to go with the 430 and fix the shotgun panel). Instead, I am looking at doing the minimum and hopefully keeping it under $5,000.
Click to expand...


You do not have a trainer, you have a personal airplane, the only one you can afford for the foreseeable future. You cannot afford the plane you want. You can afford the equipment you want but you don't see a monetary return on your investment. So you will do a minimum upgrade to get the bare minimum required for IFR flight to finish your rating.

At this point one of two things are likely to happen. You won't be comfortable with IMC and minimum equipment and will upgrade some more, likely adding wasted money to the secondary upgrade process, or you will not be comfortable flying IMC with minimum equipment, not be able to afford the second upgrade and basically the money spent on the IR is largely wasted as well as the upgrade money you spent.

You could also opt as myself and many others including the US Air Force and Navy have to use an affordable good quality airframe and add the modern avionics to increase the modern service life of the aircraft.

Airframes can outlive multiple generations of avionics, engines and interiors each time making it a 'new plane' with regards to its capabilities. When comparing the 'new upgrade' aircraft to the competitive contemporary aircraft of the same abilities, the value becomes obvious as a bargain. That's why we have B-52s with glass panels with serial numbers that their grandfathers logged time in with old AN gyros.

The value of a personal aircraft is in what it can do for the owner, not how much he can sell it for.
 
John221us said:
An 89B is interesting. I haven't priced them. I have a friend who will sell me KNS-80 pretty cheap and it is already yellow tagged. The labor is going to be more expensive than the equipment.
Click to expand...
The KNS-80 doesn't bring a lot to the table. The RNAV(VOR/DME) approaches are few and disappearing rapidly, and you have to do a lot of plotter/chart work to use one over a distance. If you compare the difference in total installed cost for a KNS-80 versus a first-gen approach GPS like the KLN-89B, you'll see you get way more total bang with the GPS for not that much more total bucks.
 
Henning said:
You could also opt as myself and many others including the US Air Force and Navy have to use an affordable good quality airframe and add the modern avionics to increase the modern service life of the aircraft.
Click to expand...
...mostly out of necessity rather than choice, and never happily. They've also used the illusion of upgrading an existing airframe to hide the development of a new one, e.g., F/A-18E/F and C-130J. But their problems are very different than ours.
 
Ron Levy said:
...mostly out of necessity rather than choice, and never happily. They've also used the illusion of upgrading an existing airframe to hide the development of a new one, e.g., F/A-18E/F and C-130J. But their problems are very different than ours.
Click to expand...

Want expanded avionics capabilities, can't afford a whole new plane... hmmmm, sounds like the same problem too me.:dunno:
 
Ron, you make a very good point on the SVT. I guess I was thinking of the AP for approaches that the SVT woujld be as good or better. On rethinking I think you make a very valid point.
 
Physically flying is not fatiguing to me. Continually putting out the mental effort to maintain a high level of situational awareness, THAT is what is fatiguing to me. With SVT my situational awareness requires no thought, it's instant and pictorial. I have nothing against an AP, but I think SVT is a much greater safety value especially considering the record autopilots have on failing on me. Until just a few years ago, every plane I got in with an autopilot had it placarded 'INOP'. Then there is the cost of keeping these antiquated systems operational. The choices are limited ans now from the sounds of it since S-TEC got bought, the service on them is all third rate and exorbitantly expensive. That's why the AP got relegated to my second round of upgrades, the glass was the highest value.

Besides, if I want to be a passenger in the plane, I ride an airliner. Pilots FLY planes, autopilots are for those who don't trust themselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top