Re: Why Upgrade to Approach-Approved IFR GPS?

Download ForPilots Logbook today! Forpilots Logbook is the award-winning computerized logbook solution. The software features a simple, easy to use user interface that looks just like a paper logbook, but adds advanced statistics and reporting capabilities. Download ForPilots logbook for free!

Only two OPEARATIONAL advantages for an approach certified IFR GPS:

1.) Lower minima at many airports, especially those previously served only
with an off-airport NDB. Check Farmington, MO., for example.

2.) GPS only approaches at airports that were previously unserved by any
approach.

"Richard Kaplan" <rkaplan@umrpc.com> wrote in message
news:f8550f51.0203021635.7b072aaa@posting.google.com...
> I suspect this posting will generate quite a bit
> of discussion (perhaps mostly with a different viewpoint
> from mine).... but this question has come up enough times
> with pilots I have met that I think it would be worthwhile
> discussing in this forum.
>
> Until precision GPS approaches are approved, what operational
> advantage does one currently get from
> installing an IFR approach-approved GPS versus
> a handheld GPS? If one wants to be legal for direct
> navigation, how about an old KNS-80 RNAV unit plus
> a handheld GPS? Or a KNS-80 and dirt-cheap Loran?
>
>
> As a corollary to this question, suppose one is upgrading
> to IFR GPS a plane which already has a Loran... why remove
> the Loran if there is enough panel room? Is not Loran an
> excellent backup to GPS (yes, I know, "everyone" says
> Loran fails in bad weather, but in the real world it
> seems as if such failures are quite rare and certainly
> much less common than ADF problems near thunderstorms).
>
> As background to this, let me say that I otherwise
> fly a very well-equipped/capable P210: radar, Strikefinder,
> tubocharged, pressurized, TKS known-ice, KNS-80, Northstar M1
> Loran, Electric and Vacuum AI/DG, Fuel Totalizer, JPI 700
> engine analyzer. If there is anything missing that I am tempted to
> install in the plane, it is a panel-mount weather datalink system
> for NEXRAD imaging. But as much as I fly IFR quite a bit,
> when the chips are down the ILS still gets me home. The
> KNS-80 makes me legal to file direct ("backed up," if I wish,
> from my Loran and/or handheld GPS). I am reluctant to
> install an IFR GPS because, among other reasons, I presume
> that even "upgradable" units will carry a steep pricetag
> when precision GPS hardware is available. For now,
> my plane has just about as much utility as any general
> aviation IFR bird, yet I have no approach-approved GPS.
> And I do not yearn for one either.
>
> As an interesting aside, when I have given
> instrument instruction to pilots who own approach-approved
> GPS units, very often I find that they feel the
> time/effort to maintain approach currency is not
> worth the marginal added utility over a traditional
> approach. I have seen more than one pilot set up the
> GPS "Direct To" a VOR and then fly a VOR approach using
> GPS for backup, even when a GPS approach were available.
> Yes, I try to encourage pilots to be familiar with all
> installed equipment... but the fact remains that I suspect
> there are very few GA pilots out there actually flying
> GPS approaches.
>
> Another way of looking at this is to ask how/why
> people are putting $10,000 approach-approved
> GPS units into $40,000 4-place trainers. How
> can this make any economic sense? Why is there
> not more backlash from IFR pilots asking why
> IFR GPS is being pushed so strongly by the
> aviation media/FAA when the price is so high
> as a percentage of the average general
> aviation aicraft's value?
>
> I am interested in other thoughts on this.
>
>
> ----
> Richard Kaplan, CFII
> rkaplan@umrpc.com
> www.umrpc.com/p210