Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - Garmin 496

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Garmin 496 - IFR?

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

jim(at)CombsFive.Com
Guest

Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 2:14 pm Post subject: Garmin 496 - IFR?

I have been planning on using the Garmin 496 with a panel dock.  The Garmin Web page indicates the 496 is not IFR certified.



Here is the response from Garmin as to why:



"The GPSMAP 496 is not a IFR certified unit.  The FAA has no intentions to certify a handeld unit as an IFR unit.  You need to go with a TSO-129 certified box if you want to an IFR GPS."



Hmmm.  That really stinks!



So does that mean no /G filing?



Jim C

N312F

Finishing

n8vim(at)arrl.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 2:26 pm Post subject: Garmin 496 - IFR?

Put "VFR GPS" in the comments box... ATC will help you out.



-Jim



jim(at)CombsFive.Com wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		  



I have been planning on using the Garmin 496 with a panel dock.  The Garmin Web page indicates the 496 is not IFR certified.



Here is the response from Garmin as to why:



"The GPSMAP 496 is not a IFR certified unit.  The FAA has no intentions to certify a handeld unit as an IFR unit.  You need to go with a TSO-129 certified box if you want to an IFR GPS."



Hmmm.  That really stinks!



So does that mean no /G filing?



Jim C

N312F

Finishing

jesse(at)itecusa.org
Guest

Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 3:08 pm Post subject: Garmin 496 - IFR?

Without an IFR GPS such as the Garmin 430, you would probably not want to fly hard IFR based on just the 496.  There are, however, a number of other less expensive IFR GPSs that would be your official instrument and then you could fly the 496.  It is a great backup/supplement, but I would not bet my life on something like that unless I had sufficient IFR backups.  Technically I have not idea if that would be accepted or not.  It seems to be fairly unclear about non-certified avionics being used for IFR flying in an experimental, but the chances of them finding out that you filed /G with just a 496 is almost negative anyway (unless your e-mail is archived, of course). SYMBOL 74 \f "Wingdings" \s 10   

  

Just IMHO.  Do not archive.  

Jesse Saint  

I-TEC, Inc.  

jesse(at)itecusa.org  

www.itecusa.org  

W: 352-465-4545  

C: 352-427-0285  

--

jim(at)CombsFive.Com
Guest

Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 3:15 pm Post subject: Garmin 496 - IFR?

Thanks,



Jim C



Do not archive

============================================================

From: James Hein <n8vim(at)arrl.net>

Date: 2006/12/14 Thu PM 05:26:03 EST

To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: Re: Garmin 496 - IFR?






Put "VFR GPS" in the comments box... ATC will help you out.



-Jim



jim(at)CombsFive.Com wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		  



I have been planning on using the Garmin 496 with a panel dock.  The Garmin Web page indicates the 496 is not IFR certified.



Here is the response from Garmin as to why:



"The GPSMAP 496 is not a IFR certified unit.  The FAA has no intentions to certify a handeld unit as an IFR unit.  You need to go with a TSO-129 certified box if you want to an IFR GPS."



Hmmm.  That really stinks!



So does that mean no /G filing?



Jim C

N312F

Finishing 

  




	






============================================================

david555(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 7:01 pm Post subject: Garmin 496 - IFR?

I would like to comment about the use of a panel dock and a 296/396/496, I 

originally thought it was a great idea, until I installed one in my 182. I 

really like the 396 and when it was on the yoke it was used as my primary 

VFR navigation. (instead of the garmin 430) When it is mounted in the panel 

it can be hard and frustating to use the "rocker" button, particularly in 

turbulance. The "rocker" button is used in many of the navigation functions 

and in almost all of the weather functions. I will be mounting the 396 in 

the RV10 on an E mount protruding from the panel, directly above the 

stick.The airplane will also have the 430, SL30, Grand Rapids 3 screen, but 

for local VFR flying, its hard to beat the 396/496.

---

MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 8:17 pm Post subject: Garmin 496 - IFR?

The 396, and presumably the 496, doesn't have approaches in it anyway.  

They have some fixes but you *can't* use them for approaches, certified 

or not. 



What Tim said as far as IFR panel planning. I think it is very difficult 

to do effectively without either 1) having used the ticket or 2) copying 

someone who knows what they are doing.



Flying IFR with a homebuilt panel seems to me to be a lot more serious 

business than flying a homebuilt aircraft to this pilot.



jim(at)CombsFive.Com wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   



 I have been planning on using the Garmin 496 with a panel dock.  The Garmin Web page indicates the 496 is not IFR certified.



 Here is the response from Garmin as to why:



 "The GPSMAP 496 is not a IFR certified unit.  The FAA has no intentions to certify a handeld unit as an IFR unit.  You need to go with a TSO-129 certified box if you want to an IFR GPS."



 Hmmm.  That really stinks!



 So does that mean no /G filing?



 Jim C

 N312F

 Finishing

wcurtis(at)core.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 5:02 am Post subject: Garmin 496 - IFR?

[quote]I really like the 396 and when it was on the yoke it was used as my  >primary VFR navigation. (instead of the garmin 430)   David,  Do yourself a favor and connect your 396 to your Garmin 430.  That way weather VFR or IFR, the active route on your 430 will feed down to the portable 396.  Then you only have to program one device and if your panel goes dark, you still have the active flight plan in the portable.  Get the 396/496 power data cable and connect RxData in to one of the GNS-430 serial out configured for Aviation Data.   > The Garmin decison to reduce the TSO on the 480 sounds like a marketing  > decision to me. Perhaps someday Garmin will go the way of King which  > they so heartliy disliked.  How so?  Garmin was founded by ex-King engineers and I think on their worst day, their customer service is better than King on their best.  Just my opinion.  William Curtis http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/  [quote][b]

Tim(at)MyRV10.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 5:12 am Post subject: Garmin 496 - IFR?

I agree with your statements.  Also, I'm not sure if this is

correct or not, because it's been a while, but doesn't Garmin

set up those handhelds purposely to NOT give you the info

you'd need to complete an approach?  I mean, they give

you the fixes for some of the approach segments, but I thought

I had heard or seen that the purposely leave out some of the

final approach data.

I've had a couple of educational experiences regarding handhelds.

Previously, I was adamant when talking to my highly experienced

airline pilot pal that I could get down to my airport while IFR

with my handheld.  I even went as far as to set up the extended

runway centerline and try to prove it by flying down to

the runway.  Yeah, I even made it over the airport.  The thing

is, I really didn't have a clue as to exactly where I was on

the approach and if I had safe obstacle clearance.  You may

indeed be able to get to an airport with one, but you really

won't be able to effectively fly a real and safe *approach*.

Prior to my instrument training, I had told the same guy how

I could use my handheld for enroute ops with no problem, and

use it to help me fly the approach using my other actual

non-GPS nav equipment.  He explained that I would find that

there's no way I'd have time to play with that GPS during

an approach, to do the things I needed.  And that a handheld

GPS doesn't have the same buttons or menu structures or usage

designs as the certified gear, rendering it much less easy

to use for that type of flying.  I didn't believe him...until

I took my instrument training.  I found a couple things.

1) I didn't have time to play with the GPS at all.  I could plug

in a Direct to waypoint, but it just wasn't made to quickly

adjust routing of a full route.   2) With it mounted low on

the yoke, it was not at all comfortable to spend a lot of

time looking at it, as it distracts you from your scan to look

that low.

Truly, I've had approaches way back then where I had my hands

full just keeping a pair of needles centered and my speed in

check.  And more recently I've found that having a properly

designed menu and routing structure to a system can be

extremely important to getting things done quickly.  With

the RV-10, you're moving so fast even on enroute ops that

on things like a low IFR departure and climb, you're a busy

pilot just flying the plane.  Some of the things that you'd

normally consider conveniences of use can become critical to

a comfortable completion of flight.

This is just a guess, but after a couple years of watching

the RV-10 builders evolve, I do predict that although the

flying qualities of the RV-10 make it a great IFR platform,

that we're headed for some statistical failures.  There is

the lions share of the builders who plan to build an IFR

plane, but with our flexibility of design, I'm not sure if

it's going to be done to the required standards by some.

And from there on, it's only a matter of time before we start

to see the statistics turn bad as the pilots start actually

flying some IMC flights.  There is an overwhelming urge

in the homebuilding arena to try to cut corners on what

is being done in certified planes.  We tout the benefits

of building our own plane to OUR standards, and chuckle

as we talk about how much cheaper we can do things.  Well,

there's some truth to the talk that we can save money, but

at the same time, some things are done on certified planes

for a reason...usually safety.

I have been told by that same wise buddy above that most of the

rules of airspace, and IFR procedures, and rules that were bought

in blood.  It took deaths to get things to change to be the way

they are.

I have a much higher respect for what is required to safely

do IFR flight than I do for just building a homebuilt aircraft.

Most anyone can build an RV-10 and fly it reasonably

safely.  Flying in hard IMC conditions, however, in any aircraft,

is a much more challenging thing.  Hopefully the flexibility

we're allowed to build our own planes doesn't turn into the

demise of our safety record though, as people push the limits

of what their design and their skills can handle.

Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying

do not archive

MauleDriver wrote:

 	  Quote: 	

 The 396, and presumably the 496, doesn't have approaches in it anyway.  

 They have some fixes but you *can't* use them for approaches, certified 

 or not.

 What Tim said as far as IFR panel planning. I think it is very difficult 

 to do effectively without either 1) having used the ticket or 2) copying 

 someone who knows what they are doing.

 Flying IFR with a homebuilt panel seems to me to be a lot more serious 

 business than flying a homebuilt aircraft to this pilot.

 jim(at)CombsFive.Com wrote:

> 

>

> I have been planning on using the Garmin 496 with a panel dock.  The 

> Garmin Web page indicates the 496 is not IFR certified.

>

> Here is the response from Garmin as to why:

>

> "The GPSMAP 496 is not a IFR certified unit.  The FAA has no 

> intentions to certify a handeld unit as an IFR unit.  You need to go 

> with a TSO-129 certified box if you want to an IFR GPS."

>

> Hmmm.  That really stinks!

>

> So does that mean no /G filing?

>

> Jim C

> N312F

> Finishing

jim(at)CombsFive.Com
Guest

Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 5:43 am Post subject: Garmin 496 - IFR?

Tim,

Well said!  

The only reason I have not pursued IFR ticket is that I would have not been able to stay proficient.  If I can't stay current then having the IFR rating would only serve to get me into trouble.

I do plan on building my skills and knowing what my limits are.

A statistic is not something I want to become.  I do value the input of all the people in this forum.  If I don't learn  from this, I shouldn't be flying anyway.  Safety has to come first.  

I don't know which would be worse, having a inexperienced pilot with a full state of the art panel or having an experienced pilot with a minimal IFR panel.  Hopefully I can  take baby steps to build my skills and upgrade the airplane  as I need it.      

Thanks, Jim C  

N312F

Do not archive

============================================================

From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>

Date: 2006/12/15 Fri AM 08:12:56 EST

To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: Re: Garmin 496 - IFR?

I agree with your statements.  Also, I'm not sure if this is

correct or not, because it's been a while, but doesn't Garmin

set up those handhelds purposely to NOT give you the info

you'd need to complete an approach?  I mean, they give

you the fixes for some of the approach segments, but I thought

I had heard or seen that the purposely leave out some of the

final approach data.

I've had a couple of educational experiences regarding handhelds.

Previously, I was adamant when talking to my highly experienced

airline pilot pal that I could get down to my airport while IFR

with my handheld.  I even went as far as to set up the extended

runway centerline and try to prove it by flying down to

the runway.  Yeah, I even made it over the airport.  The thing

is, I really didn't have a clue as to exactly where I was on

the approach and if I had safe obstacle clearance.  You may

indeed be able to get to an airport with one, but you really

won't be able to effectively fly a real and safe *approach*.

Prior to my instrument training, I had told the same guy how

I could use my handheld for enroute ops with no problem, and

use it to help me fly the approach using my other actual

non-GPS nav equipment.  He explained that I would find that

there's no way I'd have time to play with that GPS during

an approach, to do the things I needed.  And that a handheld

GPS doesn't have the same buttons or menu structures or usage

designs as the certified gear, rendering it much less easy

to use for that type of flying.  I didn't believe him...until

I took my instrument training.  I found a couple things.

1) I didn't have time to play with the GPS at all.  I could plug

in a Direct to waypoint, but it just wasn't made to quickly

adjust routing of a full route.   2) With it mounted low on

the yoke, it was not at all comfortable to spend a lot of

time looking at it, as it distracts you from your scan to look

that low.

Truly, I've had approaches way back then where I had my hands

full just keeping a pair of needles centered and my speed in

check.  And more recently I've found that having a properly

designed menu and routing structure to a system can be

extremely important to getting things done quickly.  With

the RV-10, you're moving so fast even on enroute ops that

on things like a low IFR departure and climb, you're a busy

pilot just flying the plane.  Some of the things that you'd

normally consider conveniences of use can become critical to

a comfortable completion of flight.

This is just a guess, but after a couple years of watching

the RV-10 builders evolve, I do predict that although the

flying qualities of the RV-10 make it a great IFR platform,

that we're headed for some statistical failures.  There is

the lions share of the builders who plan to build an IFR

plane, but with our flexibility of design, I'm not sure if

it's going to be done to the required standards by some.

And from there on, it's only a matter of time before we start

to see the statistics turn bad as the pilots start actually

flying some IMC flights.  There is an overwhelming urge

in the homebuilding arena to try to cut corners on what

is being done in certified planes.  We tout the benefits

of building our own plane to OUR standards, and chuckle

as we talk about how much cheaper we can do things.  Well,

there's some truth to the talk that we can save money, but

at the same time, some things are done on certified planes

for a reason...usually safety.

I have been told by that same wise buddy above that most of the

rules of airspace, and IFR procedures, and rules that were bought

in blood.  It took deaths to get things to change to be the way

they are.

I have a much higher respect for what is required to safely

do IFR flight than I do for just building a homebuilt aircraft.

Most anyone can build an RV-10 and fly it reasonably

safely.  Flying in hard IMC conditions, however, in any aircraft,

is a much more challenging thing.  Hopefully the flexibility

we're allowed to build our own planes doesn't turn into the

demise of our safety record though, as people push the limits

of what their design and their skills can handle.

Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying

do not archive

MauleDriver wrote:

 	  Quote: 	

 The 396, and presumably the 496, doesn't have approaches in it anyway.  

 They have some fixes but you *can't* use them for approaches, certified 

 or not.

 What Tim said as far as IFR panel planning. I think it is very difficult 

 to do effectively without either 1) having used the ticket or 2) copying 

 someone who knows what they are doing.

 Flying IFR with a homebuilt panel seems to me to be a lot more serious 

 business than flying a homebuilt aircraft to this pilot.

 jim(at)CombsFive.Com wrote:

> 

>

> I have been planning on using the Garmin 496 with a panel dock.  The 

> Garmin Web page indicates the 496 is not IFR certified.

>

> Here is the response from Garmin as to why:

>

> "The GPSMAP 496 is not a IFR certified unit.  The FAA has no 

> intentions to certify a handeld unit as an IFR unit.  You need to go 

> with a TSO-129 certified box if you want to an IFR GPS."

>

> Hmmm.  That really stinks!

>

> So does that mean no /G filing?

>

> Jim C

> N312F

> Finishing

============================================================

david555(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 5:54 am Post subject: Garmin 496 - IFR?

Thanks for the info. David

 [quote]   ---

Tim(at)MyRV10.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 6:22 am Post subject: Garmin 496 - IFR?

As far as the proficiency goes, here's my take on that.

During my build, I certainly didn't maintain actual proficiency

in IFR skills.  But, once you get your plane built, you'll

be spending 25-40 hours just flying the plane.  Then, you'll

really need to spend some more time truly learning your panel

for IFR ops.  This is best done with an instructor, and can

be done as part of the Instrument Proficiency check.  You'll

need to shoot multiple approaches in practice before you'd

ever want to even try it for real.  So I don't think it's

unacceptable to get the ticket, but then lose the proficiency

for a while.  The fact is, you'll learn a lot of things

getting the ticket that will help with your conceptualization.

Also, you can always re-read books, or watch a DVD Course

again.  The important part is that you get some re-training

using your new panel when you're done.



Also, as has been discussed before, but is arguable, is that

I think there is some value in spending some time during your

IFR training doing it the "old fashioned" way.  Ideally,

you'd put in 20 hours using steam gauges, and another 20

on EFIS systems.  But, there's something to be said for

being able to make the approach using some of the rudimentary

gear, and maintain your orientation...and it may help you

later if your EFIS dies.



Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying

do not archive

jim(at)CombsFive.Com wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   

 

 Tim,

 

 Well said!

 

 The only reason I have not pursued IFR ticket is that I would have

 not been able to stay proficient.  If I can't stay current then

 having the IFR rating would only serve to get me into trouble.

jesse(at)itecusa.org
Guest

Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 6:43 am Post subject: Garmin 496 - IFR?

I have used a 396 in a panel dock a fair bit and have talked to others who

are, and there have been no complaints.  When in turbulence, pushing any

buttons is harder, but the 396 is fairly intuitive and the buttons are

responsive.  I have not tried a yoke mount or anything like that, so the

panel mount is all I have experience with.  I personally would very much

recommend it, for weather more so than for navigation, but just because that

has been my use of it.



Do not archive.



Jesse Saint

I-TEC, Inc.

jesse(at)itecusa.org

www.itecusa.org

W: 352-465-4545

C: 352-427-0285



--

LloydDR(at)wernerco.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 6:52 am Post subject: Garmin 496 - IFR?

I totally agree with this, during the first hours my instructor took us

out in a plane with all the bells and whistles, and with my lacking of

experience I was able to fly the approach pretty easy. But then we went

out in my Cherokee 140 that had dual KX155 with standard CDI's with

glideslopes, and I could not maintain, and quickly became overloaded

with what needed to be done. This demonstration alone was what made me

determine to learn the "old fashion way". I am putting so much

technology in the plane, that it will make it simple to fly, right up to

the point that it fails and I have to revert to the CDI/Nav radio. 

So, with that being said I will be learning to fly a standard set of

instruments, and then will spend the first 100 or so hours in the RV

learning all the bells and whistles but still have the ability to fall

back to an SL30/CDI approach.

Dan 



--

MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:08 am Post subject: Garmin 496 - IFR?

Yes, they include only minimal approach information - Perhaps just the 

final fix with initial fixes eliminated.  Whatever, it's not enough to 

fly an approach.  Legal reasons I'm sure.

Tim Olson wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   



 I agree with your statements.  Also, I'm not sure if this is

 correct or not, because it's been a while, but doesn't Garmin

 set up those handhelds purposely to NOT give you the info

 you'd need to complete an approach?  I mean, they give

 you the fixes for some of the approach segments, but I thought

 I had heard or seen that the purposely leave out some of the

 final approach data.

dlm46007(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 9:05 am Post subject: Garmin 496 - IFR?

You will find that the approach intersections are there (in the database) 

but do not come up when an approach is selected. Example the RFD RNAV (GPS) 

Z 19 calls out NADME, JORMO, WAGET, all of which are in my G295 database of 

4/13/06. As a backup map you could add them to the flight plan in the 

portable.

---

dlm46007(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 10:13 am Post subject: Garmin 496 - IFR?

One other thing to consider, the FAA has to set the TSO so that "EVEN A 

CAVEMAN CAN DO IT".

No knowledge of UHF electronics, computer programming, spherical geometry or 

mathematical statistics required.

---

MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 11:15 am Post subject: Garmin 496 - IFR?

David McNeill wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   You will find that the approach intersections are there (in the 

 database) but do not come up when an approach is selected. Example the 

 RFD RNAV (GPS) Z 19 calls out NADME, JORMO, WAGET, all of which are in 

 my G295 database of 4/13/06. As a backup map you could add them to the 

 flight plan in the portable.

Yes, they are in the 396 too but having to add them manually into a 
	


second unit just about negates their use in practical IFR flight for 

this pilot.



Arguably non-standard, yet supported use of even certified GPS systems 

can lead to problems. A recent classic is the King Air accident at 

Martinsville VA.  Check out September's AOPA mag or the NTSB

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id 041104X01760&key=1



It was a localizer approach with an NDB fix. The King Air had everything 

it needed plus some.  What appeared to trip them up was the use of a 

KLN90B (2nd gen GPS) for waypoint sequencing.  That is, using it to 

track passage of the NDB fix, and the DME-based missed approach fix.  If 

you can read the IFR jargon, the AOPA (and Flying) mag writeups are 

fascinating reading.  Everything about the operation was by the book or 

beyond.  And yet use of the GPS as a backup aid seemed to trick the 

trained, proficient,  and otherwise compentent crew, sending them into 

the hills.



For me, it crystallized some changes I had recently made to my GPS/IFR 

work - that is, I no longer try to recreate non-GPS approaches on my 2nd 

Gen Garmin 300XL.  If I use it in place of an ADF, VOR, or DME, that's 

all I do with it. The single pilot IFR cockpit can be a busy place and 

simplicity has helped me, even in my crawling Maule.  Of course, the new 

equipment makes me drool.



What is it that the FAA says, building experimental aircraft is for the 

education of the builder.  I think you can do a lot of experimentation 

on aircraft design and construction and learn a lot.     Experimenting 

with IFR equipment, procedures, or anything is another matter.  If you 

do no experimentation with IFR equipment and procedures, you'll learn 

plenty.



How did the airmail pilots learn about IMC?  By sending another pilot 

and a/c into the next cloud.

GRANSCOTT(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 5:06 am Post subject: Garmin 496 - IFR?

Jim consider buying a "certified" IFR GPS like a 300xl and use the 496 as  situational awareness system...

  

 P

  [quote][b]

MauleDriver(at)nc.rr.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 9:09 am Post subject: Garmin 496 - IFR?

I fly that setup now as installed in my Maule with the 300XL installed 

over 6 years ago and the 396 mounted 2 years ago.  Flown a good deal of 

IMC approaches and such.  Very serviceable.  The weather on the 396 is 

worth it's weight in gold.



However, I would suggest that going that route now is to miss 2 whole 

generations of GPS development.  And I don't think giving up the newer 

technology will save you much money (look closely at what the 300XL 

install requires - it's more than just the box)



The real challenge is that 1) you will have to thoroughly have to learn 

and stay proficient on the 300XL in order to use it for GPS approaches.  

2) no matter how much you try to use the 396 for IFR enroute and 

terminal work, you simply can't/shouldn't do the approaches on it 

because they aren't there.  So you will be faced with using both systems 

on typical flight to get optimal utility from both.  Since they can't be 

connected for sharing route information, you will be entering a lot of 

route information on both.  And believe me, when stuff gets busy, losing 

track of what's entered on which system can get you.



I love my setup just as a steam guage using, ADF proficient, dual Nav 

equipped 'Bo driver treasures her skills - but it's old school now.  The 

396/496 is an excellent weather provider, sat music source,  flight info 

DB, and last resort backup  in an IFR machine.  Using it as a primary 

IFR device is dreaming.   Please get a real panel.



Bill "inventorying the QB, with no autopilot, no ADF, and no dual Nav on 

my crawling Maule" Watson



GRANSCOTT(at)aol.com wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Jim consider buying a "certified" IFR GPS like a 300xl and use the 496 

 as situational awareness system...

  

 P

 *

 *

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum