Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

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

91.205 (WAAS)

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Avionics-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

deruiteraircraftservices(
Guest

Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 1:52 am Post subject: 91.205 (WAAS)

Hi,



apologies for butting in on this. We have a RV10 with full Garmin stack and 

have had quite some difficulty getting pin outs and ended up sending the 

units to an avionics shop to get wired. (we purchased without looms)

I have since spoken to the main Garmin agent in the UK and he explained that 

due to complexity of the avionics Garmin does not encourage(read does not 

make available pinout)homebuilders to do their own wiring.



This can well be where the snag is in this story. You buy Garmin with a 

manufactored loom which is tested for proper function and there's a degree 

of assured quality.

This combined with addition of WAAS may make the difference of being able to 

certify for IFR operation in your experimental.

It may also be a good idea to print a copy of 91.205 to hand over to your 

DAR if he doesn't sign willingly! 



Marcel



---

- The Matronics Avionics-List Email Forum -

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Avionics-List

w_sweet(at)comcast.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 7:37 am Post subject: 91.205 (WAAS)

There is another solution; Fast Stack from Approach Systems. They do the 

wiring, provide the "hub", builder provides the ground and power to each 

unit. Simple and when avionics changes are made, Approach systems will 

provide the new harness (~$90) for the new unit to the hub.

I first wired my GNS430, PMA6000 audio panel, Terra NAV/COM, marker beacon, 

(and more); took two months. Then on auto pilot upgrade, went with the Fast 

Stack. Love it.

Wayne



---

- The Matronics Avionics-List Email Forum -

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Avionics-List

bakerocb

Joined: 15 Jan 2006
Posts: 727
Location: FAIRFAX VA

Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 5:42 am Post subject: 91.205 (WAAS)

1/5/2007



Hello Marcel, Thank you for your input. I welcome information from across 

the ocean.



You wrote: "This combined with addition of WAAS may make the difference of 

being able to

certify for IFR operation in your experimental."



One of my major points is that there is no such thing as "certifying for IFR 

operation" in an ABEA (Amateur Built Experimental Aircraft) here in the US. 

The FAA has neither the capability or, under the present FAR's, the process 

to certify an ABEA for IFR operations.



Instead, for the equipment required for IFR operations, the builder / pilot 

is given the responsibility in the aircraft's Operating Limitations to 

comply with FAR 91.205, part of which requires: "Two way radio 

communications system and navigational equipment appropriate to the ground 

facilities to be used".



OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.



Time: 01:52:42 AM PST US

From: "RAS" <deruiteraircraftservices(at)btinternet.com>

Subject: Re: Re: 91.205 (WAAS)

Hi,



apologies for butting in on this. We have a RV10 with full Garmin stack and

have had quite some difficulty getting pin outs and ended up sending the

units to an avionics shop to get wired. (we purchased without looms)

I have since spoken to the main Garmin agent in the UK and he explained that

due to complexity of the avionics Garmin does not encourage(read does not

make available pinout)homebuilders to do their own wiring.



This can well be where the snag is in this story. You buy Garmin with a

manufactored loom which is tested for proper function and there's a degree

of assured quality.

This combined with addition of WAAS may make the difference of being able to

certify for IFR operation in your experimental.

It may also be a good idea to print a copy of 91.205 to hand over to your

DAR if he doesn't sign willingly! 



Marcel

- The Matronics Avionics-List Email Forum -

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Avionics-List

bakerocb

Joined: 15 Jan 2006
Posts: 727
Location: FAIRFAX VA

Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 8:12 am Post subject: 91.205 (WAAS)

1/5/2007



Hello Bill, Welcome to the world of IFR flight and thanks for your 

questions.



You wrote: "....skip....can you explain how one might satisfy the training 

and checkride requirements in a WAAS-GPS-only equipped plane with no VHF 

nav?"



No, I can't. But let's examine the reality of a WAAS-GPS-only equipped 

plane. I can't speak for the high end integrated systems (Chelton, Avidyne, 

etc.), but the Garmin 400 / 500 series GPS units that can be upgraded to a 

430W or 530W configuration already contain VHF nav capability. I presume the 

newly built 430W and 530W boxes will also contain VHF nav capability. So one 

will continue to have VHF nav capability even after a WAAS upgrade or new 

purchase with these kinds of boxes.



Maybe an issue is whether or not one should plan on / need a separate VHF 

nav box such as an SL-30 for back up purposes.**



A) So with an approach qualified GPS (non WAAS capable) and VHF nav one can 

have four different instrument approaches to demonstrate to an examiner: 1) 

VOR, 2) Localizer, 3) ILS, 4) GPS.



B) With an approach qualified GPS (with WAAS capability) and VHF nav one can 

have five different instrument approaches to demonstrate to an examiner: 1) 

VOR, 2) Localizer, 3) ILS, 4) GPS, 5) an approach that requires WAAS to 

achieve the published minimums.



C) With no approach qualified GPS and only VHF nav one can have three 

different instrument approaches to demonstrate to an examiner: 1) VOR, 2) 

Localizer, 3) ILS.



And the question of ADF capability in your aircraft doesn't need to raise 

its ugly head unless you choose to use some GPS capability to substitute for 

a NDB where permitted.



You might want to discuss the above positions with your examiner prior to 

showing up for the practical test to determine if he agrees.



OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.



**PS: I use my GNS 430 and SL-30 together whenever possible. If one intends 

to fly IFR to the extent that an approach capable GPS is needed then I think 

the investment in a separate VHF nav box is well justified.

Time: 05:09:11 AM PST US

From: "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r(at)gmail.com>

Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: 91.205 (WAAS)

Question from a fledgeling IFR student (meaning I've begun reading for

the written, but have zero instructional time with a live mentor so

far):  The practical flight test standards call for 3 different types

of instrument approaches to be made, a requirement that I interpret to

mean an NDB would be required if there were not an approach-certified

GPS on board to substitute for it (localizer and ILS being the other

two types of approach I can think of).  Without getting sidetracked

into a discussion of how to avoid unpopular NDB navigation, can you

explain how one might satisfy the training and checkride requirements

in a WAAS-GPS-only equipped plane with no VHF nav?  You didn't say

this was the case, but the question has relevance to me as a

homebuilder still planning his IFR panel upgrade.



Thanks, gentlemen.



Bill B.

- The Matronics Avionics-List Email Forum -

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Avionics-List

bakerocb

Joined: 15 Jan 2006
Posts: 727
Location: FAIRFAX VA

Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 2:02 pm Post subject: 91.205 (WAAS)

1/5/2007



Hello Bill,



1) You wrote: " Sorry to cloud any points in the thread."



Not a problem at all -- you gave us an opportunity to broaden the picture a 

bit.



2) You wrote: "....skip.....the question more heavily on my mind: about

the adequacy of the WAAS / internal GPS being brought out by Grand

Rapids Tech for the EFIS system I'm planning to install"



Now this raises a very interesting issue. Is GRT going to TSO this 

equipment? They haven't gone that route in the past.



Note that paragraph 1-1-20 c of the aim requires that WAAS avionics meet 

either TSO C145 or 146A.



Your SL-30 would make it legal to fly IFR, but if your GRT WAAS / internal 

GPS in your EFIS is not TSO'd it is not clear to me what additional legal 

value it would have when operating IFR. Like any other reasonably capable 

GPS unit it could provide very beneficial situational awareness support.



OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.



---

- The Matronics Avionics-List Email Forum -

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Avionics-List

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Avionics-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