New to Dynon

[Setthrust]

Hi
New here and starting the panel phase of my RV-10..... i want to go with two D1000 10”
screens (non touch) and an IFR Nav , seriously considering Garmin 175.
any suggestions? Or Hey that won’t work advice?
i am also considering the Par20B audio/com combo for the 2nd com. Or just two standard Dynon comms.

any advice or comments would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Raymo]

I'd suggest going with the 355 vs 175 so you get the second radio with the GPS. The down-side to that is the inability to send frequencies to the 355 (doesn't use the SL30/40 protocol). I want to do IFR training in my plane so I plan to install the Avidyne 440 for NAV/COM/GPS capability. The alternative is the 355 and a standalone NAV solution, which can later be removed as VORs are decommissioned.

I wish Avidyne had a GPS/COM solution...

 

[Setthrust]

I'd suggest going with the 355 vs 175 so you get the second radio with the GPS. The down-side to that is the inability to send frequencies to the 355 (doesn't use the SL30/40 protocol). I want to do IFR training in my plane so I plan to install the Avidyne 440 for NAV/COM/GPS capability. The alternative is the 355 and a standalone NAV solution, which can later be removed as VORs are decommissioned.

I wish Avidyne had a GPS/COM solution...

The inability to transfer freq to the Dynon was why i was considering the 175.....much less expensive than the Avidyne...... even with a second Dynon comm..... i agree if you need to train that a 175 would not be ideal.

 

[Marc_J._Zeitlin]

... i agree if you need to train that a 175 would not be ideal.

Why is a 175 not ideal for training? If that's what you want to use for the future, it would be what you'd want to train on. Why spend an extra $7K unnecessarily? The 175 is legal for IFR flight, and legal to train on, and legal to take the test on, since you can do three different types of GPS approaches. Pretty sure this was discussed within the past year either here or on homebuiltairplanes.com - can't keep all the fora straight...

 

[Setthrust]

Why is a 175 not ideal for training? If that's what you want to use for the future, it would be what you'd want to train on. Why spend an extra $7K unnecessarily? The 175 is legal for IFR flight, and legal to train on, and legal to take the test on, since you can do three different types of GPS approaches. Pretty sure this was discussed within the past year either here or on homebuiltairplanes.com - can't keep all the fora straight...

The FAA requires demonstration of an ILS and a localizer approach for the rating.
neither of which can be done with the 175 as it will only do RNAV GPS approach.
So unless something i am unaware off you could not complete your training with only a 175.

 

[Marc_J._Zeitlin]

The FAA requires demonstration of an ILS and a localizer approach for the rating.
neither of which can be done with the 175 as it will only do RNAV GPS approach.
So unless something i am unaware off you could not complete your training with only a 175.

There is no regulation requiring an ILS and localizer approach for an instrument rating. There's a requirement for demonstrating three approaches - two non-precision, and one precision. See Appendix 7 of the Instrument Airman Certification Standards:

https://www.faa.gov/training_testing/testing/acs/media/instrument_rating_acs_change_1.pdf

specifically Task's "A" and "B", which states what's acceptable for both non-precision and precision approaches. The GPS-175 can perform each type required, so is legal for both training and the practical test. While ILS / LOC are obviously acceptable for training and the practical, they're not required. So, one LPV to < 300 ft. HAT, one LPV to > 300 ft. HAT, and one LNAV to > 300 ft. HAT meet the requirements.

Also, see John D. Collins' comments here on the subject:

WAAS and 61.65 three approaches

While not every examiner may be willing to accept this logic, some obviously have, as folks have taken the test and passed in this manner.

No reason to spend $7K, unless you want to be able to perform ILS/LOC/VOR approaches and have a built-in COM.

 

[Setthrust]

There is no regulation requiring an ILS and localizer approach for an instrument rating. There's a requirement for demonstrating three approaches - two non-precision, and one precision. See Appendix 7 of the Instrument Airman Certification Standards:

https://www.faa.gov/training_testing/testing/acs/media/instrument_rating_acs_change_1.pdf

specifically Task's "A" and "B", which states what's acceptable for both non-precision and precision approaches. The GPS-175 can perform each type required, so is legal for both training and the practical test. While ILS / LOC are obviously acceptable for training and the practical, they're not required. So, one LPV to < 300 ft. HAT, one LPV to > 300 ft. HAT, and one LNAV to > 300 ft. HAT meet the requirements.

Also, see John D. Collins' comments here on the subject:

WAAS and 61.65 three approaches

While not every examiner may be willing to accept this logic, some obviously have, as folks have taken the test and passed in this manner.

No reason to spend $7K, unless you want to be able to perform ILS/LOC/VOR approaches and have a built-in COM.

Wow i had no idea , it’s been a lot of years since i needed to know the requirements..... good to know ...... it’s my first day here on the forum so was unaware the subject had been brought up before.
The lack of consistency between examiners is troubling, hopefully more will get on board.

 

[airguy]

And then there's the question of filing an alternate and the requirements for that. I understand that if weather forecast is below a certain point at your intended destination an alternate is required - and in the old-world GPS days you could not rely on GPS approaches at both locations, one of them had to have a VHF approach (ILS/VOR) available. Did that change with the advent of WAAS GPS receivers?

 

[Setthrust]

And then there's the question of filing an alternate and the requirements for that. I understand that if weather forecast is below a certain point at your intended destination an alternate is required - and in the old-world GPS days you could not rely on GPS approaches at both locations, one of them had to have a VHF approach (ILS/VOR) available. Did that change with the advent of WAAS GPS receivers?

That i have heard has changed , the FAA has agreed that for the purpose of filing an alternate a stand alone GPS approach does qualify as an alternate.

 

[airguy]

That i have heard has changed , the FAA has agreed that for the purpose of filing an alternate a stand alone GPS approach does qualify as an alternate.

But only if the GPS in the aircraft is WAAS - I believe. I was looking for clarification on that.

 

[Raymo]

Why is a 175 not ideal for training? If that's what you want to use for the future, it would be what you'd want to train on. Why spend an extra $7K

Most FAA examiners require 3 different approaches, which results in the need for either a VOR or ILS approach, along with GPS approaches. Apparently some will allow all 3 to be GPS approaches but they can be hard to find. Major airports will continue to support these approaches for many years to come.

 

[swatson999]

Most FAA examiners require 3 different approaches, which results in the need for either a VOR or ILS approach, along with GPS approaches. Apparently some will allow all 3 to be GPS approaches but they can be hard to find. Major airports will continue to support these approaches for many years to come.

What, no ADF approach?

 

[airguy]

What, no ADF approach?

I can't even remember the last time I saw an ADF in an airplane that didn't have an "INOP" placard on it.

 

[swatson999]

I can't even remember the last time I saw an ADF in an airplane that didn't have an "INOP" placard on it.

I think I had to shoot an NDB approach on my checkride, but that was the last time I did one. Are there any NDBs still *left*?

 

[Setthrust]

Push the Head Pull the tail……. The last one i did was on my SF-340 type ride.

 

[Tim Fitz]

The 175 has a great on line trainer. I have the G175 connected to my Skyview D1000. I also have a Val Nav 2000 for my ILS/VOR needs. Both the G175 and Val work and play well with the Dynon for a very reasonable price. Plus the Val takes up almost no panel space. I am sure in a 10 you could find the space. The Val 2000 is on the left under the Dynon com radios. I also fly with a Sporty's SP-400 mounted as a back up when I go IFR. That is what the knob the right of the 175 and under the drink holder is for.