The International Cessna^® 170 Association

I have debated asking this question as I fear thread creep, flaming and getting a virtual beating ...but here goes anyway. Disclaimer: the previous was an attempt at humor (note smiley faces)...you know I love you guys!

If you wanted to equip your 170 for light IFR work - let us assume for this discussion we are talking about personal minimums of 1000' ceilings and 1 mile vis - which of the following three avionics packages would you prefer and consider adequate:

1. dual comm radios, single navigation radio with vor/localizer but no glideslope

2. single comm radio, dual nav radios with one vor/loc only and the other VOR/LOC/GS/DME

3. dual nav/comms with one nav VOR/loc only, one nav VOR/LOC/GS capable but no DME in the mix.

Each setup would be accompanied by a 396/496 or equivalent with satellite weather capability.

Before you go suggesting ifr gps's and other options, first I thank you for and appreciate your opinions and given the funds I too would go straight to the Garmin 430. However, even the most rudimentary (fancy word for cheapest) IFR GPS setup has been investigated and determined to not be a financially viable option at the current time. The facts are that our VFR equipped 170 is not meeting our needs and a large capital outlay for the panel of my dreams in not gonna happen unless one of my two kids in college comes up with some serious financial aid and soon!. The three options above represent the boxes sitting on my bench or available to me today and I need to decide how I want to proceed.

A third question: What would you consider the minimum required equipment for the stated mission (light VFR with 1000/1 mins).

Again, our desire is to be able to legally file IFR when the conditions are less than hospitable for VFR flight. There are no plans to routinely shoot ILS's to mins, fly heavy night IFR or tackle winter cold fronts and icing. I just want to get above the crap when we are getting beat to death down low.

regards,

Bruce

Option No. 1 would be my choice. But you don't say anything about an audio panel/intercom which would be highly desireable (if not downright necessary) for a dual comm installation. Keep in mind that many comms do not have sufficient audio power to drive speakers, so that's another reason to have an audio panel.

Second choice would be option No. 3. (Same comments regarding audio/intercom.)

Bruce,
What a great dilemma !!! If I had a back up hand held in the glove box option two would be my first choice (I like having two ways of fixing my azimuth, cross radials and DME). If no back up hand held than three comes to the top of my list.

I only listed the equipment in question that would change. There is an audio panel w/mkr bcn, intercom, txpdr, etc in the mix. That will all be included regardless of the radio options.

Thanks for the input so far. This is exactly the type of feedback and opinions I am looking for. Much obliged.

Bruce

4-Shipp wrote: I just want to get above the crap when we are getting beat to death down low.

Bruce,

That's what I had in mind when I outfitted '98C in 1991. Main items were a new KX-155 nav comm and a new KMA-24 audio panel. I opted for glide slope and marker beacon just because I enjoy practicing ILS's, though I've never shot one "in anger". I also had the radio shop wire in an interface to the audio panel and an external antenna so I could plug in my KX-99 hand held as a poor man's navcom 2. I mounted a bracket over the left ashtray hole that lets me secure the KX-99 (using its belt clip) so it's usable hands-free.

Later on I added a used King DME and an old Narco ADF to the mix. (Again, just stuff I like to play with. Have never "needed" either one.) The single KX-155 with KX-99 backup has always been more than adequate get on top and back down again, as well as getting out on some of those "clear and one" mornings we'd get when I lived in Mississippi near the Gulf Coast . Of course, having the Apollo 604 panel-mount loran and hand-held Garmin 296 helps for "situational awareness" too.

Miles

Bruce my choice of equipment would be determined by what approaches were available at the destinations you are likely to use. For example how often would you be able to use the glide slope? Are the VORs your likely to use also a DME?

If the price was the same I'd go with option 3 first. Your GPS info (which is what you will REALLY be looking at) will give you the DME info you would be missing with this option.

BTW about 9 years ago I bought and installed a used Collins NAV/COM set (2 of each) and a GS plus a Garmin 155 which is IFR approach certified. Can remember exactly but can't imagine I paid more than $3000 for it all cause I rarely have that much cash. I bought a audio panel for $200 before I installed it all. I wanted a certified GPS system because VORs are being decommissioned around here and approaches going away being replaced by GPS.

At the time I bought this stuff I was using the plane to commute to work. I shortly changed jobs and stopped commuting by air. Since I rarely find myself wanting to fly IFR in my 170 and the weather is such that I actaully could fly IFR, I don't and never have flown IFR in my 170 and don't really plan to.

So before you do anything just be sure that you actually will use the equipment. That there actually will be weather that you would want to fly IFR in your 170 and that you will feel comfortable flying IFR in your 170 when that time comes.

Bruce,
I appreciated reading this thread.....and everyone's Ideas, How much money do you have to through at this panel ? I can give you several more Ideas And I'm talking minimum from my perspective.....Brad

I agree with Bruce, I would go with option number three. The problem with so-called personal minimums and the idea of light IFR is you cannot always count on the weather agreeing with your minimums once you are on top and enroute. I recommend you give yourself the option of shooting any one of the three conventional approaches, i.e, VOR, LOC, LOC/GS. Once you decide to fly IFR I believe it is a bad idea to limit yourself to either a single comm or a single nav. With a single nav and no DME identifying step down fixes can keep you pretty busy switching from primary nav facility to the facility used to identify the step down fix. Arriving at your destination with the expectation the weather will be at or above your minimums and finding the weather actually below your minimums, it is nice to be able to set up the missed approach on the #2 nav, rather than try to rearrange your single nav while executing the miss. Way back when I had to fly IFR with a single nav/com I did not like it much and single pilot IFR was made just that much harder.

Robert Eilers wrote:..., it is nice to be able to set up the missed approach on the #2 nav, rather than try to rearrange your single nav while executing the miss. .....

Keep in mind that the first segment of a missed approach in a C-170 could take ten minutes!

With a Garmin 396/496 in the cockpit, it's going to be a matter of fact that will be the true navigational radio. That's why I chose (and imagined) two really good (slim-line) comms as being paramount. That way more panel space is still available for future use.

The one time I could have used a GS in a 170.... it was below GS minimums anyway and I had to go to plan "B". (I like your plan to at least have basic VFR wx at all times. That should keep things very workable.

Bruce,

Timely post, as I'm going through the same decision right now.

You don't offer this combination of options, but I'd choose one com plus one navcom with VOR/LOC/GS and a handheld GPS. That's your package 1 plus GS, or package 3 minus a LOC-only nav. Two coms and an IFR GPS would be ideal, but as you say, IFR GPS is expensive to buy and install, and then you're on the hook for hundreds of dollars a year in databases. And then they're obsolete in less than 10 years.

A single VOR/LOC/GS will get you 95% of what you'll ever need for IFR -- getting on top, getting down through a layer, IFR arrivals in MVFR, etc. The other 5%, well, forget about it because if the weather is low you probably won't be going anyway. And the handheld GPS will do wonders as a situational awareness backup.

I owned a T210 for ten years, but in all that time I only flew three ILSs in IMC, none to less than 500 feet, and two GPS approaches to mins. That was about $5000 per approach! I did, however, climb to on top on almost every flight. Scud running sucks. As you said, avoid getting beat to death down low.


Dave

Gentlemen, thank you all for your insight. You have given me some things to ponder that I had not considered previously. Here is what my current situation is and what my options are:

Current panel:
KY97 comm,
Garmin TXPDR,
Garmin 195 with nice bracket (temporary of course) on side panel and external antenna.
Sigtronics 4 place intercom.

Occupying space in the lower left side of the panel with the radios is the 6 cyl EGT rotary switch, rheostat and switch for STC'd aftermarket panel lighting (cool green looking stuff mounted under the Selkirk glare shield that I am very happy with), and CBs for the existing avionics.

Currently on the bench awaiting a home:

Narco MK-12 D+ TSO Nav/comm (no GS) with indicator
King KNS-80 (VOR/LOC/GS/DME/RNAV) with indicator
King KMA-26 audio panel

The original plan as discussed last spring was to add the stuff on the bench to the stuff in the panel (swapping only the KMA-26 for the Sigtronic intercom). I would have to add a sub-panel for the existing lighting switches and assorted CBs. This would give dual nav/comms with DME , GS and potentially IFR approved RNAV - yes, old school-VFR based RNAV I know but legal to file direct. There are issues getting the RNAV approved for IFR by the FTW FSDO but that is a story for another thread.

However, the tallest stack of the two would be 1/4"to tall for the existing space in the lower left panel. Initial plans were to hang one of the thinner pieces (KY-97 or txpdr) below the panel or intall in the lower right panel in place of the glove box. Both choices were passed on due to personal preference. That resulted in the options at the start of this thread.

1. Leave out the KNS-80 (Dual comm/single nav/no DME or GS) Lots of room now and can skip the sub-panel for the CBs and switches.

2. Leave out the KY-97. All the nav goodies but single com.

3. A couple of choices:
a. Replace the MK-12 D with a King KX-125. Saves 1/2 inch in the tallest stack. No loss in capability but adds some $$ (the Narco radio is in great shape and was practically free)
b. Replace the KNS-80 with a King KN-53 nav w/ GS. Give up the RNAV (big whoop) and the DME (would rather keep it, but...)

I'm going to shop some for the Kx-125 and KN-53. Based on the previous input I would be leaning towards option 3a. I tend to agree with Robert Eilers in keeping as many options as possible in case the the weather goes south of my 'personal mins". I personally do not have a great deal of heartburn flying single pilot IFR having done it for 20 plus years in fast jets, no autopilot, and single nav/single com. It's all in the preparation, planning and keeping options open. That is why I would like to keep the DME if at all possible. Throw in an RMI and I would be in tall cotton! Give me a DME and a bearing pointer and I'll conquer the world!

This has gotten away to long and more than most of you bargained for when you opened this thread. Again, my sincere thanks for all the insight!

Bruce

It's a great thread.

Here's some more thoughts from the nuthouse:

A good modern comm is pretty reliable when it's professionally installed and has a speaker and hand-mic hard-wired in reserve. I've never lost comm with my single Narco 810, but I still carry a portable KX-99. (I do not expect ATC to hear me, but I expect to hear them and respond with identifying-turns, and my Garmin 196 will still be navigating on it's internal batteries and approach-enabled database with psuedo-glideslope after the electrical system dies.)

In reality, you will actually fly RNAV with the new Garmin 396/496, all you really need is reliable comm.

Now, your biggest fear (other than losing an engine) will be getting caught (which you won't) without some other basis for flying IFR with uncertified equipment. (I don't follow your "vfr rnav" comment. The KNS-80 is LEGAL rnav...and it's vor/dme-based...not vfr-based. But in any case, the KX-125 will be better equipment. Even more useful: a KX-135.)

If you are already talking yourself into GS by worrying about finding yourself in wx below "personal minimums" .... then I predict you certainly will be flying around in "hard IFR" in the future. Leave that single-engined-useless GS out of the airplane and you won't find yourself needing it. Trust me on this.

With the new possibilities added to the mix... I'd recommend you trade all that extra equipment for a KX-125 or 135, keep the KY-97, add the Garmin 396/496 and go enjoy flying around in the vast majority of IFR you'll ever find, or would want to do single-engined anyway.

gahorn wrote: Here's some more thoughts from the nuthouse:

I'm so glad you qualified this post.

gahorn wrote:In reality, you will actually fly RNAV with the new Garmin 396/496, all you really need is reliable comm.

Now, your biggest fear (other than losing an engine) will be getting caught (which you won't) without some other basis for flying IFR with uncertified equipment.

It's obvious that while George was visiting the nuthouse and having these thoughts he wasn't wearing his official "official" hat. Fly IFR with uncertified equipment indeed.

It's times like these as few as they are that I can actually imagine George slipping some MMO into his 100LL.

Sorry to get off topic but I just had to make this observation.

I miss -typed. I meant VOR based RNAV. I original desire in installing the KNS 80 was to be leagl to fil RNAV direct (I don't remember the code right now) nad use the the portable GPS to "back up" the RNAV . Unfortunately, the local FSDO inspector says he would not sign off the RNAV for IFR as there are no VOR based RNAV approaches need to flight test the sytem in the FT Worth FSDO area. All the other bits are leago fro IFR but the RNAV would have to be placarded fro VFR use only. Off on a trip today but will explore these suggestions. Thanks Again to everyone.

Bruce

Well....perhaps it's semantics. But the KNS-80 was always approved for enroute/terminal only..... just like the KLN-88 Loran, which I find is more helpful than the KNS-80 anyway. (But you probably really liked the GS capability as an "extra", I'll bet.)

Unfortunately, it's human nature to go fly hard IFR if you have GS. If you don't have it,... you'll be more likely to keep to your original "soft IFR" hypothesis, was my thinking.

Beware of portable GPS faults. There are some comm frequencies that will blank-out a portable GPS. Here's an email with a link within it, that addresses such a problem an acquaintance of mine experienced:

==========================beginning of email ========================

You are probably already aware of some anomalies created by Comm/Nav fq's causing a loss of GPS signals....so, you may want to share this with others.

Last weekend I had a simultaneous signal loss on both receivers, an Apollo (Garmin AT) GX55 (panel mount), IFR certified enroute only, and my GPS 196, remote mount. After landing at HDC I began trouble shooting, and recalled reading an article several years ago that described some Comm fq's that could cause the problem. So, by process of elimination, I determined that tuning my Narco 810+ to 119.30 (MSY appch) was the problem.

After returning home, I began researching the Internet for more info and found this web site page, which you may find helpful. With Stan Protigal's OK, here is the link to his web site: http://www.scn.org/~bk269/gps.html . I've been in email communication with Stan, an aerospace engineer, who has been very helpful.

I have also contacted Narco and Garmin AT...both have acknowledged the problem but have no permanent fixes. But per Stan's web site, I tried applying aluminum tape to the rear of the Comm 810+ face plate. That solved the problem of signal loss on my GX55, but not the GPS196. Beyond this partial fix, I will plackard the appropriate fq's.

Anyhow, I hope this will be helpful to you or others.

=================================== end of email =================================