Dual Garmin 430s

Autothrust Blue said:
'Cause there isn't room in the panel for a 530/430 in the Seminole. And some of us have perfectly good primary flight and multifunction displays located front and center, and don't need a big screen in the center stack. Thank you! That'll be $50! ;)
Click to expand...

Wait, isn't that even a bigger waste? Because one GPS unit could power that MFD unit.
 
innovator152 said:
i fly at a flight school where most of the planes have dual 430s, there is no reason to have 2. here are some references
http://static.garmincdn.com/pumac/2105_PilotsGuideandReference.pdf
or
http://www8.garmin.com/manuals/GNS430_PilotsGuide.pdf
Click to expand...
Thank you. That looks like some good reading material.

scooter2525 said:
Oh yeh, all the way right on the outer nob and all the way left on the internob will show you the closest airports. Great for emergencys. Also if you hold the flop comm button, you will get 121.5 dialed in the primary freq.
Click to expand...
Nice! That could come in handy,
 
One of the differences with 2 is that they usually can cross fill- a flight plan in one is cross filled to the other.
Biggest difference I've seen between the KLN and the Garmin is that the Garmin will only let you select approaches from your destination.
 
SurferLucas said:
I'll look into it further, later...but isn't there some obscure reg/AIM section that says if you're filing IFR with a Single Unit GPS, that you must file a route that keeps you within the service volume of a VOR (incase you loose GPS signal). I seem to recall something about this from the CFI days, we had 172's with the single KLN-94's and that's how their routes had to be filed, but the 182RG and the Seminole you didn't (they had 530/430 or Dual 430's)
Click to expand...

The GPS rules change with every edition of the AIM so if you have not looked at in a while your information will be too. I don't think this is still the case.
 
Douglas said:
I still don't know why anybody would outfit an airplane with dual 430s.
I've never flown that way so there might be something obvious I'm missing but I just don't see why.
Click to expand...

Redundancy, ability to see the moving map on one, and the default nav page on the other. Dual COM/NAV. I can't imagine why you wouldn't use dual units.
 
I use #1 as my main nav unit. The second will be tuned to a VOR (if following an airway), or if I'm using GPS nav I'll have the nav page flipped to the CDI screen. I also use the second for peripheral things like, looking up frequencies quickly, and on some of the airplanes I fly that are equipped with XM weather I'll look up METARS, etc...

it is probably a little overkill but it's nice to have.
 
Blackhawk said:
...and the Garmin is that the Garmin will only let you select approaches from your destination.
Click to expand...

That tidbit is incorrect.

When loading an APP it defaults to the destination since that makes the most sense. You can change it though by pressing clr and scrolling to the airport and changing it.
 
Douglas said:
But on topic - Scooter had good advice. At the two flight schools that I worked at, you could pay to hook up a airplane for an hour and learn the avionics at a reduced price.
Click to expand...
Ouch. I don't know why they would charge you? The flight school I went to had a 430 simulator that wasn't hooked up to anything pilots could play with.
 
I operate an aircraft that has two 430s. Do I need both? No. Do I like having both? Yes. Comm 1/ comm 2. Difference screens displayed. On approach I can have one for the approach and the other for terrain. Enroute one shows the map and the other shows other info I need to know. Again, it would be easy to survive without them, but I don't complain about having them either. Or the 696 with XM sat. :D
 
I don't know why people are so timid about technology and call it an "overkill". Is it necessary for a flight to operate safely? No and you better know what to do if the GPS craps out (GPS is a fragile system), but it is good in that it gives the pilot way better situational awareness. A friend of mine was talking to a crusty old FSDO inspector who in these very words said, "a mediocre instrument pilot with a good GPS system that he/she knows how to use has better situational awareness than an expert instrument pilot with nothing but a dual nav radio." Is the statement maybe a bit too general? Probably, but it does tell you how many at the FAA feel about pilots who actually know how to use their GPS systems. Oh well, I'm sure there were guys complaining about VORs when they first came out and calling them "too easy" . rant over.
 
A150K said:
I don't know why people are so timid about technology and call it an "overkill". Is it necessary for a flight to operate safely? No and you better know what to do if the GPS craps out (GPS is a fragile system), but it is good in that it gives the pilot way better situational awareness. A friend of mine was talking to a crusty old FSDO inspector who in these very words said, "a mediocre instrument pilot with a good GPS system that he/she knows how to use has better situational awareness than an expert instrument pilot with nothing but a dual nav radio." Is the statement maybe a bit too general? Probably, but it does tell you how many at the FAA feel about pilots who actually know how to use their GPS systems. Oh well, I'm sure there were guys complaining about VORs when they first came out and calling them "too easy" . rant over.
Click to expand...
If a pilot learns how to be a good instrument pilot on basic equipment, he will be better with advanced equipment. However, if he learns to only be good on a GPS, he will be terrible if that GPS craps out, like you said. Technology is great in airplanes. I love flying with the dual 430/ 696 I have on the aircraft I fly. However, I paid my dues in aircraft that were meager at best. With that all under my belt, I feel better prepared to handle most situations. A student who spends only his time in a glass cockpit is doing himself a disservice.
 
At my company we fly 206's with a 430, 530, G600 with synthetic vision, and a mounted 496 in the dash... now THATS overkill! ;)
 
scooter2525 said:
If a pilot learns how to be a good instrument pilot on basic equipment, he will be better with advanced equipment. However, if he learns to only be good on a GPS, he will be terrible if that GPS craps out, like you said. Technology is great in airplanes. I love flying with the dual 430/ 696 I have on the aircraft I fly. However, I paid my dues in aircraft that were meager at best. With that all under my belt, I feel better prepared to handle most situations. A student who spends only his time in a glass cockpit is doing himself a disservice.
Click to expand...
I wasn't aware we were talking about the training environment. If that's the case, then I 100% agree.
 
A150K said:
Ok, I'll agree with you on that one :). How much weight does all that junk eat up?
Click to expand...

No idea... but with the camera system and totally sexy long dual pipes out the side I dont think we can fit a whole lot more than the two of us in there anymore.
 
FlyingPoke said:
No idea... but with the camera system and totally sexy long dual pipes out the side I dont think we can fit a whole lot more than the two of us in there anymore.
Click to expand...

If you get lost in one of our airplanes, you should take up another line of work. I forget how many GPS systems we have precisely, but we've got more than enough naviguessing...navigation equipment to get there and back and everywhere in between.

The panel is pure sexiness. Also pure overkill. But pure sexiness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top