Garmin GNS 530

[Adsie]

Am I correct in saying that this GPS is NOT RNAV approved ?

Can you update this unit [ without replacement ] to a 530W ?

Thanks

[garrya100]

Yes ( not for primary or vertical navigation) and no

[Adsie]

Is the GNS530W RNAV compatible?

If you purchase a 530W will it slide into a 530 installation racks with no other mods?

Obviously installed by avionics tech

[garrya100]

A 530W can be certified for primary nav.

But you can't do it yourself, it needs a new GPS antenna installed, new GPS coax installed, new paperwork for your AFM, and a flight test. I've just been doing the research to update my 430 to a 430W for ADS-B upgrade. No easy ( do it yourself fix) unfortunately. It will slide into the existing rack though.

[Old Akro]

There is an upgrade path in Australia for the GNS430 to GNS430W. I think it was discontinued in the US, but if you look at Aviation Trader at least Complete Avionics offer an upgrade for the 430. I'm not sure if this is available for the 530. I believe the upgrade involves new circuit boards.

As previously noted, WAAS requires a different antennae & cabling.

The new Avidyne GPS units are also slide out / slide in replacements for the Garmin 430 & 530

[Two_dogs]

It is TSO 129, the minimum level for RNAV enroute, terminal and approach capability. You can fly RNAV GNSS approaches with some really old TSO 129 gear including Garmin 155 and 300XL models.

I believe you need two TSO 145/6 units to enable sole means navigation.

GNS 530(A) Pilot’s Guide and Reference
190-00181-00 Rev. H
1-5
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
1.3 TAKEOFF TOUR
Overview
The Garmin GNS 530 provides the pilot accurate
navigational data and communication capability, along
with non-precision and precision approach certification
in the IFR environment. The takeoff tour is designed to
familiarize the pilot with:

[Old Akro]

I believe you need two TSO 145 units to enable sole means navigation.

I think its TSO C146a and I think you only need a single unit.

[skkm]

You only need one 145a or 146a GNSS for sole means. (AIP Gen 1.5).

You need two to not require an alternate though.

[Two_dogs]

Akro,

You beat me to it. I was amending my post as you posted. I think TSO 145 specs are related to aircraft with FMS, and 146 specs for stand alone GPS installs.

Also, I think I may have been confusing alternate requirements vs sole means capability.

However, it will soon be a moot point.

CAO 20.18

On and after 4 February 2016, an aircraft

(a) that is first registered before 6 February 2014; and
(b) that is engaged in RPT operations or charter operations under the I.F.R.; must carry at least all of the serviceable equipment mentioned in 1 of the following subparagraphs:

(c) at least 2 independent GNSS navigation equipments that meet paragraph 9D.9 standards;

(d) at least: (i) a single GNSS equipment that meets paragraph 9D.10 standards; and (ii) an ADF or a VOR navigation receiver that meets paragraph 9D.12 standards;

(e) a complete GNSS navigation installation that has been approved by CASA as capable of achieving RNP in accordance with CAO 20.91.

.

[Old Akro]

Two Dogs

Those requirements can be met by an old Garmin 155 or 300 or King KLN 89a plus an ADF or VOR.

The bigger issue is that in about the same timeframe IFR aircraft also require an ADSB transponder. ADSB transponders require a C146a (ie WAAS) GPS to provide location information.

Any IFR aircraft has the requirement to fit a WAAS GPS looming large. This is currently only Garmin 430W, GTN 650, GTN 750, but by the end of 2014 should include Avidyne & King units.

[Car RAMROD]

quote:
ADSB transponders require a C146a (ie WAAS) GPS to provide location information.


sure??
My adsb transponders are in aircraft with 129 gps. Centre gets our location just fine.
granted they are separate units and not integrated...

[Old Akro]

Absolutely positive.

Are you sure your transponder is ADSB vs Mode S?

[garrya100]

To be ADSB compliant your GPS needs to have FD&E, not just FD. In the Garmin world the 430/530 are only TSO129, so don't have FD&E. To upgrade to the W variety needs a new processor board and a new GPS receiver board. As a bonus you also get terrain.

You can have the GPS as primary nav and no alternate if you have 2 TSO129 units. If you have a single TSO145/146a GPS it can be primary nav and no alternate.

[Two_dogs]

CAO 20.18 is a long read and requires some shuffling between sections.
I may well be wrong, but the way I read it, if in Class C or above A100 in Class G, both TSO 146 GPS and Mode S TXPR will be required to enable ADSB out capability in this airspace. If in Class G below A100 you could get away with TSO 129a and Mode S TXPR. When ADSB out below FL290 in all airspace becomes mandatory you will need to fit the TSO 146 GPS.

Mode S - Note The requirement is for aircraft to be fitted with a Mode S transponder with ADS-B OUT capability. That does not mean that ADS-B OUT transmission is also required under this paragraph. It means that, with the later connection of compatible GNSS position source equipment, ADS-B OUT can be transmitted as well as Mode S SSR responses.

I think this is the correct interpretation?

The cone heads I have been talking to say that a lot of operators and private owners have stuck their head in the sand for various reasons; cost and dates of compliance being a few. They say, come crunch day, a lot of aircraft will be non-compliant and there will not be enough avionics shops to go round.

.

[skkm]

You can have the GPS as primary nav and no alternate if you have 2 TSO129 units. If you have a single TSO145/146a GPS it can be primary nav and no alternate.

Not quite true. According to AIP if you only have TSO129 units you still must carry an ADF or VOR receiver.

For alternate requirements, AWK/PVT are fine with just one TSO129; CHTR/RPT you need 2 TSO129 units as you say. You still need two units for CHTR/RPT even if they're TSO145/6.

Edit: Two Dogs below is right: 129 can't be used to satisfy alternate requirements in any case, but you still need 2 145/6 receivers.

[Two_dogs]

Garrya100 & SKKM,

TSO 129 GPS receivers can not be used to satisfy alternate requirements, even if you have 2.
You also need 2 independent aids and two independent receivers, or 1 aid and 2 same receivers


I think if you have;

TSO 129 + NDB or VOR = alternate req
TSO 129 x 2 = alternate req
TSO 146 + nothing else = alternate req
TSO 146 + NDB or VOR = no alternate req
TSO 146 x 2 = no alternate req

NDB + 2 x ADF = no alternate req
VOR + 2 x VOR receiver = no alternate req
NDB + VOR + 1 ADF + 1 VOR receiver = no alternate req

I have often wondered about the single ground aid and two receiver alternate requirements. It does not fit my personal minimums, I require an alternate in this scenario. Gee, I can't remember the last time an NDB or VOR went U/S.

I am quite happy however, to accept an RNAV approach with 2 conforming GPS.

.

[skkm]

TSO 129 GPS receivers can not be used to satisfy alternate requirements, even if you have 2.
...
TSO 129 + NDB or VOR = alternate req

On further investigation of the AIP, TSO129 receivers can be used to satisfy alternate requirements, provided there is a ground-based approach at the aerodrome and alternate if required, so in this case quoted, you would be OK.

(AIP Gen 1.5 para 8.5.5.3)

[skkm]

I would think so.

[Two_dogs]

SKKM, I think you and I may both be right. (or wrong)
There is an anomaly in the AIP.

GEN 1.8-8.5.5.3 AIP, does indeed state that TSO 129 receivers may satisfy the requirements (for 2 approach types and 2 receivers or 1 approach type and 2 same receivers, with the 129 exclusion now gone). (According to BobTait.com.au http://bobtait.com.au/forum/instrument-rating-irex/3173-tso-c146a-gnss-alt-planning
this was amended at 15 Nov 2012; I even got this question "right" at last renewal with a highly regarded ATO)

However;
GEN 1.8-8.5.5.4 RNAV(GNSS) Column 2 -

Point 3. Unless using a TSO-C145a, C146a or C196 receiver and a valid prediction of approach FDE availability, at both the destination and alternate, if required, provision for an alternate aerodrome may not be based on RNAV (GNSS) (or RNP APCH) approach capability.

Point 4. If a TSO--C129 or a C129a receiver is used, an alternate instrument approach utilising ground based navigation aids must be available. (Which I guess stops you going with two 129 units and no other ground aid)

CAAP 179A-1(1) Page 47 also has a nice flow chart which requires an alternate if using 129 receivers.

I still think the intent is that 129 receivers require an alternate based on no FDE.


Based on the above, ie: I got it wrong, highly respected ATO got it wrong, and everyone else is now confused; Until the AIP is written in an understandable form, I think I will continue to just do my own thing. :E

From Bob Tait's website, 1 year 1 month ago;

I have again contacted CASA on this issue. My e-mail has been forwarded on to CASA's standards division. The reply I got left me more confused than ever. I feel confident though that, if you got a question on this topic in the CASA IREX exam, you would be correct if you said that a 129 cannot be used to satisfy the alternate requirement. If I get a more satisfactory reply I will certainly let you know.

To date, Bob has not been able to update the topic, I guess this means he is still waiting for a more satisfactory reply. :ugh:


.

[skkm]

Trust the AIP to be confusing! :ugh:

On reading through it all again, I think that this is the situation (charter op assumed):


In order to fly IFR without a TSO145/6 GPS, you need to have at least one ADF/VOR (AIP Gen 1.5 para 2.1)
If you are going to an aerodrome with an NDB or VOR, you can use that as one aid/approach and a TSO129 GPS as the other, as you do have 'an alternate instrument approach utilising ground based navigation aids' (AIP Gen 1.5 para 8.5.5.4) available (the NDB).
If you have to nominate an alternate anyway due weather etc, your alternate must have a ground based approach available (which makes sense really, as otherwise that alternate would in itself require an alternate – don't know why they bothered with that note in 8.5.5.3 at all).
You can't use two TSO129 receivers as your two independent radio navigation aids/receivers due to 8.5.5.4 above, however you can use two TSO145/6.
The flow chart in the CAAP says you don't need an alternate if the wx is above the alternate minima for a ground based approach (as you need to provide for that as your second approach type per 8.5.5.4).


So I surmise that since you can't legally depart without a functioning ADF or VOR anyway, the only real limitations of sticking with TSO129 equipment are:


if there is no ground based aid at the destination you're going to need an alternate.
if the weather is below ground-based approach alternate minima but better than RNAV alternate minima you're still going to need an alternate (makes sense), but how often are the alternate minima very different for different approaches?



Does that seem right? :confused:

[Old Akro]

Isn't it wonderful that in this 3rd World backwater we have regulators with the foresight to make sure we lead the world by mandating that we fit all of this incredibly expensive state of the art stuff way before anyone else or even before the technology exists in some cases.

Its a well worn soapbox of mine, but we are the only country in the world that is mandating ADSB for all IFR operations (including private) down to ground level.

Within not much more than 2 years ALL IFR aircraft will require a WAAS GPS and Mode S - ES transponder. For anyone with a C129a GPS, this will be about a $25k upgrade.

For most IFR flights under 10,000 ft, ADSB will have NO safety benefit because we must still be separated from non ADSB (ie VFR) aircraft.

The major beneficiary of ADSB are the AsA execs that have been getting seats at the front of Qantas jets to go to meetings.

[Car RAMROD]

Akro, ill admit to not knowing what's what and hoping we aren't talking two different things... But yes I am sure we are adsb. Ive got Trig tt22s in the fleet, and centre have commented that seeing us on adsb is very helpful.

as far as i understand, that is adsb out. We have no requirement for "in".

I'm no techno gizmo either, and this stuff confuses the heck outta my limited brain capacity!

[Two_dogs]

Or, we're all flying VFR.
Real safety outcome there.

[Old Akro]

Akro, ill admit to not knowing what's what and hoping we aren't talking two different things... But yes I am sure we are adsb. Ive got Trig tt22s in the fleet, and centre have commented that seeing us on adsb is very helpful.

From the Trig website:

Trig were the first company in the world to offer a ‘mandate ready’ certified 1090ES ADS-B Out compliant solution. The TT22 is popular in the U.S. where a certified WAAS GPS, and a ground air determination device are also required forming the ideal 2020 ADS-B solution.

Note the TT22 is described as "mandate ready" rather than ADS-B compliant.

There is currently some level of debate about whether C129a GPS (eg Garmin GNC155XL) could be used to provide position input for 1090ES ABSB, which is what is currently due to be mandatory for all IFR aircraft at all levels in all airspace and all classes of operation in Australia on 2 Feb 2017.

There is a technical difficulty with using a C129a GPS that I forget. It may be that C146a GPS units have a different data format available to feed the transponder.

I would guess your transponders are operating as Mode S transponders, rather than ADSB transponders.