The crippled GPS was fine for all manner of VFR flying. I used to have a two channel unit that was perfect. Accuracy just isnt required for the mission, and 150' accuracy was better than anything else available at the time for my budget (20 years ago).

If you are getting reception issues, Ive seen them too, but I don't care about a few minutes (or more) of outages for VFR flying.

I have a VOR, and only use it for IFR practice. I used to like having the ADF because it was nice keeping tabs on where I was in the backcountry or in smokey areas too low for decent VOR coverage. GPS has changed all that. I'd say I miss the AM radio listening, but Hank Williams was long ago replaced by borderline personality complexes, and Hank is on the ipod now.

I use my 496/XM, my paper maps or my foreflight, my eyeballs, and a little math for VFR mostly. On the other hand, adding up the weight for the radios leaves me scratching my head why most folks would be concerned about the weight (maybe 0.2% of the weight of a Skylane).

scottf wrote:Mister701 is correct, the MGL is not TSO'd. I have gotten several different opinions on that, but most people say since a radio is not required equipment for VFR, and the plane TCDS does not mention a radio under the CARs, a non-TSO'd radio is OK. At least I am hoping that to be the case.

Several years ago I spoke with the Boise FSDO about radios without a TSO. It was the inspectors opinion that under CAR 4a the radio didn't need a TSO but there did need to be a spot in the panel for it. If any cutting of the panel was required then you'd need a field approval.

My thoughts...if I was building a panel, I wouldn't put a VOR in my PA-22. As it is, I have two. They are BK KX170B's. The 170B is a non-TSO radio. This airplane has had a lot of annuals, and those radios have been in for many, many of them.

And I have never seen anything that requires TSO radios for IFR either.

The big avionics shops in our part of the world will install whatever you want in terms of radios into a privately owned aircraft. I have no experience with commercially operated machines.

Technical Standard Orders: Right from the horse's mouth so to speak.

http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/de ... ovals/tso/

TSO's are required for radios that are used for IFR certification. VFR not.

SixTwoLeemer wrote:TSO's are required for radios that are used for IFR certification. VFR not.

That is good to know. Have a reference for that info? When I was in Boise I really wanted to install a new radio but wanted an icom A210 (no TSO) but couldn't find a mechanic that was willing to install it. Actually I found a couple that would install it but wouldn't sign the logbook. Would have been nice to have a reference I could point to that said it was ok to do.

SixTwoLeemer wrote:TSO's are required for radios that are used for IFR certification. VFR not.

That has always been my understanding as well. It's news to me that the KX-170B had no TSO certification. I'm not saying I know otherwise I'm just surprised. There are only several hundred thousand KX170B equipped aircraft out there that have been IFR certified. Who knew.

whee wrote:

SixTwoLeemer wrote:TSO's are required for radios that are used for IFR certification. VFR not.

That is good to know. Have a reference for that info? When I was in Boise I really wanted to install a new radio but wanted an icom A210 (no TSO) but couldn't find a mechanic that was willing to install it. Actually I found a couple that would install it but wouldn't sign the logbook. Would have been nice to have a reference I could point to that said it was ok to do.

It might be something that a mechanic may be leery about. A radio shop should know better. A TSO cert. has nothing to do with suitability. It is simply a paper trail to insure that approved parts have been used in manufacture. Whatever standard is used for IFR certification and GA installation I don't know, but as the FAA page I posted says, it ain't enough. To put it in logical language; A TSO may be necessary but it is not sufficient.

My take on it is a TSO radio is required for 135 or any commercial work, non TSO radio is ok for part 91, I may be wrong but that is how it was explained to me many years ago by a radio shop.

G44, that is my understanding as well. For the folks that wanted TSO radios, the KX175B was the TSO version. I am certainly not claiming to be the expert, but I like to look up the regulatory basis for stuff when I read it. I have read lots of times that a TSO radio is required for this or that. Under part 91, I can't find any reference to that in the regs anywhere. I haven't looked for the part 135 references, so don't know about that.

Troy Hamon wrote: the KX175B was the TSO version. .

That's right, I knew that. I just forgot....funny how that happens. Getting old is not for kids. KX-155/165 same deal. Really, The TSO thing has been way overblown with a lot of conjecture and opinion but I agree there aren't any regulations that require it. Radio shops put the new stuff in and they have to have somebody with the A part of A&P to do the weight and balance.

Mister701 wrote:

SixTwoLeemer wrote:TSO's are required for radios that are used for IFR certification. VFR not.

That has always been my understanding as well. It's news to me that the KX-170B had no TSO certification. I'm not saying I know otherwise I'm just surprised. There are only several hundred thousand KX170B equipped aircraft out there that have been IFR certified. Who knew.

KX170B is grandfathered in… does not require a field approval to be installed or re-installed. Thousands in the GA fleet. Non-TSO'd radios may still be installed with field approval for VFR. This because a 2-way radio isn't required equipment for VFR, unless otherwise stated in the ship's TCDS.

91.205 (d) (2) specifically lists 2 way radio communications if your are operating IFR. So if you are flying IFR you are required to have a radio, and therefore the radio must be manufactured to the requirements of FAR 21.305, (TSO or PMA).

Mister701 wrote:

Troy Hamon wrote: the KX175B was the TSO version. .

KX-155/165 same deal.

Nope, not the same deal here…both are TSO'd. KX165 gives you a digital bearing inbound and will drive an HSI without an external converter-

scottf wrote:My current panel has a boat anchor ADF receiver, a Narco MK12D nav/com, Mode C transponder, and portable intercom.

I am considering removing the ADF and Narco nav/com and installing a PSE PAR200 (functions include audio panel, vhf com, and 4-place intercom), plus an airgizmo mount for either a Garmin Aera or an ipad mini (would prefer the mini if it will fit).

Wanting some thoughts on removing the VOR. I personally don't use it much. I have no dreams or visions of ever flying this PA-22 IFR, it is strictly VFR flying. Weight savings would be nice and I am fine with a single com radio. For backup navigation I have a battery powered GPS I keep in the flight bag (and a paper sectional). And it is pretty evident that VORs will slowly go away... I don't think it will be a deal-killer down the road if I sell the plane. Any reason to keep the VOR?

That's a good question. The FAA has said for years it will begin deactivating old-technology NAVAIDS (e.g., VOR) as part of the transition to Nexgen. Nobody probably knows when this will happen but it will happen at some point.

I recently bought a '75 C180 and plan to completely update the panel. The only reason I've come up with to keep the old NAV technology in my panel overhaul is simply to maintain the original look and function of the airplane. But, given FAA's plans, the huge advantages inherent in modern avionics, and the fact "restoration to original condition" is not my goal for the panel redo, I see no reason to keep what.to me is just mediocre technology wasting my panel space and useful load.

Good luck on your panel update.

Even the FAA doesn't put much faith in the GPS system since they require you to have another system for IFR. Would the government ever turn off the satellites? Only if it was inconvenient for everyone else but them, they've pulled dumber stunts when they were frightened. I like having VOR's and the DME. If you don't use them though, you probably never will and it must be heavy equipment. I don't think ditching the ADF is even a question, although, the antenna is handy for drying clothes on campouts. Good external antennas eliminate a lot of gps gliches.

Nosedragger wrote:Even the FAA doesn't put much faith in the GPS system since they require you to have another system for IFR.

Not true. In fact, you are permitted to fly IFR with stand alone GPS (no alternate means of nav) as long as your GPS unit is IFR certified AND WAAS enabled. This has been the case for a few years now.

And, THAT should be what one would call a "clue".

And the US government is NOT going to turn off the GPS signals, and not because of aviation. As with most other functions, aviation is a tiny fraction of GPS users.

How would UPS deliver packages to our doorstep without it? How would BNSF find their rail cars? Etc.

MTV

mtv wrote:

Nosedragger wrote:Even the FAA doesn't put much faith in the GPS system since they require you to have another system for IFR.

Not true. In fact, you are permitted to fly IFR with stand alone GPS (no alternate means of nav) as long as your GPS unit is IFR certified AND WAAS enabled. This has been the case for a few years now.

.

MTV

I stand corrected. I remember the alternative nav system being over- emphasized on the written.

I would suggest a "try before you commit" approach with the MGL V6 radio. They are an amazing little unit, but they might not appeal to everyone.

I have come to really enjoy mine, the dual scanning and memory functions are first rate and about 50x better than they King radios I am used to!! Also the weight / size of the thing is amazing. Plus it's easy-peasy to work once you're familiar with it.

We were told the only reason they are non-TSO is because they can't be tuned to any frequency within the specified timeframe (like 1.5s max, or something)?

However, I have had a long tale of trouble getting the V6 settled in, making all the settings work in harmony and working the interference / gain issues out. There are a lot of settings which can make things better/worse depending how you overlap them. I think I found the last of the bugs yesterday, and I am expecting better performance and more enjoyment in future.... still, I find the volume needs to be adjusted between taxi and cruise else it's far too quiet in-flight, but maybe that's just my un-muffled engine installation...

Well I've contacted a couple of shops about the possibility of installing the MGL V6 comm radio/intercom and have run into the same thing that Whee did. Basically I was told that as a repair station, they will not install a non-TSO'd radio in a certified plane. They said they could lose their repair station license and seemed very reluctant. It's hard to understand why this is such a grey area for non-required equipment.

I'm a do it my self kind a guy so if I wanted to install a radio I'd find a A&P that would sign off on the radio I want and install it myself. I've found that most don't want to install them because they don't do enough of them to be proficient and are concerned about smoking the radio. If you really want that non-TSOd radio that may be your best option.