Peter wrote:
It sounds like you already have what you need.
If everything in your KLN94 AFMS is required, then I certainly don’t have it. The information in my POH (including supplements) amounts to perhaps one-and-a-half page of your 17 page AFMS. OTOH if a reference to the Garmin documentation is sufficient, then perhaps…
An AFMS doesn’t need to be the full user manual for the said product.
It can just be a statement from the certification authority that the aircraft is approved for the type of operation.
Often an AFMS is just a very abbreviated user manual. The KLN94 user manual is much more than 17 pages, for example.
Another AFMS discussion is here That was my second Field Approval job, also done with the extremely kind help of a US based guy who happened to be an FAA FSDO senior inspector who I found on a US forum! He has since retired. That job was admittedly utterly gold plated – as one would expect from an FSDO inspector…
A lot of this certification stuff is just plain weird… one could ask “why?”. But that’s how certification works, under the current ICAO system which allows up to fly worldwide.
An AFM / POH supplement also requires EASA approval. You would have to pay for the “design”, hardware verification and EASA fee’s. This can be quite difficult if you would want to fly procedures on the autopilot as well. Not worth spending on to much money on these old GPS navigators IMHO.
A_and_C wrote:
You are entering a minefield of half truth, misunderstanding and overly restricted interpretation of regulation.
I guess this is true, and wouldn’t recommend you to go this route, but go the GTN route suggested by others. It will give you 8,33 kHz, and LNAV/VNAV and LNAV+V, terrain, as well as an source for ADS-B when this comes into force.
This GTN comes indeed with a AML STC, and currently still requires a minor mod to approve your specific configuration. This might change in the future. This AML STC also allows interface with the autopilot. When combined with an Aspen you will have a really nice setup.
The GTN simulator advice is a good one, just try them both.
Thank you Jesse for your reply.
For sure the GTN is a more logical solution…
All is about money as usual.
Does the Aspen iso KI525A interfaced with a GPS give more RNAV capabilities (LNAV/VNAV, LPV…) or we can fly the same with either equipment?
Tom.
TomTom wrote:
Does the Aspen iso KI525A interfaced with a GPS give more RNAV capabilities (LNAV/VNAV, LPV…) or we can fly the same with either equipment?
RNP-10 and RNP-4 “remote and oceanic” navigation needs two GPS, other than that, you can do everything (BRNAV, PRNAV, LPV, non-baro LNAV/VNAV) with either the KI525A or the Aspen.
Some CAA would like to see an autoslewing course pointer for PRNAV, which the Aspen would provide but the KI525A doesn’t, but they cannot enforce it, nor is it necessary as determined by a study conducted by Garmin.
As said above the auto slew function is nice to have but at GA speeds is not essential and in some ways the GPS MSG “set course xxx” helps situational awareness as you fly around the instrument approach procedure.
It’s nice to know that my planned Avionic setup will be approved for " remote & oceanic " navigation…………. Now I just have to figure out how to get the range to reach an oceanic entry point !
In the early days of PRNAV, when everybody was going berserk worrying about how it was going to kill IFR GA in Europe, one common interpretation of TGL-10 was that an auto slewing course pointer was mandatory i.e. a mechanical HSI would be no good and everybody would have to install an EHSI (Aspen, Sandel, G500, etc). Thankfully that died…
PRNAV is still “out there” but seems to be yet another regulatory gravy train which not too many people are still sitting on. The majority of light jets are not compliant and never will be, so no airport enforces it. In the airport plates, you get comical stuff like (paraphrasing) “if you are not PRNAV compliant, we don’t want to know” 
Prior to the Garmin AML STCs (GTNxxx) the number of EASA-reg PRNAV approved GA aircraft in Europe could be counted on your fingers, and N-regs even less because you had to get a LOA from the FAA (the infamous dysfunctional NY IFU) which, according to reports from those who got it, took about one year. One guy got in before that and got it from some mainland FSDO, IIRC.
A complete joke of a paper chase. In the end you can get PRNAV approval for a 1970 C150 with a GNS430!
Peter wrote:
In the early days of PRNAV, when everybody was going berserk worrying about how it was going to kill IFR GA in Europe, one common interpretation of TGL-10 was that an auto slewing course pointer was mandatory i.e. a mechanical HSI would be no good and everybody would have to install an EHSI (Aspen, Sandel, G500, etc). Thankfully that died…
Hello,
Is it still the case? I am being told that under EASA, an EHSI would mandatory to fly any RNP approaches???
Where to find up to date EASA regulations on this specific topic?
Thank you,
Thomas
The relevant regulations are EASA AMC20-27A and AMC20-28. An auto-slew course pointer is NOT required.
An EHSI is indeed not required but if you have a mechanical HSI (like the old KI525) then the whole business of a GPS controlling your flight path gets quite messy at times, because the course pointer doesn’t move. You have to turn it manually at each track change annunciated by the GPS. This is OK enroute but on a somewhat more complicated approach it isn’t great. And it gets really seriously messy (and arguably dangerous) if you have GPSS / roll steering, where (in one common implementation) the GPS sends an ARINC429 steering data stream directly to the autopilot, so the plane just flies whatever the track is while the HSI just sits there, not moving. That is why I would have an EHSI (auto slewing course pointer) presentation for any serious IFR stuff. I installed the Sandel SN3500 for it and it is a great piece of kit, if quite expensive.
