Is their anything on the “B” package that you would like to see added?
I guess the thing I really would have added to the “B” package is the dual alternator option.
Regarding your other post (asking why some chose to order C config): I got to thinking about the redundancy of the two 430s - more subtle than just equipment redundancy, although that’s a part of it; there’s the limitation on brain-space (a problem which gets worse as I get older), so learning one box is better than learning two. There’s also and what I think of as “slot” redundancy - I can put either Garmin in either slot (I hope), something which has been useful to me in the past with identical nav/comms. (Great for troubleshooting: Is the problem the nav-head, the receiver, or the slot wiring?)
Then again, maybe it’s all just a justification – convincing myself that the C config was worth it.
I actually thought you had the “B” package. The Garmin 420 should be interchangeble with the 430 I would think in the #1 slot for troubleshooting as I think they use the same wiring. The only thing missing in the 420 is the Vor/Loc nav functio but everything else is the same. I guess the real problem with the combo 430/420 is that if you totally lose the #1 430 then you lose all Ils/Vor capability but you still have a good IFR backup GPS.
If you lose the #1 430, you are in deep trouble when IFR minimums at your destination and alternate require ILS. As you know, GPS minimums are higher. Hopes of a WAAS system for your GPS that will provide minimums near ILS minimums are, unfortunately, off in the future.
Gary & Kevin:
This is precisely the kind of discussion I wanted to generate in my original question. I think you are both right. Having a GPS with a moving map ddoes offer a lot more orientation than we are used to with just having 2 Vor units in our plane. I think it would be quite legitimate if the VOR/ILS failed in the #1 430 to use the #2 420 to get down to reasonable minimums. There would be a lot of judgement here but how often does one really fly when the weather is at minumums at on airport and no reasonable alternate within flyable distance. In this case flying to the alternate with better weather and using the #2 420 would work. Many GPS approaches give considerably low minimums.
My concern is no so much a radio failure but a nav head failure. With the “B” package there is only the HSI as I understand. If it fails there is no backup head. So with a “B” package even if the 430 were working well, all it would take is an inoperative HSI to wipe out the 430’s additional capability. With the “C” package there is a backup VOR head.
Is this worth spending an extra $15,000 for the “C” package? Gary says yes. Kevin does not think so. Any other thoughts from others?
I will say this: the “B” package with its lack of redundancy compared to “C” still has more backup capability than any plane I have flown in the last 20 years. But how much is enough?