I thought the FAA had just agreed to the "mapless" cockpit if the aircraft is properly equipted?
Not heard of this.
But there is a common misconception in this area: a lot of people go around saying one has to carry the
printed chart. This is not specified by any country I am aware of, not even the UK ANO. The wording tends to be like "all required navigation data" but even if the word "chart" is included it doesn't say it has to be the
printed chart.
Obviously if one is displaying chart data on some electronic device then there are backup issues, battery life if applicable, etc, and if I was doing this personally I would want two different display devices with at least one of them having a battery life exceeding the fuel endurance, but that's obviously a different matter. Legally, printed charts do not need to be carried.
In the UK the whole GA scene is anally retentive in the extreme but in the much more affluent and modern USA the population of owner pilots flying spaceships equipped with nearly A4-sized displays running Jeppview or other chart products is quite significant. Just look at the aviation magazines they read over there, compared to the UK rags. So there is more discussion over there of flying without any paper, and it certainly isn't illegal.
Illegal if done on aircraft not correctly equipted and in IMC, legal if in VMC with the student in fogles, but then perhaps a waste of time
Well I suppose if you say that IMC training with foggles is nothing like as good as IMC training in real IMC, I would agree.
As regards IR training, this is done by only a few schools in the UK, all of them geared up for ATPL training. They keep reasonably decent planes, not least because the CAA-employed IR examiner wants to do the checkride in Class A. In the UK it isn't even possible to do any flight under ATC direction without going into Class A. This is a world apart from IMCR training.
The funny thing is that a properly trained IMCR holder is perfectly capable of flying IFR in Class A... the only real difference from Class D is that you have to stuff the flight plan through the CFMU website, then talk to London Control, and there isn't much to do en route.
If anyone finds that when within the DOC with a calibrated serviceable ADF and a competent pilot that an NDB is providing information that is as inaccurate as IO540 describes i.e. well beyond the limits allowed then they should report the matter via an MOR. Silence in such a situation could cause another pilot to have an accident. Would not like to have that on my concience.
I will let you in on a closely guarded secret, DFC. Fly to the start of the EGKA 20 inbound track, say 6.5D out, fly a precise inbound track (using a GPS of course
) and plot the RMI reading as you go in.
The good news is that as you track the NDB in, 25-30 degrees off the "real" track, you won't get embedded in the hill provided you stick to the DME stepdowns. That, no doubt, is why the DME is mandatory. All that happens is that if flying it to something like the minima, you may not be able to land because you will be too far off the inbound track.
