It appears that it is treated as "yet another navaid" to use appropriately - so teaching/testing its use a a primary navaid to a waypoint is pretty much standard already. But as VORs, NDBs and NDB based holds and procedures are also being tested, it should be clear that it will and actually
should be "switched off" at some stage of the flight.
This is how it was treated during my IR training and in my IR skill test in November 2006:
- Check of the GPS together with VOR, NDB etc. by checking database version, reception and verifying the position, For example, select DCT to the VOR/DME you used to check RMI/OBI and DME on the nav radios and cross-check. A thorough examiner might ask questions about RAIM at this stage...
- Use as secondary or primary navaid to waypoints. For example, on my skill test I was supposed to fly back towards Cranfield from well outside the promulgated range of the CIT NDB, so I
- Told the examiner that I was outside promulgated range and was going to use the GPS rather than DR (Brownie points!)
- Entered the NDB into the GPS (DCT CIT)
- Verified the direction and distance made sense from my present position and said so to the examiner
- tracked towards the waypoint using the CDI display on the GPS
All this was accepted by the examiner with no comment. When within 10NM of the CIT I re-identified the CIT and said to the examiner "we are well in range now and the RMI is giving me a bearing of xxx, which agrees with the GPS, so I could switch over to the NDB now", to which the examiner replied - "ok, I will turn off the GPS before we enter the hold", and so he did with about five miles to run so he could examine the NDB tracking.
I actually thought this was eminently sensible - on tests the pilot should demonstrate that he can make use of all the navaids at his/her disposal.
But this also means focus is on the use on GPS as a simple Go-To navaid - still missing from this is that the modern GPS (GNS430/530 or even better, 480) are approaching FMS-like capabilities, especially with good autopilot integration, and sensible and proper use of flight planning and other more advanced functions is neither trained nor examined - which is just as well, otherwise we probably would need a "type rating" for Garmin x30, another one for the x80, and another one for King...
Cobalt