Is it an IR or NOT

[Geoffersincornwall]

He you guys if I work from a base where there`s no ILS for 500 miles and the training department just sign my IR on the basis of a VOR/DME approach is that legit? what does ICAO say about that sort of thing??????????:confused:

[Aesir]

Hmmm... as far as my information goes, and I am a JAA IR examiner, you would have to do at least one precision approach (ILS) on your proficiency check.

However your licensing authority could allow a restricted IR check which would allow you to perform NDB/DME or VOR approaches in your area of operations only based on non availability of ILS.

I believe your FE or TRE should not have signed you off for full unrestricted IR checkout.

Now I´m talking JAA, I believe ICAO requires precision approch as well, certainly required in the US.

[ShyTorque]

"if I work from a base where there's no ILS for 500 miles"

Cornwall is SO MUCH bigger than I thought.......

[IHL]

In Canada you must do a precision and non-precision on the initial IR. Renewals require a precision and non precision if an ILS is available. If it is not practical [no ILS] near by then 2 non precision are all that is required.

I don't think its a big deal since most pilots struggle more with the non-precision approaches that the ILS.

If your aircraft has a flight director then the ILS becomes super easy.

[SASless]

thens there dem places with no ground navaids that work....or the aircraft have no nav receivers that function....and every six months....you go through the drill and are told.....well...gee...Captain you kinda lost the course inbound on final on the NDB. To then tell him....I should guess mate....both ADF's have been U/S for two years that I know of. Begs the question how I could ever have held the course around the houses only to lose it inbound on final. (GPS is a magic thing....despite it being a Yank DOD thing you know!)

Couple of years before that....was tasked to do a VOR approach....small problem....no VOR ever installed on the ground. The IRE thought me stupid! It took the Tower operator to tell him it did not exist before he would believe me. (All the time we were flouncing around in the middle of monsoon rain and cloud.)

[Geoffersincornwall]

needless to say I'm a long way from home right now although we do have a couple of ILS in Cornwall but having said that students of the AAIB Bulletin for last October (www.aaib.gov.uk) will agree that we may need another at Penzance.... or at least a decent met system.

Seems that the regs may cover it but that some odd things are going on around our world. My experience in africa was that you couldn't rely on the beacons and had to fall back on the GPS. We even fitted a back-up GPS after suffering embarassing failure over the ulu.

That raises another point. Is GPS kosher or not? We all carry sets placarded NOT TO BE USED FOR PRIMARY NAVIGATION yet we are trundling around the North Sea with nothing but GPS - AND doing ARA approaches based on GPS. WIHIH????

[Woolf]

Geoffersincornwall:

Airborne Radar Approaches (ARA) are not relying on GPS, they are done with NDB's and the good old weather radar for guidance. The good thing about GPS is that it will tell you when it goes belly up so at least you know.

[Geoffersincornwall]

well there is at one North Sea company using ARA plates that make no reference to the use of NDBs !! WIHIH .... again .... and what about the Area Nav bit?????

[Sailor Vee]

Don't forget that GPS cannot be used as a primary Nav-Aid within controlled airspace , outside of that you can use what you like.

Unless it's changed dramatically since i saw the light and moved, then the NDB is the only other aid you can use in conjunction with radar for the approach, how you get to your start point can be of personal preference.:=

[SASless]

Gee,

I wonder...which is more accurate....GPS or an NDB? Which provides me more information? Which receiver can be programmed to give me vertical reference data, glide slopes, etc.? Which system does not rely upon a single ground based source for use?

Ah, but that GPS stuff is a Yank DOD thing!

[Heliport]

WIHIH?
I think:
What In Hell Is Happening?

[keithl]

ARAs require RADAR. They are airborne RADAR approaches. NDBs can assist in positioning, as can GPS. GPS can be a primary navaid if outside the cover (low alt) of shore based VORs.

[Mr Toad]

Would anyone flying the HK/Macau shuttle care to comment on the GPS routes used during poor viz during the enroute phase of flights in the Pearl River?

I believe it works quite well although it must be frequently interrogated for accuracy; however punters with cellphones can still spoil your day especially if flying fully coupled.

[ppng]

Well, actually, no - not for the UK anyway.
AIC 93/2002 (Pink 141) is still current and sets out what the UK CAA thinks about this. I don't know how to extract the text, but what it says for flight outside controlled airspace, is that 'Operations shall be predicated on conventional navigation techniques' and that GPS can be used as a supplemental aid provided it meets certain criteria.
For Offshore operations, however, GPS can be used for en-route primary navigation (notice, en-route i.e. at MSA or higher).
It can't be used for non-precision approaches, including ARA.
BTW, ARA - it does what it says on the tin - the only piece of kit required is a radar to help avoid hitting things (APP 1 to JAR-OPS 3.430(i).)
Ummm - assuming IMC, of course.