GPS question for an IRE

[hugh flung_dung]

I'm retraining someone for their IR renewal and *think* I remember reading that IRTs would include the use of an approved GPS (if fitted) for tests after 1/Jan. Because the aircraft has a GNS430 this would be relevant to my stude.
Please can someone either point me at chapter and verse or tell me that I've been eating too much cheese before going to bed.

Note: I'm talking about the UK CAA.

HFD

[unfazed]

I got the impression from the latest notams that the GPS trial has now ceased and I assumed that this meant a delay whilst the trial is evaluated before any approved GPS approaches are in place

All supposition but It would be interesting to find a CAA approved GPS approach procedure

Not sure if this helps

[mad_jock]

unfazed you always could use a gps in the enroute section but just in Lat and Long mode. You couldn't use it for direct to a beacon.

I believe they are now allowed to use the goto function during the airways bit as well as in the hold.

The instrument procedures are still flown with primary navaids only.

Can you not just pull the GPS antenna input and tech it so your stud just has to jump through the usual hoops?

[MIKECR]

In the middle of my MEIR at the moment and using the GNS430 for various functions, the procedures though are still flown by standard instruments. The GPS is handy however for finding the likes of remote waypoints or distances(perhaps a VOR with no DME). Our local examiner is perfectly happy for people to use it on test, unfortunately though he likes to switch it off halfway through!

[Cobalt]

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 GPSAll 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... :hmm:

Cobalt

[hugh flung_dung]

Thanks all.
I thought I'd read something about having to enter and use a route (rather than goto) from 1/Jan but maybe I dreamt it. I'll ask the tame IRE when I bump into him and post here if I find anything of interest.

Cobalt: Excellent! it sounds like you were less stressed and a lot more "chilled" than I was on my initial.
Switching-off a 430 means that you're down to one nav/com so that would increase the workload a bit - slightly harsh of an IRE. It would be better to change the GPS zoom so that the graphical display is useless.

MJ: that's a bit devious! easier to pull the data card ;)

HFD

[FlyingForFun]

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
It is possible to use the GPS "properly" for an IRT now, and has been expected on renewals (which is what HFD is asking about) for quite some time.

My current batch of students always program their entire route into the GPS flight plan before departure. They can then use it any time on their route - either by following the flight they programmed in, or modifying it in-flight (typically by going Direct to a way-point which is already in the GPS flight plan). However, I suggest to them that they should normally use conventional navaids when flying directly to or from such an aid. When they are not flying directly to or from a navaid, I suggest that they use GPS - although I also make sure that they know how to find their next waypoint without using GPS in cases like this too.

I've seen copies of recent memos from the CAA exam centres which have stated that the use of autopilot will be allowed in the en-route section of an initial IR skills test now (but if the candidate uses autopilot they will be expected to demonstrate a much higher standard of plog-keeping) - but I didn't pay attention to the details since none of my school's aircraft have funtioning autopilots. However, it has been the case that autopilot use is not only allowed by expected on IR renewals for many years if the aircraft being used is equipped with one.

I hope that's of use to you, HFD.

FFF
-----------------

[IRRenewal]

However, it has been the case that autopilot use is not only allowed but expected on IR renewals for many years if the aircraft being used is equipped with one.

Yes and no. I'd expect my candidate to be able to use any piece of kit installed in the aircraft if it is his/her own and I'd like to see this demonstrated in some form or another (with me sitting there thinking 'I didn't know you could do that on such and so GPS').

If it is a hired aircraft I take a different view. If the candidate tells me that he/she is not familiar with for instance the A/P installed in a 30 year old light twin and prefers to fly manually, I would be the last person to insist on it being switched on. If you have ever been in the situation where a malfunctioning A/P tried to turn to blue side down and the brown side up you will understand why.

GPS is fine, but not when you are trying to demostrate to me you can track a needle (as in holding, which still has to be done on a needle representation for some unknown reason).

When it comes to 'switching off' the GPS, there is absolutely no need to pull the circuit breaker. Something like a GNS430 has about 500000 different screens and menus you can display. Only one of those is a moving map. I just switch away from that, Lat and Long is always a good one. If you have the mental capacity to do anything with that information while you are flying than you are free to make use of it.

Gerard

[mad_jock]

It just seems to me that having a GPS to play with is just adding another layer you could fail on. I have seen enough cockups in a 2 crew enviroment with plugging stuff into them. Never mind bouncing around single crew on a IRT at level which you could justify calling the local harbour control instead of airtraffic control. I would get failed for gratuitous use of the c word and proberly reported to the medical section for mumbling swear words under my breath when I pressed the wrong button and it went into a mode that I had never seen before.

I think everone has forgot the KISS rule.

Any extra kit you don't need for the test is just an extra thing you can fail on.
Stick the needles where you want them, trim the machine and pray ATC doesn't start moving you about for commercial traffic.

HFD I like your thinking but.. you never know with these auld dodgers I wouldn't like to risk it. Knowing my luck they would have one in thier bag or announce that they don't mind running with an out of date card as its secondary nav only "Pol hill hasn't moved for a few years now, What?" "Aye you auld bastid"

Apart from which if its a renewal the person is hardly going to want to pay extra for training on how to use a bit of kit they will never get to use again.

[Tinstaafl]

Here in the good ol' US of A (insert gratuitous 'boy' in southern US accent here :} ) where GPS is used extensively I've found that having a Garmin 430 or 530 *dramatically* reduces the workload compared to VOR/NDB/DME only management. Even better with two of them! There are so many useful functions. Of course that presumes familiarity with the units
Even if test conditions preclude you from using the device as primary aid its ease-of-use makes it worthwhile to always set up as a secondary aid.
Another consideration is that it combines COM & NAV tuning heads. Some of our a/c only have '430s. No other means to tune COM & NAV. Can't switch the beastie off then... Others no longer have a DME so one has to set the GPS to use the relevant DME waypoint to be able to have DME data. Don't think that applies to UK a/c (yet) where I think DME is still mandatory? At least for Airways?
Still, it can't be too long before IFR a/c in the UK start appearing with 2 x 430s instead of the old kit.

[mad_jock]

I am sure it does tin.

Its part of your standard kit. And I presume you have all the nice approaches pre loaded into the database.

If the aircraft was fitted with a Trimble I would be more than happy to use it.
As long as I could reach the sodding thing. And as you can't use it when you really want it why bother?

We still need VOR/ILS/DME/ADF.

Its more a case of if you arn't up to speed on the beast that the problems may occur. And to get up to speed its costing you 250 quid+ hour and adds an extra work load to the getting back up to speed IR flying learning curve. If you haven't used one before or its been ages since you used one just give the examiner the min that they require. The test will never get easier they will just expect a better performance in the other areas. If its there and working and you don't use it it could be a mark down. If its tech jobs a good-un.

I must admit though after a fair few hours of steam driven instruments IR flying wth a Trimble I might be a little bit bias about sticking to what I know works. The Garmin range is pretty state of the art compared to alot of kit in commercial use in the UK in steam cockpits.

[Tinstaafl]

G'day MJ :ok:

Yes, ours all have an approach database, kept current via subscription. A feature I particularly like is that selecting the approach to be used will automatically enter the VOR or ILS frequency into the NAV standby box as well as all the approach waypoints into the route.

[IO540]

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...

Well that's what they do on an FAA IR checkride, and people don't have a problem with it there.

IMHO it is very wrong for the CAA to not examine the pilot on this kind of kit. In typical IFR flight, one uses the GPS as primary nav source, with the filed route programmed into it, and one flies with the autopilot coupled to the GPS.

That gives you the lowest cockpit workload, and plenty of time to keep an eye on everything.

Much of the time, there is no navaid that one can use on a typical airways flight. One is outside the DOC of the VOR/DME which terminates the current airway. Also ATC often give you a DCT to a waypoint which may be a real VOR but again it may be 250nm away so you can't receive it. This is why BRNAV capability is essential and a GPS is the only way to do this (in the GA context; airliners do it with an FMS with INS input).

Loading a route into a GPS is easy and should be examined, together with the DCT function which is also widely used in the airways environment.

If you don't teach and examine proper enroute GPS usage, then you are just turning out pilots who have an IR but can't go anywhere with it, except maybe Bournemouth to Cranfield or Oxford, etc.

[reynoldsno1]

A basic TSO C129 certified GPS receiver uses the same navigation database as supplied for a full FMS. Many (if not all) basic receivers cannot read conditional waypoints - so if you are using this receiver to fly a conventional procedure, be very, very careful .... there may be waypoints not being displayed to you.

[IO540]

Not sure how that relates to what I wrote about enroute GPS usage, reynolds.

[mad_jock]

Enroute you are not using the GPS as your primary nav source. You are using it as another tool in your box. All information is required to be cross referenced to your primary nav kit ie vor's,NDB etc. And if there is a discrepency you go with the NDB,VOR's etc.

The systems that do allow you to use the FMC as primary nav source are because there is redundacy. And they have sitting in the background not only a GPS but also a VDU and which usually defaults to DME/DME fix's using 6 channels providing 2 fixes using 3 cross hatch distances. When they can't get 6 DMES they go to VOR/DME mode. If the GPS disagrees with the fix it goes with the VOR/DME data.

The idea that commercial traffic is going from A to B trusting only GPS to get you there is very far wide from the mark. And there are quite a few commercial crews out there that don't have a clue how to put a flight plan into the fitted GPS. They know how to use the direct button just or nearest and cycle through to get the point they want. FMC type machines are a bit different as the operation is included in the type rating. The machines that have been upgraded with a BRNAV gps alot of the old timers barely use it and its usually best if they don't touch it. I might add as well even without the wonders of gps they have no problems at all getting to intersections in the middle of nowhere.

[bookworm]

Enroute you are not using the GPS as your primary nav source. You are using it as another tool in your box. All information is required to be cross referenced to your primary nav kit ie vor's,NDB etc. And if there is a discrepency you go with the NDB,VOR's etc.

The systems that do allow you to use the FMC as primary nav source are because there is redundacy.

Would you like to describe in more detail how a VOR or NDB has "redundancy" that would motivate me to "go with it" in case of a discrepancy while ignoring a 12-channel RAIM-capable GPS?

[mad_jock]

There isn't really apart from 2 of them and Identing

The redundancy is in the way the FMC works to allow you to follow the pink string. Even then the SOP's I have worked to have said the NHP should have the primary nav data displayed on there side.

If I had a split between gps and VOR track I would check the following

1. I am pointing towards the point I want, not one in another country to the one I am in.

2. The beacon I am tuned to. Has the box done a double flip.

3. Status page to make sure it hasn't gone into DR mode. And one of us has cycled the messages to get rid of the annoying light flashing and not spotted the DR message amongst the other trivia.


If I have done all that I would then follow the VOR and presume that the point is wrong in the GPS database. Which has happened to me before.
Some how NEW got shifted west by 10 miles. If we had followed the GPS we would have busted Newcastles zone. The Captain didn't really like GPS and went with the track towards NEW then at 60M to run turn 15degs to make sure we passed to the east of the zone method. It proberly won't happen again, but if it does I hope I remember the lesson I learned that day.

[A and C]

I find it very hard to see why an examiner would not let the GPS be used on an IR test en-route section, after all BRNAV is a mandatory item above FL100 and if the GPS fitted to the aircraft is BRNAV approved the pilot should be tested using the kit or his IR be restricted to flight not above FL099.

All this harpping on about not using GPS is due to the CAA opps department 's head being well and truly stuck in the sand and trying to pretend that GPS had not been invented all this at the same time as the engineering guys on the floor below had been busy approving the TSO for the GPS instalations.