IR Hold with G1000
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: England
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IR Hold with G1000
Hello FIs. I would appreciate any inputs on regulations on this query.
On my recent IR renewal, one of my procedures was to track to ROMTI, (Lydd) join, and perform a hold. I tracked inbound to ROMTI using my PFD Bearing 1 selected to ROMTI using Direct on the G1000. (I was flying manually, also tracking FROM SFD.) I used the pointer to perform a parallel join. I also had PFD Bearing 2 selected to LZD as a backup, and DME from I-LDY. I briefed the examiner that I was using ROMTI as my fix, and using Bearing 1 pointer to effectively fly it like an NDP. He told me I should be using LZD as my fix. He told me my primary NavAid should be the LZD and I-LDY 4.4 DME. I was using that as my secondary fix, but why couldn't I rely on ROMTI and GPS direct pointer to ROMTI? It worked out fine, and I flew / navigated as requested, but thought surely it is safer to fly the ROMTI fix with Bearing 1. I also performed a genuine IFR RNAV approach later on using GPS Waypoints back to base. Why are the RNAV waypoints acceptable to use for the approach, but not to use as fixes for holds? I hope my question makes sense.
NOTE: My initial IR training was done on traditional mechanical gauges / instruments, (BE-76) so used to the old way. First excursion with G1000.
On my recent IR renewal, one of my procedures was to track to ROMTI, (Lydd) join, and perform a hold. I tracked inbound to ROMTI using my PFD Bearing 1 selected to ROMTI using Direct on the G1000. (I was flying manually, also tracking FROM SFD.) I used the pointer to perform a parallel join. I also had PFD Bearing 2 selected to LZD as a backup, and DME from I-LDY. I briefed the examiner that I was using ROMTI as my fix, and using Bearing 1 pointer to effectively fly it like an NDP. He told me I should be using LZD as my fix. He told me my primary NavAid should be the LZD and I-LDY 4.4 DME. I was using that as my secondary fix, but why couldn't I rely on ROMTI and GPS direct pointer to ROMTI? It worked out fine, and I flew / navigated as requested, but thought surely it is safer to fly the ROMTI fix with Bearing 1. I also performed a genuine IFR RNAV approach later on using GPS Waypoints back to base. Why are the RNAV waypoints acceptable to use for the approach, but not to use as fixes for holds? I hope my question makes sense.
NOTE: My initial IR training was done on traditional mechanical gauges / instruments, (BE-76) so used to the old way. First excursion with G1000.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: KT19
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IR Hold with G1000
I would suggest that's because that section of the test was likely to be examining the ability to fly the hold on NDB data not GPS data. Therefore LZD needed to be the primary source.(By all means I'd use the GPS data as well as a back up if there's the capacity but not as primary in that section of the test.)
The RNAV approach later was testing exactly that - the use of RNAV GPS driven data and procedures.
The RNAV approach later was testing exactly that - the use of RNAV GPS driven data and procedures.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK, mainly
Age: 39
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We must be getting close to ditching NDB tracking and holding for the IR - particularly so when the ADF kit is no longer mandated for IFR in CAS.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: France
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... I had the pleasure of doing a QGH recently (in pretty poor weather) in a biz-jet... We were going to a UK military field for a meeting, and my chum and I in the front thought it would be fun, and somewhat historic. And it was. We set up raw data on the displays and simply enjoyed ourselves, got visual in a good place and landed off a stable approach. Don't think we'll get the chance to do that again! (To the nanny state brigade, I'll point out that we did have lots of fuel and EGPWS).
