IMC with GPS, few Q's
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 47
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMC with GPS, few Q's
Hi all,
I have just got my hands on the Saratoga, and lovin it. The thing is I was wondering how someone could pass the IMC test in it. The aircraft is equiped with 530 and 430, flight director, 3 axis autopilot and other 'bells and whistles' with the ADF down by my left knee and VOR 2 just above it. So I was thinking, if on my renewal or test the examiner asked my to maintain say '230 track on the NDB' could I just punch this into the GPS, select OBS, and follow the line? Me thinks not, but it would be a lot easier. But, how about if I also tuned and idented the NDB and had it on the ADF, and used this to check the GPS, so not using the GPS as the primary nav equipment? So in effect I could fly the director, cross checking to the ADF.
I know you can use the GPS for VOR, just like a normal VOR but it seems a waste of equipment in the cockpit. A friend of mine once got a mark against him in his IR test for not using 'all avialable equipment' and not usung the GPS for his ground speed.
Sorry for the dumb questions, but I tend to go OTT!
I have just got my hands on the Saratoga, and lovin it. The thing is I was wondering how someone could pass the IMC test in it. The aircraft is equiped with 530 and 430, flight director, 3 axis autopilot and other 'bells and whistles' with the ADF down by my left knee and VOR 2 just above it. So I was thinking, if on my renewal or test the examiner asked my to maintain say '230 track on the NDB' could I just punch this into the GPS, select OBS, and follow the line? Me thinks not, but it would be a lot easier. But, how about if I also tuned and idented the NDB and had it on the ADF, and used this to check the GPS, so not using the GPS as the primary nav equipment? So in effect I could fly the director, cross checking to the ADF.
I know you can use the GPS for VOR, just like a normal VOR but it seems a waste of equipment in the cockpit. A friend of mine once got a mark against him in his IR test for not using 'all avialable equipment' and not usung the GPS for his ground speed.
Sorry for the dumb questions, but I tend to go OTT!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You need to ask some instructors as to the latest procedures but IIRC in the IMC test all the nice kit will be switched off, leaving you with just a VOR, DME, ADF.
However, in any FAA checkride, the examiner will ask you to show that you can use all of it. It may not be to the full degree; for example in the PPL he may not ask you to load a flight plan into the GPS. But he will want the autopilot usage shown.
I heard that in the JAA IR they are now testing GPS and autopilot usage.
I think the CAA should require knowledge of all installed equipment to be demonstrated.
However, in any FAA checkride, the examiner will ask you to show that you can use all of it. It may not be to the full degree; for example in the PPL he may not ask you to load a flight plan into the GPS. But he will want the autopilot usage shown.
I heard that in the JAA IR they are now testing GPS and autopilot usage.
I think the CAA should require knowledge of all installed equipment to be demonstrated.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Maders UK
Age: 57
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO, I agree with your experience of the FAA attitude. During my last FAA IPC I was allowed to use all the gadgets - it was more about being signed off as a safe bet not to crash than ticking boxes on a checklist.
Makes a lot of sense.
SB
Makes a lot of sense.
SB
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I did my IR test I had the GNS430 switched to config page and flew the trip using steam guages and dead reckoning to the beacon and the used the ADF inside the promulgumated distance. After the test the examiner asked my why I did not just punch in a DCT to the beacon and use the GPS......
You still have to use the ADF in raw data mode as with the other instruments but if the other kit is installed and cetified for use you can use it.
You are right seeting the OBS on an NDB is indeed more accurate and you would be surprised just how many of us fly our approaches this way!!
You still have to use the ADF in raw data mode as with the other instruments but if the other kit is installed and cetified for use you can use it.
You are right seeting the OBS on an NDB is indeed more accurate and you would be surprised just how many of us fly our approaches this way!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 47
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the replies guuys, the thing is that if I turned off all the nice kit I would have no NAV 1 or 2 or Comms!
This is what I have to play with;
This is what I have to play with;
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect it will depend on the instructor. I doubt there are many who would insist on your flying en route using the VOR for an IMCR
It will also depend on you.
You could chose to use the VOR to satisfy yourself you can still do so.
I suppose it begs the questions as to whether the examiner should be happy with your flying an approach using GPS. There are none approved in the UK so strictly the primary aid for approach navigation will not be GPS and therefore presumably the instructor will want to be satisfied that you are primarily relying on somethng other than the GPS!! Is it still the case that each renewal a different procedure should be demonstrated (?) and if so it might be the turn of the NDB DME. Flying an NDB DME procedure he might even want you to "switch off" the GPS (always assuming you are not actually in IMC
).
Thanks for the replies guuys, the thing is that if I turned off all the nice kit I would have no NAV 1 or 2 or Comms!
Just turn down the brightness on the 430 and 530 having selected the approach frequency!
Interestingly it would be more difficult with the G1000 setup. I suppose you could turn down the brightness on the map screen which if you have selected VORs, NDBs or DMEs would leave you with only these as your points of reference.
How many of us check the RAIM prediction before flying a "GPS approach?".
It will also depend on you.
You could chose to use the VOR to satisfy yourself you can still do so.
I suppose it begs the questions as to whether the examiner should be happy with your flying an approach using GPS. There are none approved in the UK so strictly the primary aid for approach navigation will not be GPS and therefore presumably the instructor will want to be satisfied that you are primarily relying on somethng other than the GPS!! Is it still the case that each renewal a different procedure should be demonstrated (?) and if so it might be the turn of the NDB DME. Flying an NDB DME procedure he might even want you to "switch off" the GPS (always assuming you are not actually in IMC
).Thanks for the replies guuys, the thing is that if I turned off all the nice kit I would have no NAV 1 or 2 or Comms!
Just turn down the brightness on the 430 and 530 having selected the approach frequency!
Interestingly it would be more difficult with the G1000 setup. I suppose you could turn down the brightness on the map screen which if you have selected VORs, NDBs or DMEs would leave you with only these as your points of reference.
How many of us check the RAIM prediction before flying a "GPS approach?".
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good try Cessna210, but you can easily switch to the GPS data or someother non nav mode while still having access to the steam nav.
You are not the only one with that set-up!!!
You are not the only one with that set-up!!!
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice machine, should you not think of changing your login name to PA32 'Heavy'! - I can't talk!!!
I have exactly the same problem, just become the proud owner of an Arrow with Avidyne Flightmax with two (HD ready:-) screens and little else. There is an ADF somewhere down by the fuel selector I think, but no standby VOR.
The Cirrus and Cessna G1000 boys are going to be in a similar situation.
I have exactly the same problem, just become the proud owner of an Arrow with Avidyne Flightmax with two (HD ready:-) screens and little else. There is an ADF somewhere down by the fuel selector I think, but no standby VOR.
The Cirrus and Cessna G1000 boys are going to be in a similar situation.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I think the times are about to change..
..with apologies to Mr Dylan.
Those nice people at the CAA ran a trial last year on GPS Non-Precision approaches around the country. Can't remember all the locations but those of us who flew the EGKT one found it a doddle, compared to chasing a wayward ADF needle all over the sky.
I've spoken to a person in "the know" who thinks it likely that they will give the go ahead sometime later this year. Apparently, the big issue is training.
Some countries insist on difference training but the UK wants to make it voluntary. There might be some internal wrangling over this though.
I'm also told that the requirement to carry equipment to receive NDB signals is under review at the same time.
All in all if true the futures bright, the futures Garmin
Sir George Cayley
Those nice people at the CAA ran a trial last year on GPS Non-Precision approaches around the country. Can't remember all the locations but those of us who flew the EGKT one found it a doddle, compared to chasing a wayward ADF needle all over the sky.
I've spoken to a person in "the know" who thinks it likely that they will give the go ahead sometime later this year. Apparently, the big issue is training.
Some countries insist on difference training but the UK wants to make it voluntary. There might be some internal wrangling over this though.
I'm also told that the requirement to carry equipment to receive NDB signals is under review at the same time.
All in all if true the futures bright, the futures Garmin
Sir George Cayley
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I did my IR test I had the GNS430 switched to config page and flew the trip using steam guages and dead reckoning to the beacon and the used the ADF inside the promulgumated distance. After the test the examiner asked my why I did not just punch in a DCT to the beacon and use the GPS......
That's really funny... in my FAA PPL checkride, I drove the examiner nuts by being a "good CAA boy" and switching off all the extras. I didn't realise he wanted quite the opposite - he wanted me to demonstrate that I knew how to use it all.
This was despite the FAA CFI telling me about this beforehand. It shows how strong the "CAA "make it hard" mindset" is, and helps to explain the sometimes vicious anti-GPS attitude held by so many UK pilots.
This was a VFR checkride of course, so having the kit on or off doesn't really make any difference to one's flying. But it makes it much easier to keep outside of CAS - something which is the pilot's responsibility, under FAA.
I would, I was told, have a problem on the IR checkride, because I have an RMI, which makes partial panel NDB holds (with timed turns) rather hard to do "properly", because the rotating outside ring cannot really be covered up. In the end I did the IR in the USA in an old dog of a PA28...
I've spoken to a person in "the know" who thinks it likely that they will give the go ahead sometime later this year. Apparently, the big issue is training
I wonder how they reached that conclusion based on the tiny sample participating; tiny as predicted because most pilots who have the required kit are flying N-reg. Also, note that everybody who has ever been within 10nm of Gatwick or Kingsway is "in the know" and is spreading their favourite rumours
I flew one of the approaches, manually, on the flight director, and fully coupled. Being N-reg prevented me from descending below 2000ft agl (and from reporting it on the website) but it was a doddle and highly accurate.
It's all irrelevant anyway; GPS approaches won't do much for the UK until the CAA removes the need for ATC for an IAP, and that is a much harder nut to crack than just drawing up some approaches.
That's really funny... in my FAA PPL checkride, I drove the examiner nuts by being a "good CAA boy" and switching off all the extras. I didn't realise he wanted quite the opposite - he wanted me to demonstrate that I knew how to use it all.
This was despite the FAA CFI telling me about this beforehand. It shows how strong the "CAA "make it hard" mindset" is, and helps to explain the sometimes vicious anti-GPS attitude held by so many UK pilots.
This was a VFR checkride of course, so having the kit on or off doesn't really make any difference to one's flying. But it makes it much easier to keep outside of CAS - something which is the pilot's responsibility, under FAA.
I would, I was told, have a problem on the IR checkride, because I have an RMI, which makes partial panel NDB holds (with timed turns) rather hard to do "properly", because the rotating outside ring cannot really be covered up. In the end I did the IR in the USA in an old dog of a PA28...
I've spoken to a person in "the know" who thinks it likely that they will give the go ahead sometime later this year. Apparently, the big issue is training
I wonder how they reached that conclusion based on the tiny sample participating; tiny as predicted because most pilots who have the required kit are flying N-reg. Also, note that everybody who has ever been within 10nm of Gatwick or Kingsway is "in the know" and is spreading their favourite rumours
I flew one of the approaches, manually, on the flight director, and fully coupled. Being N-reg prevented me from descending below 2000ft agl (and from reporting it on the website) but it was a doddle and highly accurate.
It's all irrelevant anyway; GPS approaches won't do much for the UK until the CAA removes the need for ATC for an IAP, and that is a much harder nut to crack than just drawing up some approaches.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder how they reached that conclusion based on the tiny sample participating; tiny as predicted because most pilots who have the required kit are flying N-reg
I suspect as IO says it will be a long time before the need to haveATC to fly these approaches vanishes but don't discount the validity and the impact they will have. Given the choice of a GPS approach over an ndb I will of course take the GPS anytime, accurate and reliable. Even holding with a gps is easy, OBS the inbound track, wind correct the outbound track using the visual reference of the magenta line and the wind aloft and use the HSI to intercept the inbound. A perfect racetrack every time.
Last edited by S-Works; 26th Feb 2007 at 10:15.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We've been here before, bose-x, of course, but unless the GPS approach offers a lower MDH than the conventional approach (and as far as I can see all the places that will be getting GPS approaches already have NDB or VOR or ILS ones) there is no actual advantage to the pilot, because the overlays for the conventional approach have been in the GPS database for years and the inbound leg of these can be flown (using the GPS) just as well as the inbound leg of a GPS approach.
Well almost; the GPS won't auto-select the 0.3nm full-scale mode on the overlay approach, but that is really relevant only to coupled autopilot operation, and in any case 0.3nm FS can always be selected manually.
The key "mission capability" advantage comes from a lower MDH figure. When we get ~ 400ft DH I will be happy.
Well almost; the GPS won't auto-select the 0.3nm full-scale mode on the overlay approach, but that is really relevant only to coupled autopilot operation, and in any case 0.3nm FS can always be selected manually.
The key "mission capability" advantage comes from a lower MDH figure. When we get ~ 400ft DH I will be happy.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The key "mission capability" advantage comes from a lower MDH figure. When we get ~ 400ft DH I will be happy.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know the IAP design criteria (PAN/OPS or TERPS) but a GPS IAP should be no worse than a VOR/DME one.
Currently, if you look at e.g. Shoreham, the GPS MDH is identical to the (close to lethal, if at minimums) NDB/DME 20 IAP there. That NDB procedure is absolutely hopeless due to the NDB errors and obstacle clearance relies almost entirely on the DME stepdowns. This is fair enough (not following stepdowns will get you killed in most places) but with a 30 degree NDB error you will not be in a position to make a safe landing from 800ft. Yet, the GPS procedure (which will take you over the runway within a few yards) does not offer a more useful MDH.
Consequently, Shoreham is closed during most "warm front" type of weather, except to pilots with a serious can-do attitude.
I think WAAS/EGNOS is really for creating a synthetic glideslope which you fly like an ILS. That's ultra slick, if you have the latest kit, but is quite some years away anywhere in Europe, IMHO. They have it in the USA, of course.
Currently, if you look at e.g. Shoreham, the GPS MDH is identical to the (close to lethal, if at minimums) NDB/DME 20 IAP there. That NDB procedure is absolutely hopeless due to the NDB errors and obstacle clearance relies almost entirely on the DME stepdowns. This is fair enough (not following stepdowns will get you killed in most places) but with a 30 degree NDB error you will not be in a position to make a safe landing from 800ft. Yet, the GPS procedure (which will take you over the runway within a few yards) does not offer a more useful MDH.
Consequently, Shoreham is closed during most "warm front" type of weather, except to pilots with a serious can-do attitude.
I think WAAS/EGNOS is really for creating a synthetic glideslope which you fly like an ILS. That's ultra slick, if you have the latest kit, but is quite some years away anywhere in Europe, IMHO. They have it in the USA, of course.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think WAAS/EGNOS is really for creating a synthetic glideslope which you fly like an ILS. That's ultra slick, if you have the latest kit, but is quite some years away anywhere in Europe, IMHO. They have it in the USA, of course.
I don't know the IAP design criteria (PAN/OPS or TERPS) but a GPS IAP should be no worse than a VOR/DME one.
However it does mean at airports with less demanding terrain on the approach presumably an MDH the same as for a VOR DME procedure at the same airport is theoretically equally as safe. Is that in fact what we will see or do the procedure writers have a hang up that the horizontal reliability of GPS is more suspect than a VOR?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Aylesbury,Bucks
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IIRC when using WAAS/EGNOS RAIM is no longer pertinent since the WAAS system compensates for the satellite positions in the local area. Thus making the whole process even more robust (accurate for a higher percentage of the time). Hence the lower MDA
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure you are correct on that one Denham. RAIM is run to check satelite availability not accuracy. So if you are planning an IFR flight WAAS or not you still need to run RAIM to check that the satelites will be available for the entire trip. If the satelites are available it makes little difference to how much more accurate WAAS/EGNOS would make it........