Can you get IR without VOR/ILS receivers?

Can you pass IR checkride without VOR/ILS capability (only 2 G5s and a GNC 355)?

  • Yes

    Votes: 14 35.0%

  • No

    Votes: 24 60.0%

  • Maybe (explain in comments)

    Votes: 2 5.0%
  • Total voters
    40
Clip4 said:
Until the military turns off the satellites because they suspect an attack or your equipment fails.
Click to expand...

They can turn off the ILS just as easily if they need to. If the equipment fails in the one aircraft I fly only WAAS equipped, it flies so slow that in an emergency the iPad/FF will suffice to get down using 318'/nm calculations to an airfield with an ILS or LPV approach (to have a known 3 degree clear glide path).

Needed to test a new NAV/COMM installation in an aircraft recently. Both obvious airports with ILS had glideslope NOTAM'd out so had to do the test at the local Class B airport. The next closest ILS was another 50 nm away. So while there is some sort of "essential plan" to preserve a core set of VOR and ILS capability, I'dl rather WAAS it all day any day (and do).

Not sure about the the ILS being easier than a LPV approach - if VTF they are the same. And less needle wiggle with the GPS version! Today if a X/C (i.e. not the local IFR trainer) has no WAAS receiver, don't really consider it IFR ready. Sure there are geographic exceptions, but the "2x MK12D" really doesn't cut it today. Certainly doable of course. But why?
 
Steamflyer said:
They can turn off the ILS just as easily if they need to. If the equipment fails in the one aircraft I fly only WAAS equipped, it flies so slow that in an emergency the iPad/FF will suffice to get down using 318'/nm calculations to an airfield with an ILS or LPV approach (to have a known 3 degree clear glide path).

Needed to test a new NAV/COMM installation in an aircraft recently. Both obvious airports with ILS had glideslope NOTAM'd out so had to do the test at the local Class B airport. The next closest ILS was another 50 nm away. So while there is some sort of "essential plan" to preserve a core set of VOR and ILS capability, I'dl rather WAAS it all day any day (and do).

Not sure about the the ILS being easier than a LPV approach - if VTF they are the same. And less needle wiggle with the GPS version! Today if a X/C (i.e. not the local IFR trainer) has no WAAS receiver, don't really consider it IFR ready. Sure there are geographic exceptions, but the "2x MK12D" really doesn't cut it today. Certainly doable of course. But why?
Click to expand...

The purpose of MON designated airports is a ground based approach that doesn’t get turned off or decommissioned. Add the B,C and D airports that also are not going to have their ILS shut down.

For operations in the current system, the FAA needs to mandate WAAS RNAV and at least one ILS/VOR receiver for IFR.
 
Clip4 said:
For operations in the current system, the FAA needs to mandate WAAS RNAV and at least one ILS/VOR receiver for IFR.
Click to expand...

To me, flying with just a WAAS receiver in IFR is not substantially different than for the past 50 years where many had one receiver with a GS, and one without. So unless the actual GPS constellation goes out, one is about the same place with one WAAS receiver and an iPad. A VOR or non-precision approach can certainly in an emergency be flown with an iPad. Anyhow you can fly with just WAAS if you raise your alternate mins if an alternate is needed.

I would actually mandate that GA IFR require a backup iPad + Stratus/Sentry (to improve GPS accuracy) more so than an ILS/VOR.

And one of the failed ILS GS referred to in a recent post was at a busy Class D airport under a Class B.
 
Steamflyer said:
To me, flying with just a WAAS receiver in IFR is not substantially different than for the past 50 years where many had one receiver with a GS, and one without. So unless the actual GPS constellation goes out, one is about the same place with one WAAS receiver and an iPad. A VOR or non-precision approach can certainly in an emergency be flown with an iPad. Anyhow you can fly with just WAAS if you raise your alternate mins if an alternate is needed.

I would actually mandate that GA IFR require a backup iPad + Stratus/Sentry (to improve GPS accuracy) more so than an ILS/VOR.

And one of the failed ILS GS referred to in a recent post was at a busy Class D airport under a Class B.
Click to expand...

I guess it all is about odds and your acceptance of risk. I’ll pass on the IPAD approach in low IMC and terrain.
 
Clip4 said:
I guess it all is about odds and your acceptance of risk. I’ll pass on the IPAD approach in low IMC and terrain.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more - we have to balance the odds and risk every flight.
 
Steamflyer said:
I would actually mandate that GA IFR require a backup iPad + Stratus/Sentry (to improve GPS accuracy) more so than an ILS/VOR.
Click to expand...
And how would that help in case of an issue with the GPS constellation? You'd still have all your eggs in one basket.

- Martin
 
All bets off if constellation is widely down. I thinking of a failure of the GPS navigator, which to me seems more likely.
 
Steamflyer said:
All bets off if constellation is widely down. I thinking of a failure of the GPS navigator, which to me seems more likely.
Click to expand...

There are also NOTAMd localized outages primarily due to military testing and/or exercises. This is why I’m a proponent of maintaining a ground based nav capability. However if one is primarily a weekend flyer, I guess it’s not as important.
 
Steamflyer said:
All bets off if constellation is widely down.
Click to expand...
Not if you also have a VOR/ILS receiver. That's the point some of us are trying to make here.
Outages happen. Not frequently and not across the entire nation (in the US, at least), but they do happen.

- Martin
 
Guess one of those backup handheld nav/com radios with ILS might not be a bad idea just in case...
 
Steamflyer said:
Guess one of those backup handheld nav/com radios with ILS might not be a bad idea just in case...
Click to expand...
In order to be legal and use the handheld navigation as the primary device during an approach and landing, would an actual emergency declaration be required?
 
If the handheld is being used because either the GPS constellation is down or the WAAS navigator bit the dust, it's an emergency!
 
Steamflyer said:
If the handheld is being used because either the GPS constellation is down or the WAAS navigator bit the dust, it's an emergency!
Click to expand...
Not in my aircraft. On an IFR flight plan, I believe I am required to report my issue to ATC however it would not be an emergency for me.

Certainly in an actual emergency in IMC, with all my panel navigation inop, I would be very happy to have a handheld nav device available for emergency backup.
 
Steamflyer said:
A VOR or non-precision approach can certainly in an emergency be flown with an iPad.
Click to expand...
The problem with flying an iPad when the panel GPS reports loss of signal is that the iPad doesn't also report loss of signal. It could be that someone is jamming the satellite signal and the iPad is trying to locate via cellular triangulation or it could have reverted to dead reckoning. It won't tell you.

I think Android can, though.
 
Steamflyer said:
If the handheld is being used because either the GPS constellation is down or the WAAS navigator bit the dust, it's an emergency!
Click to expand...
“Poor planning on your part doesn’t constitute an emergency on my part” comes to mind.:D
 
Here are a few screenshots where a CME (Sun Storm) wiped out LPV service for a fair amount of time and area. LNAV service was still available, but with an ILS capability as a backup would have been good to have.bad day for LPV in western US.png NorthAmericaCoverage_LPV200.png
 
Steamflyer said:
Guess one of those backup handheld nav/com radios with ILS might not be a bad idea just in case...
Click to expand...

If you decide that, I would recommend you try to actually fly an approach with one. And then consider your decision. :)
 
Clip4 said:
...

For operations in the current system, the FAA needs to mandate WAAS RNAV and at least one ILS/VOR receiver for IFR.
Click to expand...

Why do you feel this way? Perhaps you would not fly IFR in an aircraft without both WAAS and ILS (and that's OK) but why would you demand others do the same?

So they can't fly all the approaches. Suppose someone is OK with just conventional approaches and VOR navigation; suppose someone else is OK with just RNAV/GPS. The system can accommodate them. It's safe. There isn't any issue where the FAA needs to mandate anything.
 
Last edited:
The FAA does say:

d. Alternate Airport Considerations. For the purposes of flight planning, any required alternate airport must have an available instrument approach procedure that does not require the use of GPS.

I think you need both.
 
somorris said:
The FAA does say:

d. Alternate Airport Considerations. For the purposes of flight planning, any required alternate airport must have an available instrument approach procedure that does not require the use of GPS.

I think you need both.
Click to expand...

I think you don't always need both:

upload_2023-3-8_19-32-13.png
 
A WAAS GPS TSO C145/146 can be approved for sole source of navigation for IFR and fully meets 91.205(d)(2). A TSO C129 GPS requires other means of navigation to comply, so effectively requires VOR to be legal, although ILS capability is not required. A TSO C145/146 GPS can downgrade to LNAV for approach and still be in compliance, so LPV or ILS or VOR is not required.
 
I guess I didn’t read far enough. I think it is wise to have ground-based equipment along with GPS anyway.

Thanks, guys, for taking the time to enlighten me! I really appreciate it!
 
asicer said:
The problem with flying an iPad when the panel GPS reports loss of signal is that the iPad doesn't also report loss of signal. It could be that someone is jamming the satellite signal and the iPad is trying to locate via cellular triangulation or it could have reverted to dead reckoning. It won't tell you.
Click to expand...
Right. The one thing which is worse than having no GPS position available is to have an incorrect GPS position - and not know about it. Certified avionics equipment (GPS, EFIS, ...) goes out of their way to ensure there is no display of misleading erroneous data. Consumer electronics doesn't - an iPad will give you the best position it can compute under the circumstances.

- Martin
 
MountainDude said:
View attachment 115051
Here are the votes as of this moment. How can something so simple be made so confusing by the FAA?
Click to expand...

Let's introduce a possibly irritating level of precision into the question-answering process. I apologize in advance.

"Can you pass an instrument rating checkride without VOR/ILS capability (only 2 G5s and a GNC355.)"

This is a question with issues. As stated, it can't simply be answered with a yes or no.

Let's first assume "pass" reads as follows: "... present a single aircraft which is eligible per Appendix 7 of FAA-S-ACS-8B (the instrument rating airplane practical test ACS)". Because yes, two airplanes could be used to complete the practical test. It's not efficient or common, but possible. Pass (Temporary Airman Certificate) or fail (Notice of Disapproval) is immaterial to whether the applicant and aircraft are eligible to begin the practical test.

Assuming a single aircraft is intended to be used for the entire flight portion of the practical test, the simple answer to that scenario is no, assuming "only" in this case means only GPS per the GPSCOM (GNC355). Seems to exclude the possibility of a legally-installed and operable ADF, for example, but is it possible to interpret it as written, differently? Maybe. I won't go there.

Appendix 7 spells out the reason. I won't quote it here as it is straightforward. Assuming a single IFR GPS airplane only, the applicant won't be able to meet the" two different types of navigational aids" requirement. While it is possible to meet the precision approach task with an LPV approach, the applicant will need to demonstrate something other than a GPS approach as one of the two non-precision approach tasks. Therefore, in the spirit of the way I think the question was asked, and accomodating the vagueness of it above, the answer is basically no. Can't be done with one airplane equipped with an IFR GPS only.
 
MauleSkinner said:
But is it a “navigational aid”?
Click to expand...
Is there any reason you would be able to point to that would disqualify it from being a navigational aid?

FAA Definition:
Navigational Aid. Any visual or electronic device, airborne or on the surface, which provides point-to-point guidance information or position data to aircraft in flight.
 
Mongoose Aviator said:
Is there any reason you would be able to point to that would disqualify it from being a navigational aid?

FAA Definition:
Navigational Aid. Any visual or electronic device, airborne or on the surface, which provides point-to-point guidance information or position data to aircraft in flight.
Click to expand...
MauleSkinner said:
Radar Approaches are not listed in the Navigation Aids section of the AIM, so I would exclude them from being Navigational Aids per the ACS.
Click to expand...
 
Yes, it is. Unfortunately it probably doesn’t qualify as a nonprecision approach that can be used to fulfill checkride requirements.
 
Ryan F. said:
An ASR approach will not suffice to meet the requirements of the ACS.
The views and opinions expressed above are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Federal Aviation Administration.
Click to expand...

I do understand that is your opinion.
 
The problem is the FAA's Reconsideration of Legal Interpretations (Glaser-2008 and Pratte-2012), 28 Feb 22, Instrument Rating - Airplane Airman Certification Standards (Change 1) (faa.gov)
, referenced way back in post #1, doesn't definitively say that an ASR qualifies as a non-precision approach for checkride purposes:

"The Glaser interpretation analyzes whether ASR and PAR are considered navigation systems under § 61.65(d)(2)(ii)(C). Glaser reasons that ASR and PAR are not navigation systems because they are radar-tracking systems that do not require flight crew to direct an aircraft on its course utilizing navigation instruments and were used infrequently at the time ofthe interpretation. Glaser also provided its own list of six acceptable navigation systems an applicant could choose from to meet its interpretation of the regulation. The Pratte interpretation partially rescinds Glaser by clarifying that Glaser's list of acceptable navigation systems was overly restrictive and was not intended to exclude navigation systems that might be approved in the future. However, Pratte affirms Glaser's conclusion that ASR and PAR do not qualify as navigation systems under § 61.65(d)(2)(ii)(C).

The FAA finds that PAR should be considered an acceptable navigation system under § 61.65(d)(2)(ii)(C) because § 1.1 defines a precision approach procedure, which is a type of instrument approach, as including the use of PAR. As a result, the FAA is rescinding both the Glaser and Pratte interpretations. Furthermore, because the regulations do not define "navigation systems," Flight Standards Service (AFS) is the best position to issue policy and guidance on what "navigation systems" mean and which ones may be used under § 61.65(d)(2)(ii)(C). Therefore, AFS should determine whether ASR should be part of a non-precision instrument approach under § 1.1, and whether the use of ASR is considered a navigation system under § 61.65 (d)(2)(ii)(C). note 6

note 6 Part 97 considers an approach using ASR as an example of a non-precision approach procedure. FAA Order 8260.3E, Chapter 1, Section 1, Paragraph 6(c), Types of Procedures."

At best, this only leaves the door open. So the question is in the time since this memo was published in Feb 2022, has AFS issued policy on ASRs? If they haven't then IMO only a PAR can be used for a checkride based upon my interpretation of the above paragraphs from the memo.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top