Flying Missed approach procedure with GPS or primary nav with G1000

[John777]

So far I have gone through lots of FAA Orders and ACs, and FAA mandates monitoring/flying the approach with primary navigation(such as LOC, VOR, etc...) and does not specifically address other segments such as Missed approach procedure.

Am I correct in this matter that I can switch to GPS mode following magenta tracks but LOC on ILS?

 

[midlifeflyer]

If you've gone through all those references, you should have picked up that you can use approved GPS for just about everything on a non-GPS approach except lateral guidance on the final approach course.

(And even the lateral guidance piece has been conditionally changing)

 

[tsts4]

The G1000 is setup to use GPS as the default Nav source once you activate the missed approach regardless of the approach type. IOW, if you are flying an ILS, LOC, or VOR approach once you activate the missed approach the G1000 will change the Nav source back to GPS automatically and provide Nav guidance for the entire missed approach procedure.

 

[jordane93]

So far I have gone through lots of FAA Orders and ACs, and FAA mandates monitoring/flying the approach with primary navigation(such as LOC, VOR, etc...) and does not specifically address other segments such as Missed approach procedure.

Am I correct in this matter that I can switch to GPS mode following magenta tracks but LOC on ILS?

Correct

 

[RotorDude]

The G1000 is setup to use GPS as the default Nav source once you activate the missed approach regardless of the approach type. IOW, if you are flying an ILS, LOC, or VOR approach once you activate the missed approach the G1000 will change the Nav source back to GPS automatically and provide Nav guidance for the entire missed approach procedure.

Not just the G1000, but also the GTN series, as well as all other WAAS-certified nav systems, AFAIK.

 

[aterpster]

Not just the G1000, but also the GTN series, as well as all other WAAS-certified nav systems, AFAIK.

I believe all IFR-approach certified RNAV systems, WAAS or not. The ILS X and Z ILS 16R at Reno use RNAV-1, which uses tighter airspace areas than a conventional ILS missed approach. The airlines are flying those approaches without WAAS, rather with TSCO C129 compliant Flight Management Systems.

 

[RotorDude]

I believe all IFR-approach certified RNAV systems, WAAS or not. The ILS X and Z ILS 16R at Reno use RNAV-1, which uses tighter airspace areas than a conventional ILS missed approach. The airlines are flying those approaches without WAAS, rather with TSCO C129 compliant Flight Management Systems.

I stand corrected, thank you!

 

[John777]

Also, the distances from VORs are the GPS driven correct? not the stored slant range in the database?

When I fly the VOR approach, you guys may have noticed that the distance on the bearing information window runs faster than that in the FLT PLAN page.

Usually, I notice FLT PLAN page leg distance being late by 0.1nm compared to Bearing information window.

 

[aterpster]

Also, the distances from VORs are the GPS driven correct? not the stored slant range in the database?

When I fly the VOR approach, you guys may have noticed that the distance on the bearing information window runs faster than that in the FLT PLAN page.

Usually, I notice FLT PLAN page leg distance being late by 0.1nm compared to Bearing information window.

Slant range is disregarded in TERPs for ground-based IAPs that use or require DME. Slant range is considered in the construction of holding patterns at higher altitudes. (but not RNAV-only holding.)

 

[John777]

Slant range is disregarded in TERPs for ground-based IAPs that use or require DME. Slant range is considered in the construction of holding patterns at higher altitudes. (but not RNAV-only holding.)

This is the new stuff I learned. I will look into TERPS again.