VFR Nav Log- ok to use GPS (IFR) waypoints?

nj-pilot

nj-pilot

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Aug 17, 2015
Messages
240
Location
Maine
Display Name
Display name:
josh_me
Hello

For the purpose of a CAX check-flight, I need to prepare a VFR nav log - like literally the old-school paper one.

My checkride is in a /G c172 (G1000). Rather than using VORs as waypoints, I'd like to use GPS waypoints which are found in low IFR charts.

Is this allowed, or must the waypoints be VORs only?
 
This is what happens when someone asks about their school rules to people that know nothing about the school nor its rules.
 
Sorry, CAX is the FAA's way of shortening "Commercial Pilot Airplane" - not asking anything about schools.
 
nj-pilot said:
Hello

For the purpose of a CAX check-flight, I need to prepare a VFR nav log - like literally the old-school paper one.

My checkride is in a /G c172 (G1000). Rather than using VORs as waypoints, I'd like to use GPS waypoints which are found in low IFR charts.

Is this allowed, or must the waypoints be VORs only?
Click to expand...

There is no specific rule about this. Do what pleases your instructor.
 
EdFred said:
And people say that I'm wrong about the children of the magenta line and autopilots.
Click to expand...
Funny - I got my private license in 2001 - i'm pretty sure i used NDB, ADF, and VOR navigation. I'm not what you call a child of the magenta line.
 
nj-pilot said:
Hello

For the purpose of a CAX check-flight, I need to prepare a VFR nav log - like literally the old-school paper one.

My checkride is in a /G c172 (G1000). Rather than using VORs as waypoints, I'd like to use GPS waypoints which are found in low IFR charts.

Is this allowed, or must the waypoints be VORs only?
Click to expand...

How are you going to find these way points when he either says the GPS system just went down?
How are you demonstrating pilotage by using these way points?

Brian
CFIIG/aSEL
 
EdFred said:
Then why you GPSing a VFR pilotage demonstration? :)
Click to expand...
Fair question. GPS is more accurate and allows me to stay focused on flying (the situational awareness I get from a GPS results in a lighter workload than doing so manually). Just trying to take workload off my shoulders so that I can focus on flying the plane.
 
brcase said:
How are you going to find these way points when he either says the GPS system just went down?
How are you demonstrating pilotage by using these way points?

Brian
CFIIG/aSEL
Click to expand...
Assuming you mean the GPS satellite system (not related to the hardware and software in the aircraft), then that's a good argument for using VOR (or visual) waypoints.
Makes me wonder: what happens if you're an IFR pilot on a GPS flight plan in IMC and the GPS system goes down? Many of my IFR routes have not been VOR-to-VOR. Not challenging you - in fact you raise a great point. Just curious how this works in the real-world (checkrides aside).
 
nj-pilot said:
Assuming you mean the GPS satellite system (not related to the hardware and software in the aircraft), then that's a good argument for using VOR (or visual) waypoints.
Makes me wonder: what happens if you're an IFR pilot on a GPS flight plan in IMC and the GPS system goes down? Many of my IFR routes have not been VOR-to-VOR. Not challenging you - in fact you raise a great point. Just curious how this works in the real-world (checkrides aside).
Click to expand...

About a year ago I was flying a friend's Turbo Lance from Arkansas to AZ. Just after El Paso, we had a GPS-outage. (Govt scrambling, or whatever. It was planned.)

I was already following an airway (V198 CUS to SSO) with GPS, simply looked-up and flipped on the freq. to the VOR. I wasn't even one "dot" off the airway. We carried on without a hitch.

There's so much restricted airspace out West that you don't commonly get IFR routing as "Direct destination" everywhere like what's common East of the Rockies. At the time of this outage, we were approaching the area near R-5115, and you don't mess with those tethered balloons.
 
The only real answer lies with your DPE. There's nothing inherently wrong with it from an ACS standpoint.

OTOH, think it would be far more impressive to plan it the old fashioned way and demonstrate commercial level knowledge of your GPS by creating user waypoints to match the places you used along the way.
 
nj-pilot said:
Fair question. GPS is more accurate and allows me to stay focused on flying (the situational awareness I get from a GPS results in a lighter workload than doing so manually). Just trying to take workload off my shoulders so that I can focus on flying the plane.
Click to expand...

As dmspilot highlighted, you will be tested on pilotage...which means VISUAL waypoints. That means non-electronic. Not even VORs. (Shame on your private pilot instructor for not starting you out correctly). Visual means something on the ground that you can see with your eyes, btw. Sorry for being harsh, but you made a point of saying you're familiar with NDBs, etc. What we're saying is even those don't qualify.

I understand what you are saying about focusing on flying. But here's the point: your flying should be instinctive if you're going to be a commercial pilot. You should be able to navigate visually (and dead-reckon) while you fly. Your confession that you need electronic aids to help you fly tells me you need additional work and practice. Think about taking a hike in the wilderness. You need to have a plan so that you don't get lost. Your plan should get you to your goals: seeing what you want to see. You are walking. When you set out to do this, do you need a guide so that you can focus and think about how you put one foot in front of another? Well, your flying is like walking. You should not need to put much mental energy into it.
 
nj-pilot said:
Sorry, CAX is the FAA's way of shortening "Commercial Pilot Airplane" - not asking anything about schools.
Click to expand...

As an aside to the main discussion, CAX is the FAA's code for the Commercial Pilot - Airplane knowledge test, but I've never heard it used to describe the checkride itself. Much like PAR is the code for the Private Pilot - Airplane knowledge test, but I've never heard anyone say they're preparing for the PAR checkride.

I'm not picking on you, actually I'm just wondering if this is common usage (CAX checkride) where you are, at local schools, etc.?
 
RussR said:
As an aside to the main discussion, CAX is the FAA's code for the Commercial Pilot - Airplane knowledge test, but I've never heard it used to describe the checkride itself. Much like PAR is the code for the Private Pilot - Airplane knowledge test, but I've never heard anyone say they're preparing for the PAR checkride.

I'm not picking on you, actually I'm just wondering if this is common usage (CAX checkride) where you are, at local schools, etc.?
Click to expand...
Must be someplace that really, really, really likes acronyms!
 
nj-pilot said:
Fair question. GPS is more accurate and allows me to stay focused on flying (the situational awareness I get from a GPS results in a lighter workload than doing so manually). Just trying to take workload off my shoulders so that I can focus on flying the plane.
Click to expand...

true.

But it is not pilotage, which is what the PTS (or whatever it is these days) calls for. The exercise is to track your flight visually, not to set up the G1000 to track it for you. Huge difference.

suppose you get an unexpected headwind and you’re not in a G1000 airplane. Do you know how to tell how far behind your flight plan you are at any moment? Being behind, will you have enough fuel to get to where you’re going or are you going to come up short?

Tracking your flight by pilotage and comparing it to a flight log will instantly tell you that you’re behind and by how much. That isn’t just an exercise, it’s a skill that every pilot should have and use.
 
nj-pilot said:
Makes me wonder: what happens if you're an IFR pilot on a GPS flight plan in IMC and the GPS system goes down? Many of my IFR routes have not been VOR-to-VOR. Not challenging you - in fact you raise a great point. Just curious how this works in the real-world (checkrides aside).
Click to expand...
It's all covered in the FAA's MON program. There is some good information at https://bruceair.wordpress.com/tag/vor-minimum-operational-network/
You should get to know the closest MON airport (and it's MON approaches) to your home base.
 
noahfong said:
Your confession that you need electronic aids to help you fly tells me you need additional work and practice.
Click to expand...
I don't recall confessing that i need electronic aids, but it is fair to say i use the tech available to reduce workload. I also use Google maps in my car - does that mean i need more work and practice driving a car?
 
This is the first time since I began flying in 1990 that I’ve ever really felt I should post this.


Could be that this week is the culmination of decisions I will mKe based on poor decision making of others, or could be the based on finally finding an outstanding cocktail bar nearby.

Either way it’s an occasion, for sure.
 
It seems to me that if you are doing a VFR nav log, the flight would be under VFR and you would not necessarily be using VOR's (or GPS waypoints) for check points. Unless you flew the airways, which most folks don't do flying VFR, you might be miles from the nearest airway and would not be able to see a VOR.
 
What’s the extra workload? Looking out the window for a landmark vs looking at the glass panel is about the same effort. Maybe checking times between landmarks to calculate ground speeds and time to next landmark are easier when you let the Garmin do it for you. Figuring heading adjustments for winds aloft are easier with the GPS doing the work. Is that the extra workload?

I always figured that’s all part of the fun of VFR.
 
nj-pilot said:
I don't recall confessing that i need electronic aids, but it is fair to say i use the tech available to reduce workload. I also use Google maps in my car - does that mean i need more work and practice driving a car?
Click to expand...

I posted straight from the horse's mouth that your VFR nav log must demonstrate pilotage and dead reckoning. If you think it's unnecessary why don't you complain to the FAA instead of arguing with everyone here?

Might as well try to use the autopilot to fly a lazy eight, that makes as much sense as the point you're trying to make.
 
dmspilot said:
I posted straight from the horse's mouth that your VFR nav log must demonstrate pilotage and dead reckoning. If you think it's unnecessary why don't you complain to the FAA instead of arguing with everyone here?

Might as well try to use the autopilot to fly a lazy eight, that makes as much sense as the point you're trying to make.
Click to expand...
When did I say it was unnecessary? I was just asking for clarification, which this community gave (and I'm appreciative).
I'm not challenging the answer, in fact I've said in this thread that it's a good point.
The only point I've made (other than asking a question) is that I believe a pilot can leverage modern avionics to reduce workload, but that was to explain the context of my question - somehow misinterpreted as GPS dependency.
Anyway, you can put down the pitchforks and torches now, and I thank you for the helpful response to my question
 
I think most of the subject has been covered but I just want to point out that “the extra workload” you were trying to avoid, is, in fact, the entire point of the exercise.
 
nj-pilot said:
I don't recall confessing that i need electronic aids, but it is fair to say i use the tech available to reduce workload. I also use Google maps in my car - does that mean i need more work and practice driving a car?
Click to expand...
Tha depends. Are you a "New York" driver or a "New Jersey" driver.
 
TCABM said:
This is the first time since I began flying in 1990 that I’ve ever really felt I should post this.


Could be that this week is the culmination of decisions I will mKe based on poor decision making of others, or could be the based on finally finding an outstanding cocktail bar nearby.

Either way it’s an occasion, for sure.
Click to expand...
Ah Ha. There it is. Someone posted that a few years ago. I've tried to find it a few times since to post in a thread where it really hit the point but couldn't find it. @kath this may be another candidate for a sticky. No necessarily this thread. Just that Video. This forum, or maybe Cleared For The Approach would be more pertinent.
 
nj-pilot said:
When did I say it was unnecessary? I was just asking for clarification, which this community gave (and I'm appreciative).
I'm not challenging the answer, in fact I've said in this thread that it's a good point.
The only point I've made (other than asking a question) is that I believe a pilot can leverage modern avionics to reduce workload, but that was to explain the context of my question - somehow misinterpreted as GPS dependency.
Anyway, you can put down the pitchforks and torches now, and I thank you for the helpful response to my question
Click to expand...

I admire your attitude regarding this whole episode. I know it seems you got dumped on by me and perhaps you did.:) I hope all is good.

Salty said:
I think most of the subject has been covered but I just want to point out that “the extra workload” you were trying to avoid, is, in fact, the entire point of the exercise.
Click to expand...

This is the point in a nutshell. In a training environment, you want it to be hard. For example, if you are training for a race, you don't want to cheat the process. You would run with weights strapped on; up hills, up stairs...anything to build your muscles and for the race to seem easy compared to the training. It's the same thing with pilot training. It needs to be hard or you don't develop the skills...mental skills of being able to fly the plane without conscious thought, knowing how things look at altitude, the feel of the plane, reading charts; computing ETAs, etc. With technology, it is common to see what used to be pilots are really more users of foreflight, people knowledgeable on Garmin navigation boxes, and operators of autopilots.

Let us encourage you to consider not only using visual waypoints, but to use paper charts and manual E6B. Note times of waypoint passage and commute the Groundspeed along with the ETA to next waypoint. This may make things artificially hard in the age of tablets and foreflight, but going through the exercise will make you become a better pilot. Even with you not realizing it.

Having said that, afterwards, when you fly for real, use all the whiz-bang tech to make the flying as simple as can be. Why, you may ask? Because when things begin to happen like getting low on fuel because of unexpected headwinds, your airport closed because someone gear-upped, ATC gives you weird instructions, the "box" doesn't work the way you thought, or you just have an emergency... things where you need reserve brain capacity to think and deal with it while flying...what kind of pilot do you want to be?
 
If you are working on your commercial and are asking this for an upcoming checkride. Should you be having this discussion with your instructor? Me personally, would seek his guidance on this. He might know what the DPE expects and finds acceptable.
 
One of my mentors is a DPE. He allows the use of ForeFlight for flight planning on any of his checkrides. …If you show up with a ForeFlight generated nav log, however, you will be required to explain in detail how ForeFlight arrived at its calculations. Most of my students opt for a paper log. He is also adamant that checkpoints are visually identifiable “xy” points on the ground. No “5 miles north of XYZ airport” or “crossing I-95” and certainly no instrument fixes or GPS waypoints.
 
Salty said:
I think most of the subject has been covered but I just want to point out that “the extra workload” you were trying to avoid, is, in fact, the entire point of the exercise.
Click to expand...

also, it is a perishable skill. If you haven’t been doing it, you will struggle.

Challenge yourself to do a 100 mile flight without electronic aids. If you’re not dependent on the garmin, it should be a piece of cake. You don’t need to prove anything to anyone here, but be honest and check yourself. Do all the things in the PTS and see how dependent you are or aren’t.

the odds are 1 in a million in reality, but be ready for the dpe to fail the g1000
 
bflynn said:
also, it is a perishable skill. If you haven’t been doing it, you will struggle.

Challenge yourself to do a 100 mile flight without electronic aids. If you’re not dependent on the garmin, it should be a piece of cake. You don’t need to prove anything to anyone here, but be honest and check yourself. Do all the things in the PTS and see how dependent you are or aren’t.

the odds are 1 in a million in reality, but be ready for the dpe to fail the g1000
Click to expand...

Every once in a while, I will do that. Put all the screens on pages that provide no info on my position and fly. Of course it's pretty hard to get lost with Lake Michigan to the west.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top