IRA Checkride with single VOR/GS

[CMeRun]

After 10 years with my PPL, I'm finally about to begin IFR training. Would there be any issues taking my instrument checkride in a plane with only a single VOR/GS? No DME. Thanks for any advice!

 

[Clip4]

Not impossible, but very difficult.

1. Constantly switching frequencies and OBS setting to determine position will be super high workload.
2. Many of the LOCs and VORs you will need are being decom. at a very fast pace now.
3. You will not be training to fly in the IFR system that does not exist in a few years.

 

[BillTIZ]

Can’t fly most instrument approaches in my area without a DME or GPS for DME.
Does your VOR CDI also have a glide path display for that required precision approach?

 

[CMeRun]

Thanks for the replies.

I do have 2 airports nearby that have VOR/LOC/ILS approaches available. A little more background, the VOR is a Narco Nav 12 with GS. The plane also has a mounted Garmin 496 (VFR only) and an STEC 60-2 autopilot.

 

[ja_user]

You need to non-precision and one precision for the checkride. What are they? Do they have other requirements on it?

passing the checkride and functioning in the system are going to be very different. What if the wind is blowing the wrong direction?

 

[Clip4]

Thanks for the replies.

I do have 2 airports nearby that have VOR/LOC/ILS approaches available. A little more background, the VOR is a Narco Nav 12 with GS. The plane also has a mounted Garmin 496 (VFR only) and an STEC 60-2 autopilot.

I don’t know where you are, but a lot of airports are not maintaining their LOCs thus you are out of business.

 

[midwestpa24]

Thanks for the replies.

I do have 2 airports nearby that have VOR/LOC/ILS approaches available. A little more background, the VOR is a Narco Nav 12 with GS. The plane also has a mounted Garmin 496 (VFR only) and an STEC 60-2 autopilot.

Better check the requirements for those approaches. Many require DME, ADF, or Radar in order to locate the required fixes on the approach. The approach plate for each approach will say what you need.

 

[jordane93]

Didn’t @mtuomi do his IR in a 152 single VOR/GS?

 

[midlifeflyer]

It's been said already, but you biggest issues are

Two nonprecision approaches using two different nav systems. Unless you've got a non-ILS LOC available, it going to be hard to do. Your mounted 496 doesn't count for anything.

Many approaches in some areas require DME. I noticed that trend more than 10 years ago and it has increased with the decommissioning of NDBs.

Lots and lots of switching back and forth to identify intersections and step-downs on approaches. Again, your mounted 496 doesn't count for anything except general situational awareness. But heck, having to deal with that workload in the "let's see if we can overload you" world of instrument training might make you a great IFR pilot.

 

[CC268]

A single VOR/GS is going to be tough. If you had two you’d be fine. I did my entire IR rating with two KX170Bs (no standby frequencies) and two VORs (one ILS one LOC only). No DME. At the very end of my training we put a G5 HSI in and a GNC 255 radio in and removed the LOC only. But that wasn’t till the very last little bit of my training.

I’ve since had the chance to fly other airplanes with GPS to get somewhat familiar with GPS approaches.

 

[luvflyin]

After 10 years with my PPL, I'm finally about to begin IFR training. Would there be any issues taking my instrument checkride in a plane with only a single VOR/GS? No DME. Thanks for any advice!

It'll fine tune your task management skills. You may get blisters on your finger tips

 

[TheGolfPilot]

You'll be fine as long as you can find an instructor who knows how to fly without a gps. Those are getting rarer and rarer.

 

[iamtheari]

Two nonprecision approaches using two different nav systems. Unless you've got a non-ILS LOC available, it going to be hard to do.

Can't you fly the ILS/LOC approach as a nonprecision approach for the check ride, just using the S-LOC minimums on the ILS/LOC plate?

Doing the entire check ride with just a single VOR/ILS will be very challenging, but I believe it can be done. You would have to fly an ILS using S-ILS minimums; an ILS/LOC using LOC minimums, a LOC, or an LDA; and a VOR approach. On the two nonprecision approaches, you would have to identify step-down fixes with crossing VOR radials, which means you need to shop for approaches that have those. You would work your butt off on both of the nonprecision approaches and it would be double-time for the one you fly partial panel.

But I would really like to fly with a pilot who can pass that check ride. I only dream of being that good.

 

[James331]

Yeah, depending on the approaches, you can do it.

I did mine with a single cdi/gs and one with just a cdi.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Can't you fly the ILS/LOC approach as a nonprecision approach for the check ride, just using the S-LOC minimums on the ILS/LOC plate?

I don't know. With a modern GPS, we can turn off LPV so we don't get a glidepath. AFAIK, cannot do that with a VOR/LOC indicator. Whether pretending to ignore the needle in front of you is acceptable or not, I don't know. Never had a reason to check.

 

[EppyGA]

Wait......you have to take a checkride to invest now?

 

[CMeRun]

Tell me about it... there's a separate checkride for the ROTH, too.

Thanks for the input everyone. I went out to test it yesterday and the stupid thing started malfunctioning. Appears the gears behind the selector knobs are stripping/cracking and from my research so far I'm highly unlikely to find the parts for them now. I know this setup is far from ideal for actually flying in the system and had planned on upgrading avionics before long anyway. I was just hoping to put that money toward training in the meantime.

Looks like I'll be getting some new toys soon

 

[Kritchlow]

Doesn’t anyone require (non gps) intersection holding anymore??

 

[MauleSkinner]

Doesn’t anyone require (non gps) intersection holding anymore??

Only using NDBs.

But I prefer realism...the NDB approach at Petropavlovsk, Russia uses three different NDBs, two of which you’ll have to use twice. Good news is, the FAF isn’t collocated with any of them...it’s a radar fix.

 

[Jim_CAK]

I don't know. With a modern GPS, we can turn off LPV so we don't get a glidepath. AFAIK, cannot do that with a VOR/LOC indicator. Whether pretending to ignore the needle in front of you is acceptable or not, I don't know. Never had a reason to check.

For what its worth . . .
I took my IFR ride 15 years ago. We have glide slope indicators on both CDIs. The DPE would not allow me to do a localizor only approach because the glide slope was on both Nav 1 and Nav 2 CDIs. I did the ILS, VOR-A and a GPS approach.

 

[James331]

I don't know. With a modern GPS, we can turn off LPV so we don't get a glidepath. AFAIK, cannot do that with a VOR/LOC indicator. Whether pretending to ignore the needle in front of you is acceptable or not, I don't know. Never had a reason to check.

Just ignore the GS and fly the LOC with the step downs.

 

[Mtns2Skies]

@CMeRun I'm in a very similar boat as you. I recently did an avionics "upgrade" to my plane and could only afford a single CDI w/ gs. I also have an Aera 660. I don't plan to fly IFR after my checkride in this plane, but I do have enough equipment to do the training and checkride.

In my area we have plenty of LOC approaches, ILS and VOR so I'll definitely be able to take my checkride. In VFR conditions under VFR rules, my handheld GPS can display RNAV approaches so I won't be missing out on the training that other posters have suggested.

My CFII, she's a master instructor and has had several students take checkrides with a single CDI. Its aabsolutely doable and as I'm about a third of the way through my training it really increases your situational awareness. Best of luck! But you won't need it. You'll be just fine.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Just ignore the GS and fly the LOC with the step downs.

I think that was my question. Do you happen to have a reference that pretending you don't have vertical guidance when you actually do is acceptable?

 

[TheGolfPilot]

On another note. Some of the worst instrument panels I have seen were "picked out" by people wanting all the gadgets for their instrument rating.
If you are about to upgrade your panel before your rating, find someone that flies a lot of IFR and ask them what they would put in. When someone asks me, they are typically shocked "thats it? you don't want this gizmo and that gadget? what about an Ipad mount right in the middle? what!!!? you don't use an Ipad?!!" Seriously, don't just ask your instructor or the guy selling you the stuff. Doing that will save you a fortune of money and time and make Instrument flying way easier.

 

[Ken Ibold]

I don’t know where you are, but a lot of airports are not maintaining their LOCs thus you are out of business.

Splitting hairs here, but localizers are typically owned and maintained by FAA, not the airports.

 

[James331]

I think that was my question. Do you happen to have a reference that pretending you don't have vertical guidance when you actually do is acceptable?

It doesn’t matter because you’re not using it, you’re using the step downs, it should obvious to the DPE if you’re flying it as a loc or a ils, also nothing says you can’t, thus you can.

 

[TheGolfPilot]

It doesn’t matter because you’re not using it, you’re using the step downs, it should obvious to the DPE if you’re flying it as a loc or a ils, also nothing says you can’t, thus you can.

There are real world reasons to want to fly the localizer only instead of the whole ILS. Nothing wrong with ignoring the glide-slope in favor of localizer only minima

 

[midlifeflyer]

There are real world reasons to want to fly the localizer only instead of the whole ILS. Nothing wrong with ignoring the glide-slope in favor of localizer only minima

Absolutely! But we're not talking about the real world. We're talking about the checkride.

You make a good point, though. Given the scenario-based checkride testing paradigm, there is a solid reason why it should be permitted.

 

[murphey]

I don't know. With a modern GPS, we can turn off LPV so we don't get a glidepath. AFAIK, cannot do that with a VOR/LOC indicator. Whether pretending to ignore the needle in front of you is acceptable or not, I don't know. Never had a reason to check.

Why not just tape over the ILS part? Piece of masking tape (horizontal strip) should do it. I've got an SL30 with a CDI, so for the non-precision, I just cover the CDI since the SL30 has the LOC.

 

[Jim_CAK]

I think that was my question. Do you happen to have a reference that pretending you don't have vertical guidance when you actually do is acceptable?

I can’t find anything specific other than what is in the PTS under the changes for the airplane requirements.
FAA-S-8081-4E PTS Instrument
https://www.faa.gov/training_testing/testing/test_standards/media/instrument_rating_pts_change5.pdf

• Area of Operation VI: Instrument Approach Procedures, Task A: Nonprecision Approach (NPA)
o NOTE: added sentence that NPA will have no vertical guidance
o Modified Objective 11 to emphasize stabilized approach profile

 

[dmspilot]

I can’t find anything specific other than what is in the PTS under the changes for the airplane requirements.
FAA-S-8081-4E PTS Instrument
https://www.faa.gov/training_testing/testing/test_standards/media/instrument_rating_pts_change5.pdf

• Area of Operation VI: Instrument Approach Procedures, Task A: Nonprecision Approach (NPA)
o NOTE: added sentence that NPA will have no vertical guidance
o Modified Objective 11 to emphasize stabilized approach profile

But it also says "If the equipment allows, at least one nonprecision approach shall be conducted without vertical guidance."

He then has two excuses allowing him to do an ILS as LOC-only: one, his equipment doesn't allow it; and two, he only needs to do one of the two NPAs without vertical guidance anyway. He can do one NPA without vertical guidance in the form of a VOR approach.

 

[SbestCFII]

Don't let it bug you. You'll do an ILS, Localizer and VOR approach. Not having DME does make things harder, since you have to time from the FAF for both your non-precision approaches. On the upside everything will be almost 100% predictable.

 

[James331]

There are real world reasons to want to fly the localizer only instead of the whole ILS. Nothing wrong with ignoring the glide-slope in favor of localizer only minima

Minus the GS being out or another hardware issue, I can’t think of any good reason to go step downs when you have a good ILS/LPV, just fly into the glide slope and follow it to mins

 

[TheGolfPilot]

Minus the GS being out or another hardware issue, I can’t think of any good reason to go step downs when you have a good ILS/LPV, just fly into the glide slope and follow it to mins

You can’t think of any scenario where you would rather get below the clouds faster/further out, than ride the glide slope? Most approaches aren’t flown to minima, they end before that

 

[James331]

You can’t think of any scenario where you would rather get below the clouds faster/further out, than ride the glide slope? Most approaches aren’t flown to minima, they end before that

Step downs are much more prone to errors and higher work load plus other issues, even if it’s night VMC following the GS down is a good call, when I take the visual I still back it up with a loaded and activated approach, ideally one with a GS.

 

[TheGolfPilot]

Step downs are much more prone to errors and higher work load plus other issues, even if it’s night VMC following the GS down is a good call, when I take the visual I still back it up with a loaded and activated approach, ideally one with a GS.

When I’m on an approach going the opposite direction of local vfr traffic, I prefer to be out of the clouds, able to see and be seen, as far away from the airport as possible. When I’m opting to do a step down over a gs it’s usually mvfr at the airport, I just need to get under the layer.

 

[James331]

When I’m on an approach going the opposite direction of local vfr traffic, I prefer to be out of the clouds, able to see and be seen, as far away from the airport as possible. When I’m opting to do a step down over a gs it’s usually mvfr at the airport, I just need to get under the layer.

So you’d prefer to edit a cloud into busy VFR traffic at a higher speed and decent rate? Vs exiting into VMC at a stable decent and at a normal approach speed?

 

[TheGolfPilot]

So you’d prefer to edit a cloud into busy VFR traffic at a higher speed and decent rate? Vs exiting into VMC at a stable decent and at a normal approach speed?

I’d rather exit the cloud before I get to the busy vfr traffic. Half moon bay is one airport where I have approached from the north there on the gps approach and have exited the clouds through 1000 feet looking straight at a plane on upwind. I kid you not, the person actually told me that straight Ins are illegal. In a perfect world it makes sense to follow a glide slope, and in theory, it doesn’t make sense to do a step down. But it’s not a perfect world and we aren’t living in theory and the guy doing laps in the pattern doesn’t have any clue where you are going to pop out of those clouds and I don’t know where he is until I do.
This is sort of like the “special vfr isn’t needed anymore” conversation. Those who use it, do so because they find a benefit. Those who don’t, think it’s stupid and just a relict of the past.

If you are gaining speed on a step down approach, you are doing it wrong

 

[James331]

I’d rather exit the cloud before I get to the busy vfr traffic. Half moon bay is one airport where I have approached from the north there on the gps approach and have exited the clouds through 1000 feet looking straight at a plane on upwind. I kid you not, the person actually told me that straight Ins are illegal. In a perfect world it makes sense to follow a glide slope, and in theory, it doesn’t make sense to do a step down. But it’s not a perfect world and we aren’t living in theory and the guy doing laps in the pattern doesn’t have any clue where you are going to pop out of those clouds and I don’t know where he is until I do.
This is sort of like the “special vfr isn’t needed anymore” conversation. Those who use it, do so because they find a benefit. Those who don’t, think it’s stupid and just a relict of the past.

If you are gaining speed on a step down approach, you are doing it wrong

That’s not a ILS vs a LOC issue, that’s a airport with a bunch of idiots in marginal weather issue.

 

[midlifeflyer]

But it also says "If the equipment allows, at least one nonprecision approach shall be conducted without vertical guidance."

He then has two excuses allowing him to do an ILS as LOC-only: one, his equipment doesn't allow it; and two, he only needs to do one of the two NPAs without vertical guidance anyway. He can do one NPA without vertical guidance in the form of a VOR approach.

I don't recall that language in the defunct PTS, but that's just me - no need to look at the question before. But I don't see it in the current ACS testing standards.

You make an excellent point, though, to refer to the requirements. The ACS Appendix lists acceptable non-precision approaches and the include "LOC procedures on an ILS" and "RNAV (GPS) to LNAV, LNAV/VNAV or LPV line of minima as long as the LPV DA is greater than 300 feet HAT." Especially the second one, LPV with a high DA, suggests that the presence of absence of vertical guidance is not the differentiating factor.

Thank you.