Biggest learning / surprise from IFR checkride?

[denverpilot]

Hopefully, a VOR/DME or a VORTAC. Not supposed to be a PTS task if you don't have a real DME in the plane.



Only a fault if something is wrong with your radios. If you depart from a towered field and they hear you, your radio is checked.



Yep. I used mine in the hold. It's a PTS task to be asked to fly an approach with one if it supports it. In my case it went like this:



<we just finished unusual attitudes and the gyros are covered>

DPE: (mimicking ATC) Maint 3000' until established Cleared RNAV 23 approach.

<start flying the approach>

DPE: Does your autopilot still work when the vacuum fails.

ME: Yes, it's a rate unit off the electric TC.

DPE: Then why don't you use it?

ME: OK. Verify that the we're on the leg of the approach and punch on the autopilot.

I had to explain that my AP sucks so bad at everything that in IMC it would likely kill me, but that it's in spec and I wouldn't be placarding it INOP.

DPE accommodated by letting me show him how bad it was on the first leg outbound from the airport.

It'll do great "s-turns about a course" and would keep you (barely) right side up in a dire emergency, but with large deviations left and right.

He agreed that it sucked and I hand flew all of the approaches from then on.

 

[fiveoboy01]

The first thing you do is add full power and climb. No one has ever crashed above an airport.

To add, be mindful of the direction the missed approach procedure takes you.

I'd be turning towards the landing runway or the center of the airport complex whilst climbing, and get myself aligned on the track that the missed calls for, keeping in mind that the turn direction might be different than the one specified for the procedure if I'm coming from a different direction.

 

[flyingron]

An IFR certified GPS is an acceptable substitute, so the GPS makes the aircraft "so equipped."

That's not what the clause says.

 

[eetrojan]

That's not what the clause says.

My thoughts...

The PTS, on the one hand, says references to DME will be disregarded if the aircraft is not so "equipped."

AC 90-108, on the other hand, says that you can use a GPS as a "substitute" for a DME (specifically saying you can use a GPS to fly an arc based upon DME)

It seems like these are in tension and open to interpretation, so reasonable people (including DPEs) may disagree about whether a GPS-only plane is "equipped" for DME. Witness this thread.

Thus, when it comes time for my ride, I'm going to be sure that I can use the GPS as a substitute for a DME.

Maybe I'm naive, but it seems like a good skill to have anyway.

 

[flyingron]

My thoughts...

The PTS, on the one hand, says references to DME will be disregarded if the aircraft is not so "equipped."


AC 90-108, on the other hand, says that you can use a GPS as a "substitute" for a DME (specifically saying you can use a GPS to fly an arc based upon DME)


It seems like these are in tension and open to interpretation, so reasonable people (including DPEs) may disagree about whether a GPS-only plane is "equipped" for DME. Witness this thread.

You're inventing things that don't EXIST in the phrase. "so equipped" doesn't say "equipped in a manner that allows legal susbsittuion for the equipment." The SO is reflexive to the DME. You don't have DME, the task should not be a part of your checkride.

If the FAA wants to extend the checkride to cover simulating DME arcs with IFR GPS, then they should write the PTS that way.

 

[eetrojan]

You're inventing things that don't EXIST in the phrase. "so equipped" doesn't say "equipped in a manner that allows legal susbsittuion for the equipment." The SO is reflexive to the DME. You don't have DME, the task should not be a part of your checkride.

If the FAA wants to extend the checkride to cover simulating DME arcs with IFR GPS, then they should write the PTS that way.

A reasonable point of view, for sure, but not the only one.

 

[AustinPilot]

You're inventing things that don't EXIST in the phrase. "so equipped" doesn't say "equipped in a manner that allows legal susbsittuion for the equipment." The SO is reflexive to the DME. You don't have DME, the task should not be a part of your checkride.

If the FAA wants to extend the checkride to cover simulating DME arcs with IFR GPS, then they should write the PTS that way.

If you can legally fly an approach requiring DME using an IFR-certified GPS, then it is "so equipped".

 

[AustinPilot]

Eh? That's not a towered field then.

I didn't say anything about a towered, field..... I just said to do a radio check. It's something the DPE mentioned to me and I was not at a towered airport, that's all.

 

[fiveoboy01]

You're inventing things that don't EXIST in the phrase. "so equipped" doesn't say "equipped in a manner that allows legal susbsittuion for the equipment." The SO is reflexive to the DME. You don't have DME, the task should not be a part of your checkride.

If the FAA wants to extend the checkride to cover simulating DME arcs with IFR GPS, then they should write the PTS that way.

So I'm on the checkride and I don't have DME, but I have a WAAS GPS.

The DPE wants me to fly a VOR approach which has several fixes, including the MAP, defined by DME. But my GPS allows me to load the VOR approach, use VLOC for lateral guidance, and distance information in leiu of the DME.

I can refuse to fly the approach and say I'm not equipped to do it, and the DPE would be wrong to fail me for that. Is that your stance?

 

[flyingron]

I didn't say anything about a towered, field..... I just said to do a radio check. It's something the DPE mentioned to me and I was not at a towered airport, that's all.

You responded to my post where I was talking about a towered field.

DPEs are high time instructors and I've never found an instructor who could keep his mouth shut and not impart some extraneous words of wisdom.

 

[flyingron]

Flying an approach that requires DME you can legally substitute GPS for is different from the fact that the PTS specifically says omit tasks if you don't have a DME.

You have to understand ENGLISH rather than inventing scenarios.

 

[Caramon13]

I can back Ron up on this by adding that in my recent checkride I had a GTN-650 but NO DME installed. The DPE confirmed that due to that fact DME Arcs would be unnecessary.

If I did have a separate DME installed, then they WOULD in fact be part of the checkride.

Have I flown them? Yep, sure have in my plane with the GTN-650. But, as Ron said, unless you have a DME (not a DME substitute) you are not required to demonstrate Arcs on the checkride.

 

[Bonchie]

You're inventing things that don't EXIST in the phrase. "so equipped" doesn't say "equipped in a manner that allows legal susbsittuion for the equipment." The SO is reflexive to the DME. You don't have DME, the task should not be a part of your checkride.

If the FAA wants to extend the checkride to cover simulating DME arcs with IFR GPS, then they should write the PTS that way.

You may be right technically, but I can confirm (among many others) that my DPE made me fly an arc using the GPS as DME.

So all the arguments are fine, but at the end of the day you better know how to do it just in case. It's easier to just do it then argue it, have to go to the FSDO, and **** the DPE off.

 

[flyingron]

You may be right technically, but I can confirm (among many others) that my DPE made me fly an arc using the GPS as DME.

So all the arguments are fine, but at the end of the day you better know how to do it just in case. It's easier to just do it then argue it, have to go to the FSDO, and **** the DPE off.

If a DPE can't limit himself to following the rules I see no problem with risking hurting his tender feelings by reporting the malfeasance to the FAA.

 

[fiveoboy01]

Who's to say that you don't have DME just because there's not a "real" DME in the panel?

A GPS is distance measuring equipment, it uses satellites and ground stations instead of a VOR...

 

[coloradobluesky]

I had to do a DME arc with my IFR/GPS when I took my Instrument ride!

 

[Tflhndn]

Seems pretty logical if a gps is legal to fly a DME arc, then your plane is equipped to fly a DME arc and therefore you can be tested on it.

I don't see how you can argue with a straight face that you are legal to fly a DME arc in that plane but it is not legal for the DPE to test you on it in that plane.

Sounds like sea lawyer nonsense

 

[fiveoboy01]

Seems pretty logical if a gps is legal to fly a DME arc, then your plane is equipped to fly a DME arc and therefore you can be tested on it.

I don't see how you can argue with a straight face that you are legal to fly a DME arc in that plane but it is not legal for the DPE to test you on it in that plane.

Sounds like sea lawyer nonsense

Revisiting this, as I'm brushing up for the IFR ride. Found a section I hadn't been aware of...

AIM 1-2-3:

Uses of Suitable RNAV Systems. Subject to the operating requirements, operators may use a suitable RNAV system in the following ways.

1. Determine aircraft position relative to, or distance from a VOR (see NOTE 5 below), TACAN, NDB, compass locator, DME fix; or a named fix defined by a VOR radial, TACAN course, NDB bearing, or compass locator bearing intersecting a VOR or localizer course.

2. Navigate to or from a VOR, TACAN, NDB, or compass locator.

3. Hold over a VOR, TACAN, NDB, compass locator, or DME fix.

4. Fly an arc based upon DME.

NOTE- 1. The allowances described in this section apply even when a facility is identified as required on a procedure (for example, “Note ADF required”).

I'd say that if the DPE wants you to fly the arc and you don't have DME but a GPS, you'd better know how to fly the arc with it.

 

[flyingron]

I'd say that if the DPE wants you to fly the arc and you don't have DME but a GPS, you'd better know how to fly the arc with it.

He's going outside the PTS if he asks you to do that. The PTS is clear. The PTS says to use the DME Arc task only when the plane is equipped with DME. It doesn't say something you could use instead of a DME.

 

[wilkersk]

This note appears in just about every DME-dependent task:

NOTE: Any reference to DME will be disregarded if the aircraft is
not so equipped.


I wouldn't argue with the DPE over it, but if it kept me from getting a certificate you can be darned sure it would go up the chain of command. Of course, my plane has a DME (not that I've turned it on really since I got my IFR GPS).

Eh? That's not a towered field then.

What happened to AC 90-108? I've been using GPS in lieu of DME. As far as I know, the DPE our 141 school uses expects it.

 

[coloradobluesky]

Don't make any turns at more than standard rate. Even when not under the hood. Dont forget to reduce power before going into a hold. Frankly, there are so many items to remember on the IFR checkride, its amazing anyone passes it! (most probably could be failed on something, the DE's know that and compensate). Good luck!

 

[Blueangel]

Good stuff! Most planes I fly have GPS but no DME and my instructor is having me learn to fly DME arcs with GPS. So all of the local San Diego DPEs must test DME arcs using GPS as substitute even though it goes against the PTS! Also, I hear the DPE in San Diego make you do weird unpublished holds off a radial waypoint versus over a VOR fix. Very tough DPEs here in San Diego!

 

[Shawn]

I also did a DME arc with GPS on my checkride...so not that uncommon.

 

[fiveoboy01]

But but Ron would tattle. I'm sure DPEs everywhere are reconsidering.

 

[Blueangel]

DPE doesn't care they are GOD in the eyes of the FAA much like a king or royalty

 

[Caramon13]

What happened to AC 90-108? I've been using GPS in lieu of DME. As far as I know, the DPE our 141 school uses expects it.

Doesn't apply on a checkride since GPS <> DME. GPS is a DME substitute, that's all. There are certain approaches where GPS CANNOT be substituted for an in-panel DME device.

Same thing applies for an NDB approach (assuming you can find one still around). You can't be forced to demonstrate ADF knowledge without an ADF installed and functional in the panel for the checkride. Can you use GPS to substitute for an NDB approach? Sure, but again, not for every ADF approach, there are exceptions.

I've flown DME arcs in a GPS, but a checkride is supposed to test your knowledge and skill level exactly as demanded by published procedures and FAA requirements. For example, a DPE can't make you fly an unpublished hold on the checkride, you need to fly a published one.

I'm sure there are exceptions to every rule though and personally I never want to get into a pi$$ing contest with a DPE DURING the checkride. Worry about it afterwards if you fail, otherwise it's "Yes Sir, I can do that". And be ABLE to do it .

 

[azure]

Doesn't apply on a checkride since GPS <> DME. GPS is a DME substitute, that's all. There are certain approaches where GPS CANNOT be substituted for an in-panel DME device.

While this is true, IMO it's a deficiency in the PTS since almost all approaches with DME arcs can be flown with GPS substituting for DME. The only exceptions are those (two in the US, I believe) where the final approach course is a DME arc. There are also many approaches "requiring" DME to identify fixes along the FAC where GPS is a perfectly acceptable substitute, and I don't see any reason why DPEs should be forbidden to test candidates on those approaches even if they don't have real DME.

Same thing applies for an NDB approach (assuming you can find one still around). You can't be forced to demonstrate ADF knowledge without an ADF installed and functional in the panel for the checkride. Can you use GPS to substitute for an NDB approach? Sure, but again, not for every ADF approach, there are exceptions.

Actually, I don't think you can use a GPS to substitute for an ADF on the final leg of an NDB approach. Pretty sure you need a real ADF to fly those. So I don't see a problem with not requiring it on the checkride if the candidate only has a GPS and no ADF. It seems to me that DME arcs, and other uses for DME not involving lateral course guidance on the final approach segment, are different.

 

[Caramon13]

While this is true, IMO it's a deficiency in the PTS since almost all approaches with DME arcs can be flown with GPS substituting for DME. The only exceptions are those (two in the US, I believe) where the final approach course is a DME arc. There are also many approaches "requiring" DME to identify fixes along the FAC where GPS is a perfectly acceptable substitute, and I don't see any reason why DPEs should be forbidden to test candidates on those approaches even if they don't have real DME.

I'm sure there will be a change in the coming years that will make it legal for them to test people on it, as GPS (or whatever comes next) becomes more and more precise. Heck I'd prefer to do an RNAV approach (LPV) over an ILS any day. And there's more RNAV approaches around where I live then ILS. Especially for smaller fields, etc.

Actually, I don't think you can use a GPS to substitute for an ADF on the final leg of an NDB approach. Pretty sure you need a real ADF to fly those.

Sure you can. Again, there are a few exceptions:

1. NDB approaches that do not have an associated GPS overlay approach must still be flown using an ADF.
2. A non-GPS approach procedure must exist at the alternate airport when one is required to be filed by regulation. If the non-GPS approaches on which the pilot must rely require DME or ADF, the aircraft must be equipped with DME or ADF avionics as appropriate. GPS substitution for DME/ADF is not permitted in this case.
3. DME transmitters associated with a localizer may not be retrievable from your GPS until the manufacturer incorporates them in the database. Pilots are not authorized to manually enter coordinates.

 

[azure]

Sure you can. Again, there are a few exceptions:

1. NDB approaches that do not have an associated GPS overlay approach must still be flown using an ADF.
2. A non-GPS approach procedure must exist at the alternate airport when one is required to be filed by regulation. If the non-GPS approaches on which the pilot must rely require DME or ADF, the aircraft must be equipped with DME or ADF avionics as appropriate. GPS substitution for DME/ADF is not permitted in this case.
3. DME transmitters associated with a localizer may not be retrievable from your GPS until the manufacturer incorporates them in the database. Pilots are not authorized to manually enter coordinates.

Okay, I forgot about GPS overlays. (How many of those are left in the country? Can't be many!) But your other points are not exceptions; 2. underscores my point and 3. simply says that the DME source must be in the GPS database. (Not sure why they said "retrieve the DME transmitter from the GPS" since it's really just the location that matters; "DME" given by a GPS is derived from GPS coordinates.)

So with the exception of GPS overlays, it is not legal to fly an NDB approach with GPS substituting for ADF on the final approach segment.

 

[Caramon13]

Okay, I forgot about GPS overlays. (How many of those are left in the country?) But your other points are not exceptions; 2. underscores my point and 3. simply says that the DME source must be in the GPS database. (Not sure why they said "DME transmitter" since it's really just the location that matters; "DME" given by a GPS is derived from GPS coordinates.)

So with the exception of GPS overlays, it is not legal to fly an NDB approach with GPS substituting for ADF on the final approach segment.

Well #2 doesn't really apply to your point since your point (as I understood it) was that you couldn't fly the final leg of an ADF approach without an ADF in the plane. You can. Subject to the exceptions I posted.

Point #2 applies to an alternate. You can use your GPS to substitute for an NDB approach (with an overlay), but if you have to go to an alternate, you better have something (eg, DME or ADF) to fly an approach that requires it there since you can't double-dip.

 

[azure]

Well #2 doesn't really apply to your point since your point (as I understood it) was that you couldn't fly the final leg of an ADF approach without an ADF in the plane. You can. Subject to the exceptions I posted.

No you can't - unless it's that (very rare nowadays) animal called an overlay approach. In which case it is really a GPS approach "overlaying" an NDB approach, not really using GPS to substitute for ADF, which I think is what this thread was supposed to be discussing.

Point #2 applies to an alternate. You can use your GPS to substitute for an NDB approach (with an overlay), but if you have to go to an alternate, you better have something (eg, DME or ADF) to fly an approach that requires it there since you can't double-dip.

Actually, that's not true if your GPS is WAAS-based (certified under TSO-C146()). You don't need other equipment, but I believe you have to assume LNAV or circling minima at the alternate destination. What you wrote is true for non-WAAS-only installations, or if WAAS is not available for some reason.

 

[Caramon13]

No you can't - unless it's that (very rare nowadays) animal called an overlay approach. In which case it is really a GPS approach "overlaying" an NDB approach, not really using GPS to substitute for ADF, which I think is what this thread was supposed to be discussing.

Right, exactly .

Actually, that's not true if your GPS is WAAS-based (certified under TSO-C146()). You don't need other equipment, but I believe you have to assume LNAV or circling minima at the alternate destination. What you wrote is true for non-WAAS-only installations, or if WAAS is not available for some reason.

It's true as it pertains to a GPS Overlay ADF approach.

The clarification you are searching for is if you are using a non-WAAS GPS:

The FAA has updated this policy to allow an option to flight plan for use of a GPS-based IAP at either the destination or the alternate airport, but not at both locations. At the alternate airport, pilots may plan for applicable alternate airport weather minimums using:
1. Lateral navigation (LNAV) or circling minimum descent altitude (MDA);
2. LNAV/vertical navigation (LNAV/VNAV) decision altitude (DA) if equipped with and using approved barometric vertical navigation (baro-VNAV);
3. RNP 0.3 DA on an RNAV (RNP) IAP if specifically authorized with approved baro-VNAV equipment.

using WAAS GPS you do need other equipment, you need to be equipped with and using baro-VNAV equipment .
How many GA planes do you think have baro-VNAV equipment to do what you're asking?

 

[azure]

using WAAS GPS you do need other equipment, you need to be equipped with and using baro-VNAV equipment .
How many GA planes do you think have baro-VNAV equipment to do what you're asking?

Reference? In the AIM update from 12/10/15 I can't find anything close to what you're saying. As far as I can tell, the only time you need baro-VNAV is if you want to use the LNAV/VNAV minima (if available); or if you want to plan for a RNP 0.3 DA at an alternate, and in that case you need verified RNP availability using an approved prediction program.

You don't need baro-VNAV to fly an approach with LPV minima, and you certainly don't need it to flight plan for LNAV minima at an alternate. (I should hope not anyway, as my 480 has WAAS and I've done both with it. )

 

[fiveoboy01]

You're correct. I don't know where he's getting that, or we are not understanding what he's trying to say.

 

[MAKG1]

Good stuff! Most planes I fly have GPS but no DME and my instructor is having me learn to fly DME arcs with GPS. So all of the local San Diego DPEs must test DME arcs using GPS as substitute even though it goes against the PTS! Also, I hear the DPE in San Diego make you do weird unpublished holds off a radial waypoint versus over a VOR fix. Very tough DPEs here in San Diego!

It's easier to hold on a radial far from a VOR than it is over the VOR. There is no zone of confusion. And missed approach holds often look like that.

 

[Caramon13]

Reference?

The change was made a few years ago in a NOTAM issued 4-4-2013. The language is there still in the latest AIM, though it looks like I missed the last part of the change which does include the ability to fly EITHER baro-VNAV or LPV. So apologies on that. That struck me as a bit odd too come to think of it, why would you be restricted to baro-VNAV with a WAAS capable GPS..

GPS Instrument Approach Procedures

1-1-21 (5)(c)

For flight planning purposes,TSO-C129() and TSO-C196()−equipped users (GPS users) whose navigation systems have fault detection and exclusion (FDE) capability, who perform a preflight RAIM prediction for the approach integrity at the airport where the RNAV (GPS) approach will be flown, and have proper knowledge and any required training and/or approval to conduct a GPS-based IAP, may file based on a GPS−based IAP at either the destination or the alternate airport, but not at both locations. At the alternate airport, pilots may plan for:

(1) Lateral navigation (LNAV) or circling minimum descent altitude (MDA);
(2) LNAV/vertical navigation (LNAV/VNAV) DA, if equipped with and using approved barometric vertical navigation (baro-VNAV) equipment;
(3) RNP 0.3 DA on an RNAV (RNP) IAP,if they are specifically authorized users using approved baro-VNAV equipment and the pilot has verified required navigation performance (RNP) availability through an approved prediction program.
(d) If the above conditions cannot be met, any required alternate airport must have an approved instrument approach procedure other than GPS− based that is anticipated to be operational and available at the estimated time of arrival, and which the aircraft is equipped to fly

1-1-30 (9)(a) WAAS

Pilots with WAAS receivers may flight plan to use any instrument approach procedure authorized for use with their WAAS avionics as the planned approach at a required alternate, with the following restrictions.

When using WAAS at an alternate airport, flight planning must be based on flying the RNAV (GPS) LNAV or circling minima line, or minima on a GPS approach procedure, or conventional approach procedure with “or GPS” in the title. Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) Part 91 non−precision weather requirements must be used for planning. Upon arrival at an alternate, when the WAAS navigation system indicates that LNAV/VNAV or LPV service is available, then vertical guidance may be used to complete the approach using the displayed level of service.

 

[azure]

@Caramon13: I'm not going to quote your entire post, but your 1-1-21 (5)(c) (in my AIM it is 1-1-17 (5)(c)) applies to non-WAAS installations. The part you bolded in your 1-1-30 (9)(a) (that paragraph is my 1-1-18 (c)(9)(a)) has nothing to do with flight planning, but allows you to fly to the minimums that apply to the highest level of service available (as determined from the annunciation on your display) once you arrive at your alternate. I'll have to see if I still have my old pre-2013 AIM, but that era is when I was doing my instrument training, with the same panel, and I'm pretty sure I wasn't taught that I needed baro-VNAV to fly (or be able to flight plan) approaches with LPV minimums at alternates.

And to be honest, I'm not sure whether you are saying that, or what you are getting at now.

 

[Caramon13]

@Caramon13: I'm not going to quote your entire post, but your 1-1-21 (5)(c) (in my AIM it is 1-1-17 (5)(c)) applies to non-WAAS installations. The part you bolded in your 1-1-30 (9)(a) (that paragraph is my 1-1-18 (c)(9)(a)) has nothing to do with flight planning, but allows you to fly to the minimums that apply to the highest level of service available (as determined from the annunciation on your display) once you arrive at your alternate. I'll have to see if I still have my old pre-2013 AIM, but that era is when I was doing my instrument training, with the same panel, and I'm pretty sure I wasn't taught that I needed baro-VNAV to fly (or be able to flight plan) approaches with LPV minimums at alternates.

And to be honest, I'm not sure whether you are saying that, or what you are getting at now.

@azure yep, that's what I'm saying now. We seem to agree on all points and sorry for the confusion.

Sorry to hijack the thread as usual ;P

 

[azure]

Okay, no worries!

 

[Blueangel]

The good news is that two of the three C172N that I rent in the club have DME. One has a Garmin 530W with no DME that we like since it has traffic which helps my CFII as lookout pilot while I am under the hood. We will take the one with the Garmin 430 and DME to Vegas for long IFR XC next week.