Coming soon to a PTS near you.....

bobmrg

bobmrg

En-Route
Gone West
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
3,183
Display Name
Display name:
Bob Gardner
Changing required VOR and NDB approaches to "ground-based." This will make it easier for instructors and examiners to do their thing without flying all day to find a specific kind of approach as more and more procedures fade away.

Bob Gardner
 
A busy day has my mind a bit fuzzy... is this same old same old with a new label? Or consolidating something to expand the options of the examiner?
 
By 'ground based' you mean you just talk about it on the Oral?
 
AggieMike88 said:
A busy day has my mind a bit fuzzy... is this same old same old with a new label? Or consolidating something to expand the options of the examiner?
Click to expand...

What transmitting navigation equipment is located on terra firma, and which are not on the ground?

SSDD
 
bobmrg said:
Changing required VOR and NDB approaches to "ground-based." This will make it easier for instructors and examiners to do their thing without flying all day to find a specific kind of approach as more and more procedures fade away.

Bob Gardner
Click to expand...

To me, an IR student, could you please elaborate? I will be taking my check ride in a few months. Thank you
 
Ground Based - anything transmitted from a ground station, I'd guess. ILS/LOC, VOR, or NDB (if you can find one).
 
Morgan3820 said:
To me, an IR student, could you please elaborate? I will be taking my check ride in a few months. Thank you
Click to expand...

I doubt very much that any revision to the PTS (ACS) will happen in that time frame. Think a year from now.

Bob
 
murphey said:
What transmitting navigation equipment is located on terra firma, and which are not on the ground?

SSDD
Click to expand...

Are you serious? Are you simply not aware that GPS is satellite based and everything else is terrestrial?

Bob
 
AggieMike88 said:
A busy day has my mind a bit fuzzy... is this same old same old with a new label? Or consolidating something to expand the options of the examiner?
Click to expand...

My guess, and it is only a guess because this is still in the formative stages, is that when the nearest VOR approach is 150 miles away and there is an NDB approach 25 miles away the examiner will be permitted to accept the NDB approach as fulfilling the requirement. Don't quote me on that...lots of administrative hurdles to jump before any action is taken.

Bob
 
bobmrg said:
Are you serious? Are you simply not aware that GPS is satellite based and everything else is terrestrial?

Bob
Click to expand...

Definitely...just pointing out the definition of the phrase "ground based". In fact, once upon a time, in another life, I wrote software for GPS systems.

Mostly I was teasing Mike.

On the other hand, how would you define an INS system? Load the initial parameters on the ground but then everything happens in the air.
 
Would this not be related to the list of 700+ IAPs they want to kill?
 
murphey said:
Definitely...just pointing out the definition of the phrase "ground based". In fact, once upon a time, in another life, I wrote software for GPS systems.

Mostly I was teasing Mike.

On the other hand, how would you define an INS system? Load the initial parameters on the ground but then everything happens in the air.
Click to expand...

Good point, for which I have no answer. However, it is unlikely that an applicant for the instrument rating will show up for the checkride with a plane that uses INS.

The PTS calls for the applicant to demonstrate instrument approach procedures, and the proposed change just loosens things up a bit. No INS approaches that I am aware of.

Bob
 
EppyGA said:
Would this not be related to the list of 700+ IAPs they want to kill?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. The feds heard the rumblings from the instructional community that shutting down approaches meant that instructors/examiners would have to go farther affield to find approaches on which to train/examine. This drives up the cost of the rating for no good reason.

Bob
 
bobmrg said:
I doubt very much that any revision to the PTS (ACS) will happen in that time frame. Think a year from now.

Bob
Click to expand...

Thanks- I'm sure I'll checkride in 3 or so months. 4 miles from Homefield we have Wiley Post with a circling VOR, ILS and RNAV. Guess that's why we do those so much on lessons.
 
murphey said:
On the other hand, how would you define an INS system? Load the initial parameters on the ground but then everything happens in the air.
Click to expand...

A completely internal and inaccurate form of navigation that would never be approved to shoot instrument approaches without being tied to an external system(GPS).
 
Last edited:
bobmrg said:
Changing required VOR and NDB approaches to "ground-based." This will make it easier for instructors and examiners to do their thing without flying all day to find a specific kind of approach as more and more procedures fade away.
Click to expand...

Am I missing something? The instrument rating PTS requires two nonprecision approaches and a precision approach. No specific type is required, except that the two nonprecisions have to be two different types. So there already is no such thing as "required VOR and NDB" approaches. You could already do a localizer and a GPS, for example. I don't see how rewording it will actually change anything.
 
Last edited:
dmspilot said:
Am I missing something? The instrument rating PTS requires two nonprecision approaches and a precision approach. No specific type is required, except that the two nonprecisions have to be two different types. So there already is no such thing as "required VOR and NDB" approaches. You could already do a localizer and a GPS, for example. I don't see how rewording it will actually change anything.
Click to expand...

Exactly. LPV or ILS for precision, and LOC + LNAV/LP for non-precision would meet the requirements.
 
dmspilot said:
Am I missing something? The instrument rating PTS requires two nonprecision approaches and a precision approach. No specific type is required, except that the two nonprecisions have to be two different types. So there already is no such thing as "required VOR and NDB" approaches. You could already do a localizer and a GPS, for example. I don't see how rewording it will actually change anything.
Click to expand...

Can you do a VOR and LOC approach as your two nonprecision under the current instrument PTS? If so, my guess is that the change will require one ground-based and one GPS, or something like that.
 
dmspilot said:
Am I missing something? The instrument rating PTS requires two nonprecision approaches and a precision approach. No specific type is required, except that the two nonprecisions have to be two different types. So there already is no such thing as "required VOR and NDB" approaches. You could already do a localizer and a GPS, for example. I don't see how rewording it will actually change anything.
Click to expand...

I was thinking the same thing, but I am no expert, that's for sure. Bob, can you help us understand what we are missing?
 
warthog1984 said:
Does a WAAS-enabled GPS approach count? The WAAS station that enables LPV approaches is terrestrial.
Click to expand...

Well, by that thinking all GPS is terrestrial as they all get their initial data from a ground station. The only real difference is that WAAS is transmitted by geosynchronous satellites and GPS by medium earth orbit satellites in a circular orbit.

Unless you meant LAAS... which isn't really in use widely enough for a PTS update to mention it.
 
PPC1052 said:
I don't think so. What if the plane has no GPS?
Click to expand...

That would fall under the "something like that" phrase I used.

The ATP/Type Rating PTS has this wording in the Introduction...
If the practical test is conducted in the aircraft and the aircraft has an operable and properly installed GPS, the applicant must demonstrate GPS approach proficiency. If the applicant has contracted for training in an approved course that includes GPS training, and the airplane/simulator/FTD has a properly installed and operable GPS, the applicant must demonstrate GPS approach proficiency.
Click to expand...
It doesn't specifically require one of the NPAs to be GPS...We can have the applicant fly an LPV as a Precision Approach if the minimums qualify.
 
Last edited:
PPC1052 said:
I was thinking the same thing, but I am no expert, that's for sure. Bob, can you help us understand what we are missing?
Click to expand...

What you are missing is that this is in the works but is in the discussion stage. No one at FAA has set pen to paper yet, so those of you who missed the "soon" in the title are getting all exercised for nothing. Maybe I should have said "...coming someday." There will be changes to the PTS/ACS but at this point no one has details beyond what I said in my OP.

Once a year, representatives from Gleim, the Kings, ASA, et al meet with the question writers. ASA's rep gives me some insights, without placing any kind of restriction on what I do with the information, and I apparently throw the unmentionable in the punch bowl.

This thread has to set a record for conclusion-jumping. Let's go back to basics: The FAA announces that they will be cancelling a whole bunch of VOR and NDB (ground-based) approaches because they are under-used, cost money to maintain, and require a fleet of flight-test aircraft to certify their accuracy. In the fullness of time, without the navaids being maintained or certified, the lawyers at the FAA begin to worry about their liability position if they keep the VORs and NDBs in operation, so they pull the plug.

But the instructor/examiner community says "Hey, we have to block out half a day to fly to Smallburg to shoot the only VOR approach within 100 miles!"
The people who write the practical test standard/airman certification standards say "We have to make some changes!" Somehow, the stalwarts in the POA community transmogrify this into conjecture about GPS/WAAS.

Amazing. I will be sure to root for the POA conclusion-jumping team at the next Olympics.
Bob
 
Last edited:
In all fairness Bob your original post said:

Changing required VOR and NDB approaches to "ground-based." This will make it easier for instructors and examiners to do their thing without flying all day to find a specific kind of approach as more and more procedures fade away.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but VOR and NDB approaches were never required. Just non-precision approaches.

The examiner will select nonprecision approaches that are representative of the type that the applicant is likely to use. The choices must utilize two different types of navigational aids. Some examples of navigational aids for the purpose of this part are: NDB, VOR, LOC, LDA, SDF, GPS, or RNAV (including LNAV/VNAV and RNP-AR).
Click to expand...

Thanks for the heads-up anyway. Always appreciate the info.
 
bobmrg said:
But the instructor/examiner community says "Hey, we have to block out half a day to fly to Smallburg to shoot the only VOR approach within 100 miles!"
The people who write the practical test standard/airman certification standards say "We have to make some changes!" Somehow, the stalwarts in the POA community transmogrify this into conjecture about GPS/WAAS.

Amazing. I will be sure to root for the POA conclusion-jumping team at the next Olympics.
Click to expand...

There IS NO requirement in the PTS to do a VOR approach. Nor has there been in any PTS I've looked at going back to 1998. So why would they change the PTS to fix a "problem" that doesn't actually exist?
 
Last edited:
This will affect our school quite a bit. We will end up having to fly 60+ miles to shoot VOR approaches instead of the 20 miles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top