Garmin 430W question on approaches

alfadog

alfadog

Final Approach
Joined
May 3, 2010
Messages
5,057
Location
Miami
Display Name
Display name:
alfadog
So today I flew with some students from the A&P school up to KFXE. When we got near, I hit direct on the 430 and activated the RNAV approach by vectors. I assumed I would be getting vectors. Called approach and asked for the practice approach. Got vectors. Right before intercept, they asked if I wanted the full approach (with HILPT I assume) or (forgot how this was worded exactly) just the inbound approach. Chose the second option. Was told proceed direct the IAF and cleared for the approach. Except the Garmin did not have the IAF because I had selected vectors, not the IAF. I did not know where I was in reference to the IAF. Quickly reloaded the approach with the IAF and everything went fine.

How should I have handled this to avoid having to juggle the GPS at the last moment (not to mention the loss of SA). Do you always load the full approach, even when being vectored?

http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1303/05942R8.PDF
 
alfadog said:
So today I flew with some students from the A&P school up to KFXE. When we got near, I hit direct on the 430 and activated the RNAV approach by vectors. I assumed I would be getting vectors. Called approach and asked for the practice approach. Got vectors. Right before intercept, they asked if I wanted the full approach (with HILPT I assume) or (forgot how this was worded exactly) just the inbound approach. Chose the second option. Was told proceed direct the IAF and cleared for the approach. Except the Garmin did not have the IAF because I had selected vectors, not the IAF. I did not know where I was in reference to the IAF. Quickly reloaded the approach with the IAF and everything went fine.

How should I have handled this to avoid having to juggle the GPS at the last moment (not to mention the loss of SA). Do you always load the full approach, even when being vectored?

http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1303/05942R8.PDF
Click to expand...

Most instructors will now recommend to avoid using VTF. I personally prefer to ask for a specific method of joining the approach. In this case, I would request joining the approach at ENVER for straight in. Then load the full procedure and activate the approach when the controller says: "Cleared direct ENVER, maintain 2500 until ENVER, cleared straight in RNAV RWY 8."
 
John Collins said:
Most instructors will now recommend to avoid using VTF. I personally prefer to ask for a specific method of joining the approach. In this case, I would request joining the approach at ENVER for straight in. Then load the full procedure and activate the approach when the controller says: "Cleared direct ENVER, maintain 2500 until ENVER, cleared straight in RNAV RWY 8."
Click to expand...

I just listened to the recording we made of the flight and the controller said "do you want the full approach or vectors for the RNAV?" When I replied "vectors for the RNAV", he proceeded to tell me to go direct ENVER and cleared for the approach instead of giving me vectors. So yea, I definitely need to practice another method than VTF.
 
Yep.."build" the approach out to an IAF or IF...cleaning it up to the FAF via vectors to final is not a preferred method...I wish Garmins could be smart enough to auto-sequence to the next fix once on an intercept course without the need to manually sequence the fix.
 
The training from my CFI was never, ever use VTF. There is no benefit and it can really screw you up.
 
I have used the books from Max Trescott to familiarize myself with the G430 as well as the Garmin 1000. He recommends to never use the vectors option since by doing so, you will loose the picture of all the pertinent waypoints. Even when being vectored by ATC I will still select one of the IAF's. Always worked well for me.
 
alfadog said:
I just listened to the recording we made of the flight and the controller said "do you want the full approach or vectors for the RNAV?" When I replied "vectors for the RNAV", he proceeded to tell me to go direct ENVER and cleared for the approach instead of giving me vectors. So yea, I definitely need to practice another method than VTF.
Click to expand...

Normally Controllers are very good at using standard phraseology, but one area they consistently don't do well is with the term "vector". Direct to a fix is not a vector. I have raised an issue a related issue for clearances direct to an IF at ATPAC for there to be training for controllers of the importance to follow the guidance in 7110.65 that states: "The pilot is advised to expect clearance direct to the intermediate Fix at least 5 miles from the fix." I would like to see that guidance applied to any clearance direct to a fix and not just limited to the IF.

My suggested wording would be:

For RNAV-equipped aircraft operating on unpublished routes, when clearing the aircraft to join the approach via direct to an IAF, IF, or fix between the IF and FAF, the pilot should be advised to expect clearance direct to the fix. Advise the pilot as soon as practical (e.g. when the pilot is advised which approach is to be expected), but no later than at least 5 miles from the fix.
 
Section 4-8-1 (Approach Clearance Procedures) of the controller's manual is currently being reviewed for several changes by the FAA. Among the changes is adding the capability for controllers to clear RNAV equipped aircraft direct to a fix on a ground based SIAP other than an IAF. Also the fix type is being expanded to include step down fixes between the IF and FAF. In the case of the latter, the joining angle can't exceed 30 degrees to the course. This is still a work in progress, but it seems to be well along in the process. My attached memo relates to these changes and to the topic raised by this thread.

View attachment ATPAC comments on DCP for 4-8-1 updated redacted.doc
 
John Collins said:
Section 4-8-1 (Approach Clearance Procedures) of the controller's manual is currently being reviewed for several changes by the FAA. Among the changes is adding the capability for controllers to clear RNAV equipped aircraft direct to a fix on a ground based SIAP other than an IAF. Also the fix type is being expanded to include step down fixes between the IF and FAF. In the case of the latter, the joining angle can't exceed 30 degrees to the course. This is still a work in progress, but it seems to be well along in the process. My attached memo relates to these changes and to the topic raised by this thread.

View attachment 29147
Click to expand...

Wow, that certainly speaks to what I experienced. Unfortunately, the IR student is at a distinct disadvantage in finding competent instructors. I went through a couple crappy ones (e.g. a 10,000+ hour CFII whose "instrument scan" consisted of "just looking at the panel and getting the information I need" - guy forgot what it means to be a student) and a couple where the school was not working out (e.g. would not maintain the IR aircraft with working IR-required equipment like a tc). My present CFII teaches VTF. Oy. But I can work with him and, if I want to do things a different way, he is fine with that. Still, like I said, the student is at a distinct disadvantage.
 
If you're going to load the full approach when getting vectors to final, make sure you know how to activate the leg you actually join so the approach will sequence properly thereafter.

FPL
Cursor ON
Highlight endpoint of desired leg
MENU
Activate Leg
Enter
 
Ron Levy said:
If you're going to load the full approach when getting vectors to final, make sure you know how to activate the leg you actually join so the approach will sequence properly thereafter.

FPL
Cursor ON
Highlight endpoint of desired leg
MENU
Activate Leg
Enter
Click to expand...

Right. I am practicing that now. Thanks.
 
While I have y'all here, let me ask you another question that came up with my present CFII. And I say "present" loosely because I stopped my IR work over a year ago to take up flying the Luscombe and work on stick and rudder skills. I am now going to restart with the CFII and, if I want to make a change in instructors, now is the time. I am in a club and, frankly, I do not know if any of the club instructors are very good, especially at advanced ratings. There is one that might fit the bill, I am going to ask a friend that is wrapping up an IR with him. Anyway...

For a while, we were going down to KHST to practice ILS/LOC. The ILS/LOC there requires DME (or RADAR, but this is a DME question). The airplane has a 430W but no DME.

http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1303/00494ILD5.PDF

The FAF and MAP are based on DME off HST (the VORTAC).

My CFII would have me load the approach in the 430W (activate it too, I think) and rely on the GPS indication of FLATE for the FAF and the GPS indication of 0.5 off RW05 for the MAP. I understand the first (FLATE) to be acceptable as it is a named waypoint in the loaded approach but the actual MAP, CODMA, does not load with the approach and I was not comfortable using some approximation. Accordingly, I would load HST as an additional waypoint in the flightplan and set "Direct-to" HST. This would give me the distance off HST at all times and I had the full approach on the screen for SA. I thought this was what was required to satisfy using the GPS in lieu of DME, especially for the MAP, but my CFII seemed to think I was being too picky. Comments?
 
Last edited:
alfadog said:
My CFII would have me load the approach in the 430W (activate it too, I think) and rely on the GPS indication of FLATE for the FAF and the GPS indication of 0.5 off RW05 for the MAP. I understand the first (FLATE) to be acceptable as it is a named waypoint in the loaded approach but the actual MAP, CODMA, does not load with the approach and I was not comfortable using some approximation. Accordingly, I would load HST as an additional waypoint in the flightplan and set "Direct-to" HST. This would give me the distance off HST at all times and I had the full approach on the screen for SA. I thought this was what was required to satisfy using the GPS in lieu of DME, especially for the MAP, but my CFII seemed to think I was being too picky. Comments?
Click to expand...
I assume you're flying the LOC and not the ILS... I don't think it's acceptable to use 0.5 from RW05 because "RW05" is not a charted waypoint, it's defined by Jeppesen in the NAV database. On the 480, I would have HST tuned on the internal NAV radio and displaying the GPS-derived DME distance from HST in the NAV window. I don't recall whether the 430 displays the distance to the VOR NAV 1 is tuned to, but if it does this would be simpler than adding the VOR as a waypoint. Or you could use the GPS distance from FLATE, which is already loaded (4.9 nm from FAF to MAP).

I'd be interested especially in John Collins's comments since I'm not 100% sure that the Jeppesen waypoints aren't defined to some acceptable standards, but I wouldn't rely on them personally based on what I know.
 
AC 90-108 describes what you are permitted to use a suitable RNAV system for on Conventional Routes and Procedures (emphasis is mine):

7. USES OF SUITABLE RNAV SYSTEMS.
a. Usage of Suitable RNAV Systems. Subject to the operating requirements in this AC, operators may use a suitable RNAV system in the following ways.
(1) Determine aircraft position relative to or distance from a VOR (see first note in subparagraph 7b), TACAN, NDB, compass locator (see second note in subparagraph 7b), DME fix; or a named fix defined by a VOR radial, TACAN course, NDB bearing, or compass locator bearing intersecting a VOR or Localizer (LOC) 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.
b. Specific Allowances. The allowances described in this section apply even when a facility is identified as required on a procedure (for example, “Note ADF required”).
NOTE: For the purpose of this AC, “VOR” includes VOR, VOR/DME, and VORTAC facilities.
NOTE: For the purpose of this AC, compass locator includes locator outer marker and locator middle marker.

8. USES OF SUITABLE RNAV SYSTEMS NOT ALLOWED BY THIS AC. An otherwise suitable RNAV system cannot be used for the following:
a. NOTAMed Procedures. Unless otherwise specified, navigation on procedures that are identified as not authorized (“NA”) without exception by a NOTAM. For example, an operator may not use a RNAV system to navigate on a procedure affected by an expired or unsatisfactory flight inspection, or a procedure that is based upon a recently decommissioned NAVAID.
b. Substitution on a Final Approach Segment. Substitution for the NAVAID (for example, a VOR or NDB) providing lateral guidance for the final approach segment.
c. Lateral Navigation on LOC-Based Courses. Lateral navigation on LOC-based courses (including LOC back-course guidance) without reference to raw LOC data.

9. OPERATING REQUIREMENTS AND CONSIDERATIONS.
a. General Considerations.
(1) Pilots must comply with the guidelines contained in their Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM), AFM supplement, operating manual, or pilot’s guide when operating their aircraft RNAV system.
(2) Pilots may not use their RNAV system as a substitute or alternate means of navigation if their aircraft has an AFM or AFM supplement with a limitation to monitor the underlying NAVAIDs for the associated operation.
(3) Pilots of aircraft with an AFM limitation that requires the aircraft to have other equipment appropriate to the route to be flown may only use their RNAV system as a substitute means of navigation in the contiguous U.S., and only for out-of-service NAVAIDs, not for inoperable or not-installed aircraft equipment.
Click to expand...

edit: I misread the post. You could use the distance to the DME fix identified as CODMA or use the distance to the VORTAC HST. I agree with Azure, that the distance to RW05 wouldn't be covered by the guidance in AC 90-108.

I would interpret this language to permit either method of determining your distance from a DME fix, using CODMA or HST. If they wanted to restrict it to the latter method, they would have listed the restriction. If the AFMS has a restriction, then you must abide by it.
 
Last edited:
alfadog said:
For a while, we were going down to KHST to practice ILS/LOC. The ILS/LOC there requires DME (or RADAR, but this is a DME question). The airplane has a 430W but no DME.

http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1303/00494ILD5.PDF

The FAF and MAP are based on DME off HST (the VORTAC).

My CFII would have me load the approach in the 430W (activate it too, I think) and rely on the GPS indication of FLATE for the FAF and the GPS indication of 0.5 off RW05 for the MAP.
Click to expand...
I'd teach and do it the same.

I understand the first (FLATE) to be acceptable as it is a named waypoint in the loaded approach but the actual MAP, CODMA, does not load with the approach and I was not comfortable using some approximation.
Click to expand...
Of course, CODMA isn't an issue for the ILS approach since the MAP for the ILS is reaching DA on the GS. But if you are doing it as a LOC approach (no GS), then yes, you do need to know when you reach CODMA. I'd be perfectly happy with 0.5 distance to RW05 backed up by time.

Accordingly, I would load HST as an additional waypoint in the flightplan and set "Direct-to" HST. This would give me the distance off HST at all times and I had the full approach on the screen for SA. I thought this was what was required to satisfy using the GPS in lieu of DME, especially for the MAP, but my CFII seemed to think I was being too picky. Comments?
Click to expand...
If you do that, you lose your GPS for flying the approach and the missed approach, so I'm with your instructor.

However, I'm surprised your GPS does not show CODMA. I can't load that approach in my Garmin GPS simulator (doesn't have it -- just the TACAN approaches to KHST), and my big sim is not assembled at the moment, but I'll check it later.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
However, I'm surprised your GPS does not show CODMA. I can't load that approach in my Garmin GPS simulator (doesn't have it -- just the TACAN approaches to KHST), and my big sim is not assembled at the moment, but I'll check it later.
Click to expand...

Try the G600 sim, it has a more up-to-date database and still gives you GNS400/500 sims.

http://www8.garmin.com/support/download_details.jsp?id=4867

I am "flying" it now and will see how it goes before responding further.
 
Ron Levy said:
If you do that, you lose your GPS for flying the approach and the missed approach, so I'm with your instructor.
Click to expand...

After "flying" it a couple times on the G600 sim (gotta love 600 kt in the straight bits):

1) CODMA does not load on 400/500. It does show on the G600 panel but I do not have one of those :-( Also, the approach goes into suspend at the RWY05, point, not the real missed. This is a Garmin error and can be corrected but it does affect the use of the box in lieu of DME.

2) You do not "lose your GPS for flying the approach and the missed approach" if you mean that those are no longer appearing on the box for SA. They are. If you mean that the box is no longer "talking" you through them ("turn to xyz in abc seconds") and/or running your AP, then yes, that functionality is gone. My thinking is that, in the training and checkout environment, you are using the box for DME and should be able to fly without prompts. IRL, you may operate differently.

3) If you don't do it my way, how would you fly the DME arc from Jomin? When in the "normal" approach mode, the box takes you to Jomin then turns you toward the next waypoint and provides distance to that. There is never any DME provided. Nor is any help provided on flying the arc, you are reduced to trying to follow the magenta line by hand. I hardly think that is the intent of using the GPS in lieu of DME. Correction: you can fly it precisely by using the CDI page of the GPS and making 10d changes to your TRK based on your DTK. Still not sure that is what is intended to be legal with no actual or direct DME distance provided??
 
Last edited:
We got slam dunked into Charlotte last week with ceilings at minimums. They vectored us on an effective downwind for the ILS and we knew we would be turned back into the runway, but not where. So, we did what has been recommended here. In this case, there were intermediate fixes between the IAF and FAF. We picked the last segment before the FAF to the FAF. Worked like a charm. I do it a bit differently than the article. Once the approach is loaded, I go to the FAF and hit direct, direct enter and that highlights that leg. If I pass a way point and go into suspend, once turned onto the course, just go back and do the same thing. We were turned between incoming airliners; no time to do something wrong.

I had trouble with being turned before a way point before and had to scramble to get it corrected. Not recommended!

Best,

Dave
 
alfadog said:
After "flying" it a couple times on the G600 sim (gotta love 600 kt in the straight bits):

1) CODMA does not load on 400/500. It does show on the G600 panel but I do not have one of those :-( Also, the approach goes into suspend at the RWY05, point, not the real missed. This is a Garmin error and can be corrected but it does affect the use of the box in lieu of DME.
Click to expand...
I'm off to the airport to try it on a real 530 this afternoon. We'll see what happens.

2) You do not "lose your GPS for flying the approach and the missed approach" if you mean that those are no longer appearing on the box for SA. They are. If you mean that the box is no longer "talking" you through them ("turn to xyz in abc seconds") and/or running your AP, then yes, that functionality is gone. My thinking is that, in the training and checkout environment, you are using the box for DME and should be able to fly without prompts. IRL, you may operate differently.
Click to expand...
Either the GPS works or it doesn't. If it works, you get the full capability. If not, then you don't get it at all.

3) If you don't do it my way, how would you fly the DME arc from Jomin?
Click to expand...
Follow the steering provided when you load an approach with an arc.

When in the "normal" approach mode, the box takes you to Jomin then turns you toward the next waypoint and provides distance to that. There is never any DME provided.
Click to expand...
No need for DME data when you're getting the steering on the arc and the presentation of the arc as a magenta line.

Nor is any help provided on flying the arc, you are reduced to trying to follow the magenta line by hand.
Click to expand...
...as well as keeping the CDI needle centered, but how is that different than any other use of that GPS on a published procedure?

I hardly think that is the intent of using the GPS in lieu of DME. Correction: you can fly it precisely by using the CDI page of the GPS and making 10d changes to your TRK based on your DTK. Still not sure that is what is intended to be legal with no actual or direct DME distance provided??
Click to expand...
Yes, that is the intent, and yes, that is legal for published DME arc procedures. And I've never in all my years been given an unpublished DME arc by ATC.
 
Thanks for the input!

Ron Levy said:
Either the GPS works or it doesn't. If it works, you get the full capability. If not, then you don't get it at all.
Click to expand...

If I have the fixes and courses from the ILS/LOC plate on the GPS screen and I can see the little airplane in relation to them but the GPS is only "tuned" to the VORTAC (direct-to) for DME distance then I do not have the full capability of the GPS yet I have something there that adds to my SA, no?

Follow the steering provided when you load an approach with an arc.

No need for DME data when you're getting the steering on the arc and the presentation of the arc as a magenta line.

...as well as keeping the CDI needle centered, but how is that different than any other use of that GPS on a published procedure?

Yes, that is the intent, and yes, that is legal for published DME arc procedures. And I've never in all my years been given an unpublished DME arc by ATC.
Click to expand...

OK, perhaps I am being too picky or literal. This is an ILS/LOC approach with a DME arc. My assumption is that you are required to fly it using ILS/LOC equipment, not the GPS, and that the only use of the GPS for anything other than SA is to provide DME distance which you then use as you would actual DME. Using the magenta line, the DTK, the GPS CDI, etc. to navigate the airplane violates the very warning that comes up when you load the approach, to wit "Not approved for GPS. GPS guidance is for monitoring only."

The DME arc I am referring to is published on the plate so not sure what your last was referring to. Again, thanks.
 
Last edited:
alfadog said:
Thanks for the input!

If I have the fixes and courses from the ILS/LOC plate on the GPS screen and I can see the little airplane in relation to them but the GPS is only "tuned" to the VORTAC (direct-to) for DME distance then I do not have the full capability of the GPS yet I have something there that adds to my SA, no?

OK, perhaps I am being too picky or literal. This is an ILS/LOC approach with a DME arc. My assumption is that you are required to fly it using ILS/LOC equipment, not the GPS, and that the only use of the GPS for anything other than SA is to provide DME distance which you then use as you would actual DME. Using the magenta line, the DTK, the GPS CDI, etc. to navigate the airplane violates the very warning that comes up when you load the approach, to wit "Not approved for GPS. GPS guidance is for monitoring only."

The DME arc I am referring to is published on the plate so not sure what your last was referring to. Again, thanks.
Click to expand...

The lawyer message only applies to using the GPS for the lateral guidance on the localizer.
 
John Collins said:
The lawyer message only applies to using the GPS for the lateral guidance on the localizer.
Click to expand...

So I guess you agree with my CFII and Ron Levy that I am being too picky/literal/lawyerish/anal? Go ahead, I can take it. :D
 
It takes what -- 5 seconds to reload the approach with the new IAF? I don't see the issue. You have more time then you think. Slow down, reconfigure the approach, and move on. No biggy.

Considering how at least 80% of the time that you load it VTF you'll get VTF that seems like the best option. That other 20% when they switch you then you can just reload it. Otherwise you're pushing more buttons then you need to that 80% of the time (having to manually activate the leg each time)
 
jesse said:
It takes what -- 5 seconds to reload the approach with the new IAF? I don't see the issue. You have more time then you think. Slow down, reconfigure the approach, and move on. No biggy.

Considering how at least 80% of the time that you load it VTF you'll get VTF that seems like the best option. That other 20% when they switch you then you can just reload it. Otherwise you're pushing more buttons then you need to that 80% of the time (having to manually activate the leg each time)
Click to expand...

I am just getting going again with the 430W after a year off but I got it reloaded fast enough. What I did not like was the lack of SA when told to proceed direct the IAF and I did not which way it was. Of course, I just continued on the current heading until I knew but still, I did not like that feeling. So perhaps not having that loss of SA 20% of the time is worth a few extra button pushes the other 80%.
 
Here is one way to setup to help fly the arc. I use the XTK to keep track of how far I am off the arc. The DIST is the remaining distance along the arc and not the distance to the DME. I keep the HSI set to the changing value of the DTK to remain oriented. When the CDI is in the center, you are on the arc. Same is true for the XTK when it is zero. You can also do a similar setup on the primary Nav page, it just takes longer to setup.

As a side note, it isn't very helpful to not include the paired frequency for the DME on the chart as it would be a lot simpler if both were supplied as us civilians have to enter the paired frequency into the DME and not the TACAN channel.

flying the arc.jpg
 
alfadog said:
I am just getting going again with the 430W after a year off but I got it reloaded fast enough. What I did not like was the lack of SA when told to proceed direct the IAF and I did not which way it was. Of course, I just continued on the current heading until I knew but still, I did not like that feeling. So perhaps not having that loss of SA 20% of the time is worth a few extra button pushes the other 80%.
Click to expand...

I guess it all depends but I generally have a really good clue where it is just by looking at my plate and knowing where I'm at. Situational awareness should extend beyond the GPS screen.

More than one way to do it, that's for sure.
 
alfadog said:
Try the G600 sim, it has a more up-to-date database and still gives you GNS400/500 sims.

http://www8.garmin.com/support/download_details.jsp?id=4867

I am "flying" it now and will see how it goes before responding further.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link. I didn't know this was available. I keep an old Vista machine that I use mainly for the standard GNS400/500 sim software (won't run on Windows 7).

I downloaded the G600 sim and do see the option to pop up a GNS 430, but am having problems. It won't recognize the power on button unless the G600 window is closed. Then the GNS 430 starts it POST stuff, then shuts down and closes. I'm running Windows 7 on this computer. Any suggestions? I'd love to get the 430 sim operating on this machine.

Ah... Disregard. I got if figured out. You have to click the On button in the GNS 430 autopilot section first. Got it running. Thanks!
 
Last edited:
jesse said:
I guess it all depends but I generally have a really good clue where it is just by looking at my plate and knowing where I'm at. Situational awareness should extend beyond the GPS screen.

More than one way to do it, that's for sure.
Click to expand...

Yes, I did have the distance from KFXE on the box as I was being vectored on the downwind and could have tracked where I was in reference to the IAF but I did not think I needed that info and was not tracking it. So yea, my bad.
 
John Collins said:
What you are authorized to do is spelled out in AC 90-108 and your AFMS.
Click to expand...

Thanks, the AC did answer my question. Flying the arc on the 430W, you do not have the direct distance off the line as you show on the 530 but the CDI is scaled so it is not much trouble to fly it.

As an aside, the Garmin kills the arc indication at the 223 radial, 9d before the inbound course and the box sequences to the inbound course and tells you to turn to 052d. That is 2.5 nm before you reach the inbound course. Fine if you are approaching at 250 kt but in a C172, you now have to fly about two miles of arc with no navigation, i.e. just turn another 10d and continue until the CDI is alive (or turn to an intercept course, probably the better choice). That is decidedly odd, isn't it?
 
taters said:
Yep.."build" the approach out to an IAF or IF...cleaning it up to the FAF via vectors to final is not a preferred method...I wish Garmins could be smart enough to auto-sequence to the next fix once on an intercept course without the need to manually sequence the fix.
Click to expand...

Could you expand on that with an example?
 
John Collins said:
As a side note, it isn't very helpful to not include the paired frequency for the DME on the chart as it would be a lot simpler if both were supplied as us civilians have to enter the paired frequency into the DME and not the TACAN channel.
Click to expand...

Note at the top "USAF." They couldn't care less about civil aviation. They would say, "That's what the table in the AIM is for."
 
aterpster said:
Note at the top "USAF." They couldn't care less about civil aviation. They would say, "That's what the table in the AIM is for."
Click to expand...

A reason for preferring Jepp charts.
 
Palmpilot said:
A reason for preferring Jepp charts.
Click to expand...

Attached is the Jepp version, which shows their handling of TACAN.

KHST, however, is not in my U.S. Jeppview. I guess it requires some kind of military chart subscription.
 

Attachments

  • KHST ILS or LOC Rwy 5.jpg
    KHST ILS or LOC Rwy 5.jpg
    339.5 KB · Views: 20
aterpster said:
Attached is the Jepp version, which shows their handling of TACAN.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

KHST, however, is not in my U.S. Jeppview. I guess it requires some kind of military chart subscription.
Click to expand...

Jeppesen took the military approaches out of my California subscription, and then they put them back in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top