mscard88
Touchdown! Greaser!
Seems like it was a test program if I recall correctly.
I'm Confused. Why So Many Navigation Types?
- Thread starter DR750S
- Start date
Seems like it was a test program if I recall correctly.
Man, I wish would could sit down in a nice comfortable steakhouse lounge for a few hours. We'd have the best Filet Mignon and some good conversation about IFR/Approaches. You nailed it! You have articulated the real question I was trying to get at, but did not have sufficient knowledge to articulate myself. Thank you! Now, allow me to follow up, please.
1) Is this alphabet soup list of Approach Types in General Aviation a complete list? Is there anything missing in the list you provided?
2) Can these Approach Types be arranged into either Precision Approach or Non-Precision Approach?
3) I keep hearing about Precision and Non-Precision. Is this basically a way of talking about IFR Approaches and VFR Approaches - where IFR = Precision and VFR = Non-Precision?
What about Jeppesen? They seem to have a Text Book style of Private and Instrument study course.
What do you think about using FSX, P3D or X-Plane with a well designed aircraft model that has steam gauges and another that has G1000, to practice both Departure and Approach Procedures. Not flying, but the procedures involved in the actual Departure and Approach?
With a VOR Approach, I know the source signal is a VOR. With the NDB Approach, I know the source signal is the NDB. With Visual, I know its a PAPI or VASI providing the source "signal" to your eyes. Stand-Alone GPS uses a satellite as the source signal. But, what about all the others - what are their respective sources? Also, how do I know which on-board Navigation Instrument or piece of installed Navigation Equipment uses that source signal? For example: The ground based VOR installation is the source and its on-board Navigation Instrument is the VOR. NDB ground based installation >>> On-board NDB Instrument.
So, they create an Approach Type. Later, they create a Variable on that same Approach that somehow changes how you fly it? Strange. Can you expand on that?
Or, publications that are not topologically correct:
You mean, you don't like consulting with a three-headed Greek Oracle who provides you guidance to the runway? Gee, Tantalum. What the heck is wrong with you, man! And, how about that Apollo to Delphi Approach? You really do get to the heart of the OP. A lot of the ground based navigation infrastructure seems wide open for someone with devious intentions. I've always wondered why some of this stuff was sitting so plainly out in the open. Very odd to me as well. I think ground based Navigation sources should be better secured. I will assume that the thrust to modernize air navigation can be seen in the take-over of satellite based sources?
Going the pure Google route is precisely what I'm trying to avoid. I don't believe the training should cover this subject conclusively. This is why finding and working with the right flight instructor who has a clearly landscaped syllabus is the way I want to do my flight training.
Thank you for your post!
Last edited:
genna
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2015
- Messages
- 1,720
- Display Name
Display name:
ТУ-104
That is learned while studying for IFR ticket. However:
LNAV - GPS(typically), no vertical guidance
LNAV+V - GPS(typically) with a type of "fuzzy" vertical guidance(within unit). I think this is for specific units and is not "official".
LNAV/VNAV, baro VNAV - GPS(typically) with a different type of vertical guidance(within unit). Official "fuzzy" vertical guidance.
LPV - GPS with WAAS vertical guidance(similar to ILS)
LP - GPS with WAAS, no vertical guidance
Stand-Alone GPS. - Same as LNAV, but this time definitely GPS only
PAR - ATC assisted approach. They tell you what to do
ASR - ATC assisted approach. They tell you what to do
VOR -
ILS _ LOC + Vertical guidance
LOC - Similar to VOR, but far more precise
NDB
Circling - Applies to pretty much all of the approaches in how it is terminated(not direct)
Visual
Edit: your GPS equipment manual tells you what it is capable of doing. And it tells you what mode you are flying as you are flying it.
For VOR/LOC/ILS... it's usually the same receiver
P.S. Your best approaches(for GA anyway) are ILS and LPV. Your most common approach is LNAV. PAR and ASR are emergency approaches.
Last edited:
Stickman
Pre-takeoff checklist
Don't forget the Contact Approach and PRM.
JOhnH
Touchdown! Greaser!
You can bet that as soon as almost every plane is equipped with GPS, some other technology will come along that you just must have! But you will still keep your GPS for a few decades or more until they are transitioned out by the new technology, and the even new technology that follows that.
CGChief
Pre-Flight
Luckily, barring any major events, GPS will not be going anywhere anytime soon.
JOhnH
Touchdown! Greaser!
Probably not, but consider how old much of the GA fleet is. My plane is 50 yrs old. I suspect there will be some new tech before another 50 is up.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
It's just history and technology.
As far as actual enroute navaids are concerned, we've gone from the A-N Range to NDB to VOR to LORAN to GPS. A-N ranges have been gone since the 70s, LORAN was turned off in 2010, there are few NDBs remaining, VORs are starting to be decommissioned, and GPS is the state of the art but still has some limitations.
Each has started out with simple indicators and moved on to more complex, feature-rich ones as technology has developed further, with most of the higher-end stuff being equipped in airliners first before (maybe, eventually) moving its way down to smaller aircraft.
For example, cockpit technology for receiving NDB signals went from the simple fixed-card ADF to a movable-card ADF to the RMI. For VORs, it went from the standard CDI to the HSI and eHSI. For GPS, it started as a simple box that would show latitude and longitude points and allow you to compute a course between them, to boxes that had an on-board database of fixes to choose from, to moving map displays, to glass cockpits.
Some things like VOR/DME RNAV were merely receiver improvements - It used VOR and DME signals to compute positions and effectively allow you to navigate to and from any point of your choosing defined by a VORTACs or VOR/DME.
I just updated the panel in my airplane. Navigation-wise, I can no longer use NDBs (removed the ADF receiver and eRMI indicator). I still have dual VOR receivers, one hooked to an HSI and one to a standard CDI. My old GPS and a separate three-color moving map unit are gone, replaced with a new GPS with a much larger screen with a full-color moving map. And so, time and technology marches on.
Someday I'm gonna tell my grandkids how my evil CFII made me do a whole flight navigating solely by NDB for both en route and approaches... But I'm never gonna touch it again.
As far as actual enroute navaids are concerned, we've gone from the A-N Range to NDB to VOR to LORAN to GPS. A-N ranges have been gone since the 70s, LORAN was turned off in 2010, there are few NDBs remaining, VORs are starting to be decommissioned, and GPS is the state of the art but still has some limitations.
Each has started out with simple indicators and moved on to more complex, feature-rich ones as technology has developed further, with most of the higher-end stuff being equipped in airliners first before (maybe, eventually) moving its way down to smaller aircraft.
For example, cockpit technology for receiving NDB signals went from the simple fixed-card ADF to a movable-card ADF to the RMI. For VORs, it went from the standard CDI to the HSI and eHSI. For GPS, it started as a simple box that would show latitude and longitude points and allow you to compute a course between them, to boxes that had an on-board database of fixes to choose from, to moving map displays, to glass cockpits.
Some things like VOR/DME RNAV were merely receiver improvements - It used VOR and DME signals to compute positions and effectively allow you to navigate to and from any point of your choosing defined by a VORTACs or VOR/DME.
I just updated the panel in my airplane. Navigation-wise, I can no longer use NDBs (removed the ADF receiver and eRMI indicator). I still have dual VOR receivers, one hooked to an HSI and one to a standard CDI. My old GPS and a separate three-color moving map unit are gone, replaced with a new GPS with a much larger screen with a full-color moving map. And so, time and technology marches on.
Someday I'm gonna tell my grandkids how my evil CFII made me do a whole flight navigating solely by NDB for both en route and approaches... But I'm never gonna touch it again.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
When you first start flight planning, VFR, you won't be using defined waypoints or navaids at all most likely. Draw a line on a chart, use cities, rivers, power lines, railroads, etc. to navigate visually. You should know how to use VORs, and if there's one installed on your airplane, GPS. But you'll pretty much be flying airport-to-airport flight plans, with an occasional diversion to another airport thrown in. When you're working on your private pilot certificate, you don't need to worry about approaches (that's for the instrument rating) or complex flight plans because when you're VFR, you don't have to have a clearance at all, and navigation is solely up to you.
Now... To answer your questions, even though you won't need to worry about most of this stuff until you're doing your instrument rating: Waypoints are on the charts, and can be used in different ways. An actual NDB or VOR station can be received with that equipment, or punched into a GPS. There are many other waypoints that are defined by VOR and DME, or intersections between two VOR radials, but they can also be accessed from the GPS database. Finally, there are a lot of GPS-only waypoints that are just a defined latitude and longitude. There is no navaid present at the VOR/DME, intersection, or GPS waypoints.
You can plan flights using radio navaids along airways, but most navigation these days is done by GPS, and is usually direct for most of the flight, if you're not on the east coast. Having a GPS on board makes navigation and flight planning quite simple.
You don't need to worry about ATC sending you to something you can't receive - Your flight plan includes equipment designations so that they know what your capabilities are. If they do mistakenly send you somewhere you can't navigate to, just say "unable" and tell them why you're unable.
Yes, TACAN is military, VOR/DME is the civilian equivalent. I wouldn't worry about "installing" VOR equipment, pretty much any airplane that has any sort of navigation capability has VOR capabilities already for the most part.
It's not just GA - It's aviation in general. The problem with having a nice cleaned-up system is that when you get rid of an old navaid type, you also force people to upgrade their airplanes, which is expensive and unpopular. It's pretty easy to say "NDBs are ancient and archaic, let's just turn them all off" but then you discover that there are airports where the only instrument approach is an NDB, and suddenly it's not so easy. So that's how we got here! Luckily, the FAA has made a concerted effort over the past 15 years or so to develop lots and lots of GPS approaches so that this isn't such a big issue as it used to be.
Regarding DME Arcs, found this short 5 min video:
So, let me understand this. You're flying to an airport. That airport (for whatever reason) has no other type of Approach available to you, but it does have ground based DME. At a certain distance from that airport, ATC instructs you to fly the DME Arc to intercept the Localizer for Final. Do I understand the premise, purpose and use of the DME Arc correctly? Using the video, tell me if I at least understand the DME Arc set-up and procedures correctly.
First, he sets Radio Frequency 115.7 from the ITMOR VOR, then turns the OBS until heading 357 comes up. The Needle on VOR1 centers apparently because he's now flying 357-dgrees (how he magically ended up approaching the airport's airspace from this angle in the first place, I don't know). He then sets VOR2 to the Redding frequency, selects 028-degrees and the Needle deflects to the Left. He uses Redding because that defines one end of the DME Arc. The Needle on VOR2 deflects Left because the aircraft is to the right of VOR2 (I'm guessing). He then flies Heading 357, looking for the Needle on VOR2 to center itself, which indicates that radial 028 on Redding has just been intercepted. I can see that as 028 comes alive on the VOR2 Needle, he changes VOR1 frequency to Localizer 108.7 and turns its OBS to the final ILS heading of162-degrees - he's preemptively re-configuring VOR1 for Final.
The confusing part is how the End Radial of the DME Arc is determined to be 348-degrees. All it says is "LR-348." There's another one on the opposite end of the DME Arc that says, "LR-335."
The other slightly confusing part is after 028 comes alive on the VOR2 Needle, he then turns the OBS on VOR2 to 018-degrees (which is in fact 10-degrees less). He says that you should decrease the starting DME Arc value by 10-dgrees and intercept the resultant heading at a 90-dgree angle. I can see how that would "Square the Circle" for lack of a better phrase and allow the aircraft to fly something of an "Arc" pattern over the ground, until you reached the final Arc Radial of 348-dgrees (using a bunch of smaller left turns). But, again, where do these Arc Radial values originate? He then goes on to say that the traditional method for calculating the DME Arc and flying it is "dumb."
For his method, he uses the Deflection Dots on the VOR which point exactly 90-degrees to the heading being flown and then tells you to simply fly where the dots point until the Needle centers, re-adjust the OBS another 10-degrees Left and fly the heading where the dots point, etc., etc., until you reach the final DME Arc Radial of 348-degrees, then turn to intercept the Localizer with a heading of 162-degrees, pick up your Glide Slope and ride it down the shoot. Seems effective that way. Is there a more efficient way?
I still don't understand where the Radial values for the End and Start of the DME Arc come from. It is almost as if by magic they simply appear. This seems messy and potentially dangerous, if someone flies too far left or right of the DME Arc while trying to intercept the Localizer.
- How often will I need to do this as a real Pilot after my ratings?
- Is this still part of the DPE check-ride for the Instrument Rating under the new ACS?
- Is this a good FSX/P3D/X-Plane practice procedure to work on?
- Are all DME Arcs 17 miles?
- How could you do this in a Glass Cockpit G1000 (as just one example) that does not have two (2) steam gauge VORs?
You're right. It does seem straight out of the Hellinistic Period. Circa, 323 BCE.
Gee, thanks! I thought I might be experiencing one of those paralysis by analysis things they say don't make a good pilot. The system is starting to look like a real technological and historical layer cake the more I study it. Ironically, it looks like the DME Arc would work out nicely - though it would also appear to be cumbersome and loathed. I think it would be good for some kind of Flight Competition during the summer at Airshows. It would be fun to see who could etch the Perfect Arc over the ground while intercepting the Localizer.
Gotta luv it!
Thanks for the advice, Murphey! Makes sense on the En Route Navigation side to first get up to speed on paper/sectionals/timers/compass/etc. But, I was thinking about Navigation to an Approach of some Type. I'd like to salt and pepper my private pilot training with as much instrument pilot training as tolerable. I've got a gut feeling that the instrument training is going to be far more involved than the private training. I'd like to season my private stuff with instrument stuff, whenever and wherever my instructor deems it appropriate. If such head starts on instrument training are possible/wise. I want to get as much familiarity with it now, so there is not so much of a shock later. Does that make any sense?
Thanks, again. I guess it does make sense to go fly a few different type of SEL aircraft with a qualified instructor, to help get a feel for what's appropriate (most importantly) and what I like (secondarily). USAF uses the T-6 Texan for initial pilot training (a fairly high performance aircraft). But, they are also immersed in highly structured and focused 12 hour training days. I'm going for somewhat structured and focused 8 hours per day, as I've got one other thing that needs my attention Monday-Friday, but that only takes 1 hour per day to finish. My flight training will be essentially my full time work.
How long should one fly after completing their private pilots rating before starting their instrument training?
I know it takes 40 hours technically, but the national average is much closer to 60+ hours for the private. Factoring the FAA requirements in PIC hours and instruction given hours, how long would you say I'm going to be in an SEL airplane, before moving on to the Multi-Engine Rating? I don't necessarily want to acquire the SEL airplane. The real driver for that decision came as I began asking local clubs about their aircraft availability. Given my Mon-Fri planned regimen and total immersion into my training, I found a lot of risk in relying upon club aircraft to be there when I need to train with my instructor, or train solo. So, I figured to eliminate at least one form of drag on my training, I'd just buy something appropriate to use and not have the scheduling conflicts. I would also prefer not having the hassle of turning right around in 300 hours or so, just to sell the SEL I recently purchased. I don't want to get out ahead of myself. I also don't want to move forward with too much drag on the process, either.
I'm a little lost on that one. Wasn't that the Imperial Navy of Japan? And, weren't we essentially (for all practical purposes) "aligned" with the then USSR in taking down the Axis powers?
This is an interesting post you make, thank you!
Question: What will you do, if either the GPS receiver on-board goes out or there is a critical redundancy failure in the satellite network, if all you have is GPS in the C-180? Nice bird by the way. Must be vintage in in mint condition, no doubt.
mscard88
Touchdown! Greaser!
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
Don't worry about it - You won't even need to start thinking about navaids until you've got the basics of how to properly handle the aircraft down. Generally, training goes something like this:
Training for Private Pilot - Airplane Single Engine Land
- Basic flight maneuvers: Climbs, descents, and turns
- More complex flight maneuvers: Steep turns, ground reference maneuvers, stalls
- Emergency procedures: Electrical failures, engine failures, fire in flight, etc and how to deal with them.
- Landings. Lots and lots of landings at your home field, and some basic training in short/soft field landing techniques as well.
- Solo. Generally your first solo will be three trips around the traffic pattern, and then you'll have the ability to go out on your own and practice the maneuvers you've learned so far, remaining within 25nm of your home base.
- "Cross country" training. This is where you start learning about navigation. You'll learn pilotage (aka looking out the window), dead reckoning (aka compass and stopwatch), and radio (VOR and GPS) navigation. You won't get super in-depth and you won't have to worry about approaches. It's just about how to get from point A to point B, looking out the window and using other tools available to you.
- Solo cross country flights, night training
- Checkride prep: Making sure you're still up to speed with all the maneuvers, all types of landings, emergency procedures, and navigation.
- Checkride.
Then, you'll move on to the instrument rating, which goes something like this:
- Controlling the airplane solely by reference to instruments: Climbs, descents, turns
- Intercepting and tracking courses (usually from a VOR)
- Approaches and holds
- En route navigation and flight planning, cross country flights
- Checkride prep
- Checkride
So, things should be introduced to you only as you're ready for them. You shouldn't have to worry about navaids when you're learning how to land, for example. If you feel overwhelmed, speak up! (And you may need a new instructor, unless they're trying to overwhelm you on purpose to see how you'll handle it - But that should be well after you're done with learning how to fly the plane.)
Thank you! You will no doubt find this .PDF very interesting. I just stumbled over it: https://www.gps.gov/governance/advisory/meetings/2014-06/narins.pdf. This was drafted by in 2014, so it is already an ancient document in digital terms. An interesting dissimilar back-up to GPS.
I also thought this quote from another article here:http://www.insidegnss.com/node/5572,was most interesting indeed:
$700 billion appropriated for DoD. Only $10 million scraped off for a proof of concept. Just one (1) USAF Reaper drone costs $13 million. We have 48 Reaper drones alone in the USAF drone fleet. $624 million in drones and those are just the accounted for Reapers. There is plenty more where that came from. So, $10 million to 'proof' a GNSS back-up in eLORAN is 'proof that they are clearly not serious about getting it done. You may be right about not seeing it in our lifetimes.
The more I look into this the more I start to get the feeling that we may not be putting as much attention and focus on the security and optimization of our national airspace navigational infrastructure, as I first thought we did. In fact, I'm pretty convinced that's the truth at this point. We had a piecemeal system from the start. We continue to have that piecemeal system today, but have shifted more internal usage and reliability onto GNSS/WAAS. We have no real Back-Up plan for GNSS/WAAS that congress is serious about getting off the ground, as $10 million in "government" terms won't even pay for the first Screw Driver, let alone fund a completed Proof-of-Concept. It is not that we don't have the money. We just don't have this set as a priority.
Meanwhile, as a pending student pilot, I watch, listen and learn about a "system" that in many places seems rather antiquated as a general description. I would have expected Aviation, especially here in the US, to be on the cutting edge of what works really well. Knowing, that there's a difference between merely being on the "cutting edge' and being on the cutting edge of what works really well. Of course, the whole thing has been working for many decades now. A very interesting story all by itself.
denverpilot
Tied Down
There were a number of private approaches using them for Rocky Mtn Airways back in the day. You couldn’t get the plates unless you worked for Rocky.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
You would be correct! I only know of one person who thought instrument was easier than private.
It does, but I think you're probably getting WAY ahead of yourself. For ground stuff, study the things you'll need to know for the Private first. Maybe even take the written.
Now, that doesn't mean you can't do anything instrument-wise until you're done with your private, far from it. I got my first experience in the clouds and flew my first instrument approach as I was ticking over 10 hours total time, before I had soloed; the last flight I did in the clouds (actual Instrument Meteorological Conditions, we call it) prior to my private pilot checkride, my instructor turned to me and said, "Congratulations, you now have more actual IMC time than I did when I got my instrument rating." You'll definitely want to interview potential instructors and ensure they're willing to do that sort of thing, though.
There's nothing wrong with starting the instrument right away, but I would suggest you also work on gaining some real experience at the same time.
If you can find a good instructor and you do your training full-time as you suggest, you should be able to do it in very close to 40 hours. I had 42.6 when I took my checkride, and I wasn't dedicating full time to it! I did it in a little under 3 months, and basically flew like mad every other weekend.
Also, you don't need to have your instrument rating to get the multi-engine rating - My primary instructor was airline-bound and knew he'd need lots of multi time (well, at least you did back then) and so he got his multi rating immediately after his Private, and then did his entire instrument rating in the Seneca so he could log it all as multi-engine PIC time. In your case, you'll be picking up more multi time that'll help you with obtaining insurance on the twin turboprop.
If you do it in this order, you will need to do your instrument checkride in a multiengine airplane, though, or your multi rating will be limited to VFR only until you remove that limitation by flying a couple of approaches in a twin with an examiner.
With your $1mil budget for this, how many hours are you expecting to end up with, and will you be continuing to fly the twin turboprop afterwards? Something like a Diamond DA42 TwinStar costs about a tenth of what a twin turboprop would cost to operate (~$150/hr vs ~$1500/hr) so if you're expecting to end up with 1000 hours of experience at the end of this, you won't get there doing it all in the twin turboprop. But, presumably you have some sort of end game in mind where you continue to fly the turboprop, or a jet, and you have more money to continue flying with?
Very old school and privately established as well. It was a nice look-up into the history of original Global Navigation Systems. Thanks.
After looking it up, it makes you appreciate VOR technology!
It looks like there has been a lot of Navigation Aids over the decades. Some of it persisted and some didn't while technological innovation made advancements possible. However, my study also shows that in some cases, government got in the way and caused things to be less efficient than they could have been. However, government's involvement also provided some stability in uniformity, though no zeal for innovation.
denverpilot
Tied Down
- Not often
- It can be. Anything the on board equipment can do is fair game.
- Sure if you want to. Airplane is more fun but costs more. Makes you work harder too.
- No
- Almost all “glass cockpits” have two but you don’t need two to fly an arc. You only need one and a DME or authorized substitute.
Gee, thanks! I thought I might be experiencing one of those paralysis by analysis things they say don't make a good pilot. The system is starting to look like a real technological and historical layer cake the more I study it. Ironically, it looks like the DME Arc would work out nicely - though it would also appear to be cumbersome and loathed. I think it would be good for some kind of Flight Competition during the summer at Airshows. It would be fun to see who could etch the Perfect Arc over the ground while intercepting the Localizer.
Gotta luv it!
DME arcs (and NDB approaches) are “loathed” because they’re taught wrong and few people bother to learn them properly.
Over simplified a DME Arc is broken down into just this...
- Fly toward or away from the VOR (as depicted on the chart) until the DME says you’re at or just before the arc distance.
- Turn 90 degrees in the direction of the arc. (You can’t really be asked to intercept an arc at an angle, you’re starting flying right toward or away from the VOR.
- The DME distance is now primary for knowing where you are. Make a shallow bank and fly around the VOR. (This is where people get hosed with the turn ten, twist ten, and we’ll get to that but THIS is really all you’re doing.
- If you’re inside the arc shallow your turn. If outside steepen it slightly.
- Use the VOR radial to know HOW FAR AROUND the arc you are. Heading combined with inward moving or outward moving distance are still primary from the DME as your left/right guidance. Visualize the arc ahead and just fly it.
- When you get close enough to the localizer on the arc that you’re about to cross it, tune the Localizer (usually a full ILS actually) and intercept it just like a controller would vector you to it at an angle.
Arc to LOC/ILS complete. Don’t over complicate it. It’s just a big lazy circle around a DME point really. The VOR isn’t really involved once you’re on it other than to know how many degrees you’ve flown around the DME.
Let’s say you’re doing your 17 mile DME arc and it’s to the left. You look down and your DME number is 16. What happened? You turned left too much or the wind blew you inside the 17 mile ground track. How to fix it? Wings level. You’ll fly back out of the circle just like being thrown off of a merry go round. Right?
Same thing the other way. You see it says 18. Wind blew you out or your turn isn’t enough. Turn more. Hang on to the merry go round so you don’t fall out.
Now in reality, arcs usually aren’t tight circles. I forget what the minimum radius is but it’s not that small. And usually you won’t end up a mile outside or inside of it either. You’ll have a number based in tenths of a mile and when they start counting up, hang on to the merry go round and turn more. Take a “bigger bite” at the corner. If they’re counting down you’re inside the corner, let the circle come back to you by leveling out.
Make sense? People over complicate the DME arc. People with lots of experience even. Same with NDB. Holding entries. There’s real world tricks to all of them.
Example. Holding entries. Was talking with an old CFI friend about this today. They ALL can be entered with one rule. “Hit the fix and turn outbound.” People get confused when you’re 180 degrees or so out of whack. “But I’m already outbound!” Fine. Do a teardrop. That’s it.
Literally you’ll enter almost any hold inside the protected airspace if you “Hit the fix and turn outbound.” And if you feel like you’re already outbound, turn slightly toward the holding side and make the teardrop.
FAA and examiners will want you to talk about their “number of degrees” rule and people mess around with the thumb over the DG trick and all that. But in reality the standard says “Must enter the holding pattern.” It doesn’t say “If 29 degrees off must use X entry.”
Yeah if you’re doing an oral you’re going to have to explain the angle thing. And if you’re a CFII you’re also going to have to draw and teach it on a whiteboard. And yeah, this “cardinal rule” would fail if someone pointed you at a hold in a screaming fast aircraft 90 degrees off of the hold if you’re late in turning because your turn radius could take you outside the protected airspace. But 99.9% of the time, it won’t.
“Hit the fix and turn outbound. If you’re already outbound and won’t be able to intercept unless you move AWAY from the radial or localizer or whatever... teardrop out so you have room to intercept coming back in.” That’s it. No mental math, no pencils across the DG. No work at all. Done.
People overthink this stuff and come up with new and exciting ways to distract themselves with math and twisting and messing around, from the goal. Fly the flight path needed. Visualize where the airplane is over the ground. Put it where you need it to be.
(And with moving maps these days, this visualization is actually easier for many people once you get them to do it. Even when the moving map fails or is simulated failed. They’re much more used to thinking of looking down on the airplane from above at the ground track than we were without them.)
Oh, I see! So, you can create your own Waypoints in the on-board GPS equipment. Sounds like this might aid in putting together a custom IFR flight plan, or just a custom flight in general. I'm sure anyone having designed an on-board GPS would include a feature that allows you to Save your last Flight Plan under a unique name, or something like that. Interesting.
I was going to ask this exact question. Where do all the funny names come from depicted on a chart, or when given your IFR clearance. You could be "cleared" to the TacoBell5, then as filed, MooseHeadDog, FlatMouthFrog, JupiterPeaSoup.5, then direct....whatever. I don't know what comes after that.
Is TacoBell5, MooseHeadDog, FlatMouthFrog and JupiterPeaSoup.5, all names that some controller dreamed up while working late one night? Or, are they literally plucked from thin air when ATC issues your clearance?
Yeah, that's kinda what I'm learning as I go along studying this stuff. It all seems to come right back to something connected to a GNSS/WAAS. I had a feeling this was going to be the case, but I did not know for sure until I investigated a bit more.
Woe, woe, woe. Wait a minute. You said, at least "one LOC/GS receiver...". Now, I'm confused again. Isn't "LOC" supposed to stand for Localizer? Using that DME Arc example above in this thread, we simply took the Localizer frequency and entered it into VOR1. So, is a "LOC/GS Receiver" a different piece of equipment other than the VOR? Sounds like a stupid question, but something tells me its not a stupid question. Or, maybe the VOR is part of the LOC/GS, or the LOC/GS is part of the VOR?
Hate it when somebody posts a video like this one and fails to tell you what the Instrument is they are depicting. Can you identify the Instrument being used in this animation, please (it is only 2 min in length):
It has two Needles. One is Localizer (LOC). The other is Glide Slope (GS). Have I just discovered your LOC/GS Receiver? If not, I'm still hunting for an example of that on-board unit.
This is another issue for me. I keep reading about "ILS." It always gets the label: Instrument Landing System. However, there appears to be more than one ILS Type and again, that is confusing on the surface, given the way people use the term in writing or in a video. People just say:
- I just shot an ILS approach this morning and...
- Did you read about those change to the ILS procedures for KXXX...
Other people will say:
- I just shot an LPV approach this morning and....
- Did you read about those RNAV approach procedure changes for KYYY...
Its confusing for someone like me. One the one hand, people call them ILS. They then turn around and call the same thing LPV or RNAV, as if they are still talking about an ILS. Why don't we simply call it one thing, as to not confuse dumb people like me. LOL! Just kidding. No seriously, what's up with calling an RNAV approach an ILS approach and then to make matters worse, simultaneously calling some of them Precision Approachs, as opposed to a Non-Precision Approachs?
Or, maybe, not all ILS Approaches are Precision Approaches? How deep does the "ILS" rabbit hole really go anyway.
In the meantime, if I'm going to buy an airplane and reconfigure (retrofit) its Panel, I've got to make sure that I have sufficiency for flying ANY kind of Approach under instrument flight rules. So, I need to get up to speed on this stuff.
Ah...yes! There is goes again. You called a GPS an LPV and an ILS, all at the very same time. See the confusion?
So, does GPS = LPV = ILS = Precision Approach? I also hear that LPV is a "Type" of GPS Approach.Would it be appropriate to ask ATC for an Instructional Visit to a radar facility (Tower and possible Departure Control or Approach Control)? Maybe seeing how the system works from that side of the equation would make my own flight training more relevant and better digested.
Let's see now, uh, Russia invaded at Pearl Harbor in 1941. Check. Japan and Russia were allies who conspired to take down the Axis powers from within. Check.
I see whacha doing there.
I like where your head is at, LOL! Oooh, I think I know what you're going to say next, too. That Crimea, was in reality, the secret lost Capital City of the old Soviet Empire, before the time of the Russian Nobles. I get it now. I took a while, but I get it now. I see where you're coming from. Don't worry. I gotcha covered. Thanks for that! What you just described for the Private Pilot training seems (at least on the surface) very minimal at best. No doubt, it is a VFR only ticket. Not a lot of emphasis on Night Flying, which I will want to do about 40% - 50% of the time. My dominant flight plan will be between NoCal and SoCal. However, lots of flight plans from NoCal into Vancouver as well. NoCal into Nevada. And, NoCal into Cabo. So, I'll need to become proficient at night ops just to make efficient use of my personal time. No emphasis on Mountain Flying or dealing with Mountain Waves, which given the topology where I live, I will have a definite need to fly back and fourth over the Sierras - often times landing at airports in the Mountains. The Private almost seem inadequate for the task. Like I said, makes sense - its just for VFR conditions. However, with the exception of Cabo in San Lucas, all those other destinations will mostly likely have associated Weather of some kind or another (Vancouver, Seattle, California/Nevada Sierras). So, the Instrument Rating needs to be forthcoming.
Your post also gives me another idea for a different OP Topic!
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
Whatever type of approach you do, you need to get to the spot where you line up on final approach somehow. That can be via vectors to final from ATC, via a leg marked on the chart (usually a base leg on a GPS approach), via a procedure turn or hold-in-lieu-of-procedure-turn, or via a DME arc. There are DME arcs that are part of several different types of approaches.
As an example, the most recent DME arc I flew was on this approach:
I was coming from the east-northeast and the two options that made sense were to either fly to the DOSNY IAF (Initial Approach Fix) and fly the DME arc around, or to fly to the SNORE IAF, fly outbound on the localizer, do the procedure turn (where it says 076/256), and then fly back in. I chose the DME arc, just out of personal preference - No need to worry about remaining within 10 miles of the fix in a faster plane, etc.
Now, back to the original scenario, which is this approach:
Note that the plate has been updated somewhat since the video was made, and it no longer has the feeder route from ITMOR to GARSA for some reason.
Minor point of clarification: ITMOR isn't a VOR, it's a fix. That fix is defined either by the RDD (Redding) VOR, 044 radial at 12 DME (that's what the 12 inside the D-shaped box is just below ITMOR), or the intersection between the RDD 044 radial and the RBL 357 radial.
So, looking at the plate in the video (and NOT the one just above), you'll see a line pointing from ITMOR to GARSA that says "6000 357º (6.4)". That indicates a feeder route, so if you look at the low enroute IFR chart, you'll find ITMOR is a fix in the low airway structure, on V25. In theory, if you were flying on airways, you would use that feeder route to get from the airway to the approach. That feeder route has since been deleted from the approach, and I see GARSA is part of the airway now as well, so you could approach GARSA from either direction on the airway to start the approach, or you could be cleared direct GARSA from wherever if you're flying by GPS.
Kind of. The CDI doesn't know which way the airplane is facing, so it's not left or right per se. The down arrow is important too... But rather than try to explain VOR navigation here, I'll point you to Dauntless Software which has an online VOR simulator that should be better than anything that can be typed: https://www.dauntless-soft.com/products/Freebies/navsim/
Exactly.
The LR stands for "lead radial". That's where you would begin the turn inbound to final so that you don't overshoot the final approach course.
So the radial represents what direction you are from the VOR, and since we're flying the arc we're essentially flying tangents to the circle, with the VOR straight off your left wing. Start at the 028 radial flying 90 degrees to the left of that (288), twist 10, turn 10 repeatedly until you get to the lead radial and start your turn inbound.
I'm not sure what he means about the "traditional method" since this looks like the traditional method to me. He mentions 80 something something at one point but that didn't make any sense to me either!
Newer GPS units, when coupled to an autopilot via GPSS roll steering, can do the whole arc for you without any of the twisting and turning. But if you're hand-flying it with an actual DME, that pretty much is the way to do it.
It does seem like DME arcs are largely disappearing, and there aren't any on GPS approaches. You may well never need to do one.
The starting ones are fixes on the low enroute airway structure, so you have a way to get there without GPS. The "ending" ones are the lead radials where you should start the turn inbound to the final approach heading.
Like I said, you may never need it. There are cases where it is operational advantageous depending on the approach and where you're coming from and what other approaches might be available. For example, this is the only approach to runway 16 at Redding so if the winds are howling out of the south and the clouds/visibility are below circling minimums for the approaches to the other runways, your choice is to either fly the DME arc or land elsewhere. So, they're worth learning as long as they're around.
Are they on the ACS? It looks like the latest ACS doesn't specifically mention them, but if the examiner has you fly an approach that has one, it's fair game.
It'd probably be a good exercise in sim, yes.
No, DME arcs can be at different distances. The other one I posted above is at 14 miles. Generally, they'll be in the 10-20 mile range if the DME is located on the field. There are some that use an off-field navaid. For some truly odd approaches using DME arcs, check out the MTN VOR/DME 15 in which the entire approach is a DME arc or the WVI VOR-A where not only is the DME off field, you actually turn away from it at the end of the arc!
Hope you're enjoying the conversation and the "armchair flying" so far.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
You may not have heard it yet, but the Private Pilot certificate is known as a "license to learn." It really is just the very basics. There are so many possibilities in aviation that they leave it up to you to get additional training to suit the sort of flying you'll do.
For what you want to do - Both flying a lot at night in areas with significant terrain and flying into areas where clouds and rain are very frequent, you'll definitely want to get the instrument rating sooner rather than later. In most other countries, night VFR is prohibited. Here in the US, we only have to have 3 hours of night training to get the Private! But instrument procedures are designed to keep you out of rocks and obstacles you can't see, so they're very useful for night flying too, even VFR. I would suggest that you have your instructor cover some of that stuff with you even prior to your Private - Obstacle departure procedures and general IFR minimum altitude stuff, because it'll save your bacon at night, even VFR.
Also, I highly recommend that after you get your private, you take the mountain flying course from Mountain Canyon Flying Seminars in McCall, ID. You'll not only learn lots about high density altitude flying and aircraft performance (including lots of formulas that will tickle your engineer brain) as well as how to fly around the mountains, but you'll get to go out and land at some of the most beautiful backcountry landing strips in the nearby Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness Area. It's one of the best flying experiences I've ever had, and I've been lucky enough to have quite the variety of flying experiences. Here's one pic from there:
genna
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2015
- Messages
- 1,720
- Display Name
Display name:
ТУ-104
Oh, I see! So, you can create your own Waypoints in the on-board GPS equipment. Sounds like this might aid in putting together a custom IFR flight plan, or just a custom flight in general. I'm sure anyone having designed an on-board GPS would include a feature that allows you to Save your last Flight Plan under a unique name, or something like that. Interesting.
I was going to ask this exact question. Where do all the funny names come from depicted on a chart, or when given your IFR clearance. You could be "cleared" to the TacoBell5, then as filed, MooseHeadDog, FlatMouthFrog, JupiterPeaSoup.5, then direct....whatever. I don't know what comes after that.
Is TacoBell5, MooseHeadDog, FlatMouthFrog and JupiterPeaSoup.5, all names that some controller dreamed up while working late one night? Or, are they literally plucked from thin air when ATC issues your clearance?
Yeah, that's kinda what I'm learning as I go along studying this stuff. It all seems to come right back to something connected to a GNSS/WAAS. I had a feeling this was going to be the case, but I did not know for sure until I investigated a bit more.
Woe, woe, woe. Wait a minute. You said, at least "one LOC/GS receiver...". Now, I'm confused again. Isn't "LOC" supposed to stand for Localizer? Using that DME Arc example above in this thread, we simply took the Localizer frequency and entered it into VOR1. So, is a "LOC/GS Receiver" a different piece of equipment other than the VOR? Sounds like a stupid question, but something tells me its not a stupid question. Or, maybe the VOR is part of the LOC/GS, or the LOC/GS is part of the VOR?
Hate it when somebody posts a video like this one and fails to tell you what the Instrument is they are depicting. Can you identify the Instrument being used in this animation, please (it is only 2 min in length):
It has two Needles. One is Localizer (LOC). The other is Glide Slope (GS). Have I just discovered your LOC/GS Receiver? If not, I'm still hunting for an example of that on-board unit.
This is another issue for me. I keep reading about "ILS." It always gets the label: Instrument Landing System. However, there appears to be more than one ILS Type and again, that is confusing on the surface, given the way people use the term in writing or in a video. People just say:
- I just shot an ILS approach this morning and...
- Did you read about those change to the ILS procedures for KXXX...
Other people will say:
- I just shot an LPV approach this morning and....
- Did you read about those RNAV approach procedure changes for KYYY...
Its confusing for someone like me. One the one hand, people call them ILS. They then turn around and call the same thing LPV or RNAV, as if they are still talking about an ILS. Why don't we simply call it one thing, as to not confuse dumb people like me. LOL! Just kidding. No seriously, what's up with calling an RNAV approach an ILS approach and then to make matters worse, simultaneously calling some of them Precision Approachs, as opposed to a Non-Precision Approachs?
Or, maybe, not all ILS Approaches are Precision Approaches? How deep does the "ILS" rabbit hole really go anyway.
In the meantime, if I'm going to buy an airplane and reconfigure (retrofit) its Panel, I've got to make sure that I have sufficiency for flying ANY kind of Approach under instrument flight rules. So, I need to get up to speed on this stuff.
Ah...yes! There is goes again. You called a GPS an LPV and an ILS, all at the very same time. See the confusion?
Would it be appropriate to ask ATC for an Instructional Visit to a radar facility (Tower and possible Departure Control or Approach Control)? Maybe seeing how the system works from that side of the equation would make my own flight training more relevant and better digested.
You are definitely overthinking it and going into the weeds of Instrument Training way before you need to. Learn to walk(private certificate - PPC) before learning to drive(instrument rating - IR). Trust me, there is enough to learn and remember in PPC before diving into the crazy world of IR alphabet soup and regulations.
VOR and Localizers are not the same, but they use the same display. If that display has a glideslope, it can then be used for an ILS approach(A localizer with a glide slope). ILS, Loc, VOR don't have anything to do with GPS. All are ground based approaches of various precision using a guiding radio.
LPV, LP, RNAV/GPS are all GPS based(practically), some with help of WAAS(ground stations for better precision), of various precision.
Very roughly, ILS's GPS counterpart is LPV.
That's ok. I'm dating all three right now (Private, Instrument and Multi-Engine).
When I start training however, I will settle down and marry Private. Wait... that means I will also have to settle down and marry both Instrument and Multi-Engine, too. This could get complicated, LOL! In all seriousness, I just want to start right now getting a little comfortable with the language and concepts used in IFR flying, as that's ultimately where I'm headed. Questions regarding fuzzy or un-supported VG:
1) Would you trust the LNAV+V approach? Given: It has fuzzy VG, is only for some units and is not officially supported when it is available.
2) Would you trust either LNAV/VNAV or Baro VNAV? Both have official VG, but the VG is still fuzzy.
I was wondering about this. Thank you!
I will then assume that anything associated with GPS uses the (drum roll please) GPS Receiver.
Funny, how the best both have VG (Vertical Guidance) while the most common (LNAV) either has no VG or fuzzy VG. Very well done. Thank you very much!
genna
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2015
- Messages
- 1,720
- Display Name
Display name:
ТУ-104
That's ok. I'm dating all three right now (Private, Instrument and Multi-Engine).
Questions regarding fuzzy or un-supported VG:
1) Would you trust the LNAV+V approach? Given: It has fuzzy VG, is only for some units and is not officially supported when it is available.
2) Would you trust either LNAV/VNAV or Baro VNAV? Both have official VG, but the VG is still fuzzy.
I was wondering about this. Thank you!
I will then assume that anything associated with GPS uses the (drum roll please) GPS Receiver.
Funny, how the best both have VG (Vertical Guidance) while the most common (LNAV) either has no VG or fuzzy VG. Very well done. Thank you very much!
LNAV+V, if I remember correctly, is a brand specific thing. Not FAA sanctioned. LNAV/VNAV is official and more common . Both are non precision VGs that may or may not(often not) get you lower than LNAV without VG(using stepped descent). I would trust them both, but WAAS changed the game and LPV is way better.
VG has specific requirements. That’s why not all GPS approaches have LPV or VNAV hence LNAV is the most common.
Edit. I’m gonna correct myself. Took me a moment to remember since I never fly these. I may still be wrong.
.LNAV + V. Is a simulated VG. Your unit calculates your gradual descent based on LNAV MDA and missed approach point. So it can never be lower than MDA. it’s there to make your approach smoother.
VNAV actually has different minimas that may or may not be lower than MDA. It uses gps altitude and altimeter setting to provide VG
Last edited:
I've just read the Contact Approach is considered by some to be a "form of legalized Scud Running and potentially unsafe." From reading about it, visibility requirements at the airport seem to be lower than VFR. However, I've never understood the term "Clear of Clouds." Does that mean simply that the aircraft cannot be in the clouds? Or, does that mean there cannot be a single cloud in the sky within visual range of the aircraft? I do understand 1,000 ft horizontal separation from clouds, however.
Just looked up PRM Approaches, thank you. Base on what I've read, this seems to allow for conducting simultaneous PRM Approaches at airports with parallel runways less then 4,300 ft apart and greater than or equal to 3,000 ft. I found this an interesting subject, because Part 121/129/135 pilots apparently have to undergo ILS/PRM or LDA/PRM Approach Training before accepting a clearance for such an approach. However, based on my reading, Part 91 pilots simply need to "review" the AIM, PRM information in the U.S. Terminal Procedures publication, the approach procedure itself and the page entitled "Attention All Users of ILS Precision Runway Monitor (PRM)" before they are allowed to accept such clearances. Does that sound about right?
Stickman
Pre-takeoff checklist
In a manner of speaking a contact approach is a visual in IFR conditions (not really but you could view it that way) and a PRM is as you describe it. We train every year to qualify to do those approaches. Just like we train for CATII/CATIII approaches.
You are asking some well thought out and valid questions, but to some degree you are putting the cart before the horse. Most of your questions will answer themselves as you begin your flight training.
I've been a check airman and instructor pilot in many airplanes, including the 747-400, and have seen pilots get bound up in details that work themselves out with increased experience.
You are asking some well thought out and valid questions, but to some degree you are putting the cart before the horse. Most of your questions will answer themselves as you begin your flight training.
I've been a check airman and instructor pilot in many airplanes, including the 747-400, and have seen pilots get bound up in details that work themselves out with increased experience.
Are you saying that this is like the beginning of the old 486 PC days, or the old Pentium (P5) Processor days? Today, the world is buying PCs with quad core i7 processors and dedicated video cards with more compute power in its GPU than several entire P5 PCs had back when they first came out. If that's the game being played, I'll want none of it. I ran a 486 that I built for more than a decade with Windows NT, until the HDD finally crashed - more than 10 years later. I doubt they make HDDs like that anymore. I ran an i3 for 7 years until Microsoft started messing around with Windows Updates, breaking everything as a matter of routine course. I now run an quad core i7 with 128GB RAM, a dedicated GeForce GTX 1050 Ti GPU with a VMware Type I Hypervisor (ESXI 6.5) as the machine's OS. That rig can now run 42 instances of Windows 7 very smoothly. But, I only run 20 Windows 7 virtual environments. It is like having access to 20 different Windows 7 computers, each with their own unique network IP address. The way I have it configured, Windows 7 actually runs faster in each VM simultaneously than a single Windows 7 OS installed on a different stand-alone i7 Workstation. I use Windows 7 and a T1 Hypervisor for the security that Windows 10 simply cannot provide.
So, I'm going to have to look into GA Avionics, find out what's actually behind the Panel (hardware), determine what's truly needed to fly they way I'll want to fly and then customize a Panel to fit that need. I've just begun looking at Garmin's LRU approach to GA EFIS Panels and I like the architecture on the surface based on what I could find that describes it. The problem I have with Garmin, is trying to figure out whether their G600 PFD + GTN 750 MFD is the way to go. Or, if a straight G1000 is better. Or, if the G3000 with Dual GTC controllers is the best use of money and space. Of course, I can't possibly know any of this right now, because I have not flown and used enough. I'll have to fly and use enough to figure out what's needed long term.
To your point - I hope that once a decision is made about a Panel, I can stick to it for years to come. I like getting the best tech and then letting it run for as long as possible without constantly upgrading and buying new stuff all the time. Definitely don't want to start doing that.
Last edited:
Thanks for confirming some things. Very much appreciated. I'm just trying to get a look at the bigger conceptual picture with these wider ranging topical questions. I'm not trying to cover every tidy detail at this stage - though some of the subjects are interesting and I drill down because of how interesting on the surface they appear to be. I'm starting to get the feeling that there are the Basics of Flying which will be learned in primary training (private/instrument/multi). Probably where most pilots hang out for their personal flying careers, just looking at the law of numbers. And, then there's the "Entire System" which won't/can't be taught 'entirely' during primary training - but will start to unfold more deeply depending on what the pilot flies and where they fly it. Probably the Masters and PhD level of flying where fewer pilots hang out - again just law of averages. I don't know for sure, but my gut tells me this won't end up being too far from the truth about my upcoming personal flying career.
Stickman
Pre-takeoff checklist
As they say, Rome wasn't built in a day.
JOhnH
Touchdown! Greaser!
I think that is a very good analogy. And it is a good idea that you research your options and pick a solution that will last you a long time. But while you are still sitting on that solution in 10 or 20 years (or more) from now, several other generations of avionics technology will come and go and we will be right back to where we are now with a whole bunch of different acronyms to muddle through as we determine which new airplane to buy and which avionics to select.
As for the G1000; talk to some people that bought one when it was whiz-bang new but now want to upgrade it to WAAS and make it ADS-B compatible. You could buy a perfectly flyable airplane for what that upgrade will cost.
lancie00
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- May 12, 2016
- Messages
- 864
- Display Name
Display name:
lancie00
Yes it is for a WAAS unit when you also need an audio panel, indicator and installation. We were quoted $18,000 and you know they will find "something" else.
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,228
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
Sat this party out for a day or two, looks like some people already responded but I'll give my responses below too... especially since I was invited to a filet mignon steak dinner.. I assume the presence of scotch or whiskey was assumed? Either way, would be great! What's better than red meat and talking aviation?
Not the complete list, or rather, depends how you slice it up. There are RNAV (RNP) type approaches, etc., but for the most part, that list was the gist of it. On the top right of the approach plate it will tell you the type of approach, the equipment required to fly it, and the name of the approach. At the bottom it will tell you the various minimums for altitude and visibility depending on how you fly the approach.. if you have LPV equipment you'll have one set of minimums, vs non, vs if you are going to do a circle to land.. I HIGHLY HIGHLY recommend both the Digital Terminal Procedures Supplement and the Instrument Procedures Handbook.. it may be a little overkill if you are still working on getting our private, but if this stuff is interesting and perplexing to you it never hurts to learn early.. I got lost in studying the schematics for hours
Sort of... in short, "precision" approaches give you vertical guidance, like an ILS system that will give you lateral and vertical guidance with two needles showing you where you are left and right and your orientation relative the glide slope. A non precision approach will just give you lateral guidance and step down altitudes.. so in some sense you get "vertical guidance" by the chart telling you what altitudes to fly, but it's not a "precision" guidance like you get with an ILS
Not really, the LOC-D at Gillespie is non precision but it gets flown all the time in real actual IMC conditions. The difference, as noted above, is you don't get precision "vertical guidance", instead you have to stay above a certain altitude on each leg of the approach. The documents above, plus the AIM, do spell a lot of this out, and the logic they used in coming up with those altitude minimums, etc. Obstacles may preclude certain types of approaches, leaving only a localizer or some other approach due to terrain, etc.
I went with Kings since it was the most prolific, and I use Foreflight now for all my plates and charts
If you already have the computer equipment, etc. to run this stuff than it can definitely help, especially in the "learn by trial and fire" self teaching. Personally speaking, up until about 2006 I spent a lot of money building a gaming PC and keeping it at top of the line performance.. I had both X Plane and FSX on it with pretty much every add on imaginable and the graphics maxed out, and kept them up to date. It was good for a while, then I stopped. There are really 3 main reasons:
1.) despite the "realism" of it I never got the same feeling flying a simulator as I did flying a real plane. Pretty much right after I got my PPL I completely stopped using the sims. If I had a few hours free I would rather spend that time at the airport flying, or if I couldn't afford it, then hanging out with other pilots. The "thrill" of the simulators totally wore off. Plus, I think the apex of graphics realism maxed our in the 2004-2006 time frame. You look at the most current X Plane 11 and P4D and I'm not impressed with the graphics. Sure, they look nice, but, if you've ever played Crysis or other PC games you'll realize that the the flight sims are still way behind. The first gen Crysis had blades of grass that moved in the wind. In comparison, you could set 70 knot winds in FSX and other than the crappy triangle wind sock there is no graphics representation of that. I don't think I'm asking for the world either, take a look at Forza, those graphics are insane .. so I honestly felt kind of "silly" going from a game like Crysis, etc. and then watching beige green blocks of pixelated land suddenly sprout trees and buildings as you got closer to them. X plane's flight dynamics and overall "feel" always felt more authentic anyway..
2.) the cost of maintaining the computer to my own OCD standards felt like a lose:lose. If I am going to spend $1,500 on computer equipment then, at the time, that would have bought me 15 hrs of flying.. or about 2-4 months worth!
3.) more to your point directly about G1000, etc., I don't want to risk learning the wrong thing, or assume that the way the 430 in FSX works is 100% mirror of real life.. you can download proper, well working, sanctioned GPS simulators to practice loading them, etc., so I did that instead. Some clubs will even let you hook the plane up to a ground power source and fiddle with the GPS for free (sounds crazy, but Coast here in San Diego used to let you do that if the plane was available and they wouldn't charge for that)
That you will learn, technically all of that stuff should be with the aircraft documents. When I went for both my PPL and IR there was a fair amount of ground time just learning the airplane systems. IE... okay, this plane is WAAS capable, I know that based on X, and it means Y.. when I file I used the following letters, etc. etc.
They'll name the approaches, for example Van Nuys has two approaches to runway 16R, both are ILS, the difference is one has lower minimums than the other, so they name one of them ILS Z RWY 16R and the other ILS Y RWY 16R.. that way when the approach controller assigns the approach they just say "cleared for the ILS one six right Zulu approach" for example.. and that "Z" carries with it a whole hoard of information about what altitudes to fly, etc., that you find by pulling up the correct approach plate in Foreflight..
I have 4 "Bibles", they are the following
-physical FAR/AIM - fully of stickies and highlighter marks
-virtual Foreflight Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge
-virtual Foreflight Instrument Procedures Handbook
-virtual Foreflight Digital Terminal Procedures Supplement
**just about every question I have ever had can be sleuthed from those. I like the physical FAR/AIM because it is put together more like a dictionary, so I find that easier to flip through.. the others are virtual so using FIND or the index is easy there as well
Ultimately though, you will end up making your own cheat sheets and if you have a good instructor they may also have their own. I think you can learn a lot by developing your own study guide
In all seriousness, I have had flashbacks of when Luke Skywalker removes his targeting screen and you can hear Obi Wan saying "use the force Luke" .. the first few times I was under the hood and was figuring out how to intercept a certain radial I felt like I needed those kinds of mystical powers. But later I learned it and now it seems obvious and natural
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,228
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
Probably never? I've talked to people with 3,000 hrs who have never flown one. But it's good practice because it really forces you to grasp how the OBS, CDI, DME, etc., all work. If you can master holds and DME arcs you are probably in a good place proficiently speaking
They teach it, and there are published DME arcs still out there, an airport near me, TRM, has one for example. But on the checkride for IR you you don't have to fly every single type of approach, you just need to get at least a precision approach in, plus a partial panel, plus one flown on A/P, etc. so no, I did not fly a DME arch for my checkride, however I did a couple during training
Nope
The GPS makes it easier, it sets a lot of it up for you.. the saying "follow the magenta line" is not entirely inaccurate.
They was I learned it was very similar... we would start the DME arc at a given waypoint, either by flying to it on the GPS, or by using the VOR and DME to intercept it, then advance the OBS in 10 degree increments.. every time the CDI would "sweep by" we would also turn the plane 10 degrees, and the twist the knob another 10 degrees. After the first one or two ten degree turns and twists you start to get the hang of it, and fly the arc nicely. The DME helps you shallow out the 10 degree turns, or make them a little steeper, to stay within the prescribed range. This we actually flew on a simulator a few times before doing it for real
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,228
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
wow... that's nuts!
I mean, I get that WAAS is the greatest thing, but I mean.. for the average GA pilot who really isn't doing hard IMC flying, WAAS or non WAAS does not seem like a deal breaker. I mean, sure some approach minimums will be higher and you'll be doing a RAIM check, plus some other stipulations. But for the kind of flying I do, even as an instrument rated person, I can't see myself being in a position where I MUST have WAAS. I'd be curious to hear from the people who spent the $20K to upgrade a $50K airplane what their logic and reasoning was. Granted, after having flown close to 100 hrs behind a GTN last year stepping back to a non WAAS 430 felt down right ancient! "what do you mean I can't load an airway and it doesn't tell me that I'm on SEE TWR right now?"
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
Contact approaches are often misunderstood (probably because the FAA documentation on them sucks), and usually not well taught. I'll give an example in a minute, but first... "Clear of clouds" means that you're not flying inside a cloud.
Now, a contact approach is very similar to a visual approach, *except* you don't need to have the airport in sight. For example, one day I was flying into an airport on an IFR flight plan. There was a layer of scattered cumulus a couple thousand feet thick that I was descending between, and the bases were below the minimum en route IFR altitude for the area, so I couldn't see the airport and couldn't descend below the layer. However, there was plenty of room between the clouds that I could have easily remained clear of them, and I had an interstate highway in sight that I knew went right past the airport.
I couldn't ask for a visual approach because I didn't have the field in sight.
I couldn't cancel IFR because I didn't have VFR cloud clearance requirements and I couldn't descend below the layer IFR because the bases were slightly below the minimum en route altitude. Shooting an approach to the runway meant flying 10 miles past the airport and shooting the instrument approach almost back in the direction I came from.
The solution in this situation? Ask for a contact approach, use the road to navigate toward the airport (remaining clear of clouds) until seeing the airport and landing.
It's not just about what is "better" but what you can even do. Generally, the G1000/G3000 is in the panel from the OEM, while the G500/G600 are retrofit units. There are some exceptions - I think you can get a DA20 with a G500 for example, and they do offer G1000 retrofits for the King Airs and some smaller Citations, and G5000 retrofits for the Beechjet, Citation Excel and XLS.
The other main difference is that the G500/G600 are strictly PFD/MFD displays and don't have the GPS/Nav/Coms integrated into them, so you still would need at least one GNS or GTN unit. The G1000 integrates dual GPS, dual nav, dual com as well as the stellar GFC 700 autopilot (in most installations with WAAS, at least).
Also, last I checked, the cost of the G1000 upgrade for a King Air was $350,000. That's part of why it isn't certified as a retrofit on anything less than a King Air - It simply would be too high a percentage of the cost of the airplane and the market for a retrofit that expensive just wouldn't exist.