Preferred Routes and Equipment SDF

midlifeflyer said:
... Even easier example. There's a reason I have a list of GPS Tasks Pilots Don't Know How to DoI pull out for IPCs and recurrent training. Even relatively experienced IFR pilots have trouble with them. The one that gets screwed up the most includes the autopilot.
There is so much more to learn with GPS navigation than old school.
Click to expand...
Pilot Workshops is one of the training providers I use, and funny enough they just announced this one for the GTN 650 and 750.
 
midlifeflyer said:
without the necessity of GPS, Distance Measuring Equipment (DME), Automatic Direction Finder (ADF), or surveillance (emphasis added)
Click to expand...
Ah, thanks! Totally forgot about that line.

And sure it's great to be able to use the MON sites without DME. But might be nice to have the DME for those that do have the capability to use the data. And since they are keeping multiple DME sites for the DME-DME aircraft, might be easier on the maintenance if they were co-located.
 
As part of IFR ground school we memorize GRABCARDD, and one of the "D" means that DME (and VOR) is required for flying IFR at and above FL240 - FAR 91.205.e.

However, I just looked it up and that regulation says "DME or suitable RNAV system", and it (e) applies only if the nav equipment suitable for the route to be flown includes VOR. That seems to mean that DME is not required if the route doesn't require VOR. And even if the route requires VOR, and you're flying above FL240, a GPS can substitute for the DME.

That said, even if I had a GPS I would always want a VOR as a backup. Flying over the years I've seen GPS fail, and I've seen VOR fail, but I haven't seen both fail at the same time.
 
MRC01 said:
I know and agree. Installing a GPS 175 costs about 10 AMU all in (parts, labor, etc.). Just because it's the cheapest doesn't mean it's "reasonable" - that depends on whether one actually uses it.

There are a few reasons why I am earning my IFR without a GPS or autopilot.
.....

In short, I know the GPS greatly increases the capabilities of IFR flying. But it does nothing for the VFR flying that I normally do, and I don't need it for the IFR training or the checkride. So I'm deferring that decision until I know whether I'd get any use out of it.
Click to expand...
That explanation not only makes sense, but it seems to me like a valid way to do it, if you can fly around VOR in your area and also do approaches that way.

I followed a somewhat similar approach with my sport and private. I had the ability to learn in a cub, so I became familiar with flying with a limited set of instruments and mostly visual and seat of the pants. My goal was to learn how to fly first, and get the ticket later.

Around here it's not unusual to just be able to get just one VOR, and without DME or GPS or radar or maybe ADF, there aren't a lot of places to do a full approach. I'm trying to follow a basic plan in my IFR, too, but it's to learn everything with a 430 GPS, no autopilot, and a separate VOR. Your point about pilots losing control because their automation fails is a good one, but I don't remember a case where someone's non-autopilot connected 430 failed and that caused them to lose control. It just doesn't do all that much except provide situational awareness and navigation, while at the same time being a potential distraction because it's a PITA to program.

My reasoning for all of this is that I want to be able to fly in the IFR system, knowing that I can fly any reasonable approach I'm handed, and be competent and safe. I'm just a PPL, so I don't fly for hire, and I don't ever "have" to fly. If GPS is down before I want to fly, I can just fly VFR, and if it's not VFR weather, I can just stay on the ground. If I happen to be flying IFR, and GPS goes down while I'm up there, well then I'm going to be in the same boat as a few other dozen people up in the air in this area at the same time. I can either get vectored around by ATC, or if the weather is good enough I can cancel and go back to VFR.

All that's based on my goals, and flying somewhere where there's not a lot of traffic but really close to areas that are busy. Working VOR's are scarce, radar coverage and controllers are excellent, pilotage is easy, weather sucks, and knock on wood GPS outages/interference rare.
 
MRC01 said:
Pilot Workshops is one of the training providers I use, and funny enough they just announced this one for the GTN 650 and 750.
Click to expand...
Ryan does a fabulous job with all these videos.

For anyone who hasn’t seen them, Pilot Workshops releases a lot of promo episodes of its video programs on its own YouTube channel or Sporty’s.
 
MRC01 said:
Pilot Workshops is one of the training providers I use, and funny enough they just announced this one for the GTN 650 and 750.
Click to expand...
I think they are re-promoting one of their existing videos (maybe because of the recent merger with Sporty's). Or... maybe they've updated the video, but it doesn't seem to say that in the promo.

Good video to what though.
 
If you never fly in the weather it won't really matter. But keep in mind with a GPS most airports you are flying over are going to have an approach you can do. If getting on the ground in a hurry is ever an issue it can be a lot easier with GPS than having to make it to a place with a traditional ground based nav aid approach.
 
Dixiebluesky said:
If you never fly in the weather it won't really matter. But keep in mind with a GPS most airports you are flying over are going to have an approach you can do. If getting on the ground in a hurry is ever an issue it can be a lot easier with GPS than having to make it to a place with a traditional ground based nav aid approach.
Click to expand...
“Making it to a place” presumes a GPS failure.
 
I am saying you are flying along and the engine starts knocking so you want to land. There is a good chance that the little field you passed 10 miles back has a gps approach. A lot of places one might find themselves you may have to make it 50 miles or more to a field that still has a traditional nav based approach.
 
MRC01 said:
I know and agree. Installing a GPS 175 costs about 10 AMU all in (parts, labor, etc.). Just because it's the cheapest doesn't mean it's "reasonable" - that depends on whether one actually uses it.
Click to expand...
In real world IFR flying... You'll use it every flight.

MRC01 said:
There are a few reasons why I am earning my IFR without a GPS or autopilot.

1. My primary goal is not for any practical use, but only to lean more and improve certain skills. After 18 years and 1700 hours of flying all over all the places in my sig map, all VFR, I know I don't need the rating to do the flying that I like to do.
Click to expand...
Ah.

MRC01 said:
2. Getting the rating with no autopilot or GPS means true competency.
Click to expand...
As Mark said, it's true competency at flying with the old stuff. You'll still have more to learn if you want to fly with GPS, even though it's "easy".

The one thing that this does really help is building the situational awareness picture in your head. The GPS kinda does that for you, so if you start in a plane with all the glass and TAA bells and whistles, you probably aren't any good at building the picture in your head. If you can build the picture in your head, the glass/GPS stuff is way easier and can be picked up much quicker than going the other way.

MRC01 said:
4. I already have a Stratux with ADS-B In, a GPS, a tablet with EFB software having full VFR & IFR databases and geo-referenced IAPs. Because of this, a certified panel GPS provides no value for my normal VFR flying.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say "no" value, but the value is certainly greatly increased if you're flying real IFR.
 
Civil Air Patrol used to spend a lot of time looking for missing airplanes, especially in mountainous terrain. Now that GPS units with moving-map displays and terrain-warning features have become common, I've noticed that such missions are much more rare.
 
Palmpilot said:
Civil Air Patrol used to spend a lot of time looking for missing airplanes, especially in mountainous terrain. Now that GPS units with moving-map displays and terrain-warning features have become common, I've noticed that such missions are much more rare.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you're trying to make a correlation between GPS navigators and terrain avoidance? I ask because a similar correlation can be made between GPS (as required by ADSB-Out) and "we already know where to look for the crash".
 
asicer said:
Sounds like you're trying to make a correlation between GPS navigators and terrain avoidance? I ask because a similar correlation can be made between GPS (as required by ADSB-Out) and "we already know where to look for the crash".
Click to expand...

The ADS-B mandate went into effect at the beginning of 2020. My recollection is that the reduction in lost-aircraft alerts began well before that. Also, unless the crash occurs in a populated area, knowing where to look still requires sending an aircraft to go out and look, especially if it occurs in a wilderness area.
 
Last edited:
If I were a betting person, I'd bet that less time spent looking for allegedly lost aircraft happened around the time they stopped space based dispatch from VHF beacons.
 
Palmpilot said:
The ADS-B mandate went into effect at the beginning of 2020. My recollection is that the reduction in lost-aircraft alerts began well before that. Also, unless the crash occurs in a populated area, knowing where to look still requires sending an aircraft to go out and look, especially if it occurs in a wilderness area.
Click to expand...
I was an early adopter of ADS-B in 2013 and a good percent of aircraft were using ADS-B well before the mandate became effective. The Garmin GTX 335/345 introduction in early 2016 spurred a lot of installations well before the 2020 mandate deadline.
 
WDD said:
Net Net, IMHO you need to get a GPS.

Others might disagree, but I think it's a lot safer to fly with a GPS. The chances of a VOR, even an ILS, being out is so much greater than GPS being out. As well, you are constrained on where you can fly with only a Nav radio. The capabilities a GPS offers to navigate relatively easily to many more fixes, going direct, etc. is a not only a convenience but a safety factor as well.

As a matter of fact, IMHO to be IFR proficient you need to be GPS proficient. That should be an important part of training from your CFII.



Yeah.... things change. VOR oriented navigation is going away / gone for GA (and probably in that direction for 121 and 135 as well ?). I get to take of that VOR training I had for my check ride and now keep it in the back pocket for a back up. And I had to switch to the GPS first navigation, approaches, etc. Among other things, chances are the VOR just isn't going to be working regardless of the MON list. And I can't find a "NOTAM" for VOR list that tells you if a specific VOR is up or not.

Flying Amish with VOR is moving into the file folder along with LORAN, following railroad tracks and rivers, and reading a town's name on the water tower to figure out where you are. :biggrin:
Click to expand...
Excellent idea, to install GPS. Uh-huh. Around here there’s a GPS warning/outage almost every 2-3 days. Installation costs have skyrocketed due to shop charges. What cost me $12K during Covid is now close to $20k or higher depending on the shop.
 
MRC01 said:
I know and agree. Installing a GPS 175 costs about 10 AMU all in (parts, labor, etc.). Just because it's the cheapest doesn't mean it's "reasonable" - that depends on whether one actually uses it.

There are a few reasons why I am earning my IFR without a GPS or autopilot.

1. My primary goal is not for any practical use, but only to lean more and improve certain skills. After 18 years and 1700 hours of flying all over all the places in my sig map, all VFR, I know I don't need the rating to do the flying that I like to do.

2. Getting the rating with no autopilot or GPS means true competency. We occasionally read about IFR pilots who lose the autopilot or GPS and die within moments. They became automation dependent and could not fly the airplane on their own in actual IMC. This shouldn't happen, due to currency rules, BFRs and IPCs, but it still does which means this kind of "deviance" is sometimes "normalized".

3. This reminds me of one of my CFI's friends. He was a young man who trained for his IFR in a glass panel airplane with autopilot. His Dad (a professional pilot) was sponsoring him. When he was ready for his IFR checkride, his Dad made him repeat the training in a steam gauge airplane (equipment SD) having no autopilot, until he could fly that as well as the glass panel. It took him another 30+ hours flying that way to become proficient - which he did, passed the checkride and continued on. The skills he learned might save his life some day.

4. I already have a Stratux with ADS-B In, a GPS, a tablet with EFB software having full VFR & IFR databases and geo-referenced IAPs. Because of this, a certified panel GPS provides no value for my normal VFR flying.

In short, I know the GPS greatly increases the capabilities of IFR flying. But it does nothing for the VFR flying that I normally do, and I don't need it for the IFR training or the checkride. So I'm deferring that decision until I know whether I'd get any use out of it.
Click to expand...
You can get an IFR rating without a GPS or an autopilot, but then you've not really learned IFR as it exists today. In addition, your true competency will only last four to six weeks anyhow; proficiency is the goal, not competency, and that takes repetition. As a challenge sure it's great. It's actually more challenging to have a GPS navigator with no AP or VOR/ILS since you'll at least have to know the bottonology for that unit. But you won't know how to work an autopilot, what modes it supports, how it can make you safe, and once in a while, less safe if you can't hand fly after an AP fails.

It's easier to transition from steam to glass than the other way around. This is true.

In fact today, an airplane advertised as "IFR" consisting of a pair of NAV/COMs is in fact borderline useless for IFR GA flying and should not be adverted as such. Today GA IFR flying means a GPS with WAAS. If one wants a VOR/ILS backup, install it. As of right now an aircraft with only WAAS approach capability can only file to non-precision alternate mins (800-2); that's the only constraint. The 10k spent on installing a GPS175 + G5 HSI (or AV-30 HSI now) is incredibly cheap in historical inflation adjusted dollars. An RNAV box in 1982 was something like 8k w/o installation, or somewhere in the 30k aviation-inflation adjusted range today.

midlifeflyer said:
Typically two applicants and an instructor. So I sometimes talk with the instructors.
Me: If your student passes his instrument checkride today, is he prepared to file IFR and fly solo tomorrow?​
They: Absolutely not.​
Click to expand...
Wow - the day after your check ride you should be willing and able to actually seek out some IFR/IMC. It's the most perishable skill in aviation. In fact, you should be able to fly to an unknown airport, with an unfamiliar approach, and shoot that to mins. Otherwise you actually haven't been trained properly. I don't disagree with what you've found the instructors to relate, it's just astounding.
 
Steamflyer said:
Wow - the day after your check ride you should be willing and able to actually seek out some IFR/IMC. It's the most perishable skill in aviation. In fact, you should be able to fly to an unknown airport, with an unfamiliar approach, and shoot that to mins. Otherwise you actually haven't been trained properly. I don't disagree with what you've found the instructors to relate, it's just astounding.
Click to expand...
I think the problem is a combination of modern cockpits and a lack of real cross country experience. Look at all the avionics questions we field here - from already certificated pilots. Whether in the past or now, there has always been teaching-to-the-test. But that means something very different today than it did then. We have one cross country, and that is largely under the CFII's control. The rest is all approaches.

Think of a tasks as simple as a route amendment to join a new-t-the-flight airway. Old school, you've been tuning, twisting, and intercepting VOR courses since your student pilot training, and this is no different. Tune in the closest VOR on the airway, twist the CDI to the course (or radial), and join when the CDI centers. OTOH, there is a reason that a tasks as simple as intercepting an airway is on my list of GPS Tasks Pilots Don't Know How to Do." I've actually seen that one raised in online forum and Facebook groups. It's simple, but there's been zero exposure to it.
 
It is very true that virtually nothing in a current instrument syllabus is focused on the nuances of the IFR system. I am sure there are some instructors who focus more on it somewhere out there.
 
midlifeflyer said:
I think the problem is a combination of modern cockpits and a lack of real cross country experience. Look at all the avionics questions we field here - from already certificated pilots. Whether in the past or now, there has always been teaching-to-the-test. But that means something very different today than it did then. We have one cross country, and that is largely under the CFII's control. The rest is all approaches.
Click to expand...
Part of the problem is that the test (and the training for it) does not at all resemble real world operations. You really only have to have that one flight under IFR at all, and none of it requires going to both towered and untowered fields.

It might take significantly longer (or maybe not), but training that more resembled the real world would involve IFR cross countries on every flight, and going to different airspace (C/D/pilot-controlled) to see how it's different, with as much actual IMC as possible. The student would get more chances to copy clearances (and phone for them, with void times and releases and all that), make and receive radio calls, get ATIS, choose and really brief an approach, cancel flight plans as needed, etc... And in the right areas, maybe they could even fly a SID or STAR.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Part of the problem is that the test (and the training for it) does not at all resemble real world operations. You really only have to have that one flight under IFR at all, and none of it requires going to both towered and untowered fields.

It might take significantly longer (or maybe not), but training that more resembled the real world would involve IFR cross countries on every flight, and going to different airspace (C/D/pilot-controlled) to see how it's different, with as much actual IMC as possible. The student would get more chances to copy clearances (and phone for them, with void times and releases and all that), make and receive radio calls, get ATIS, choose and really brief an approach, cancel flight plans as needed, etc... And in the right areas, maybe they could even fly a SID or STAR.
Click to expand...
I don’t disagree with you. Ever since my first solo IFR experience, I’ve bemoaned the lack of realistic cross country training. And that was in 1992.

But, realistically, I don’t see it happening. Too cost prohibitive (both time and money). Kind of like getting actual during training. Ideal, but can’t always be done without significantly increasing cost.

Fortunately, I think most newly rated pilots understand their own limitations and take baby steps. Pilots moving in in their certification will sometimes use the commercial cross countries as a way to build cross country instrument experience
 
midlifeflyer said:
I think the problem is a combination of modern cockpits and a lack of real cross country experience. Look at all the avionics questions we field here - from already certificated pilots. Whether in the past or now, there has always been teaching-to-the-test. But that means something very different today than it did then. We have one cross country, and that is largely under the CFII's control. The rest is all approaches.

Think of a tasks as simple as a route amendment to join a new-t-the-flight airway. Old school, you've been tuning, twisting, and intercepting VOR courses since your student pilot training, and this is no different. Tune in the closest VOR on the airway, twist the CDI to the course (or radial), and join when the CDI centers. OTOH, there is a reason that a tasks as simple as intercepting an airway is on my list of GPS Tasks Pilots Don't Know How to Do." I've actually seen that one raised in online forum and Facebook groups. It's simple, but there's been zero exposure to it.
Click to expand...
Was not aware of how the regular curriculum goes with its lack of real-world experience (though have seen the results). I.e., the example above, which is easy with a VOR, or even easier with a moving map GPS as long as you put the anchor in first.

Ideally one would get the instrument training from a 135 or 121 pilot since they do it every day. The average CFII, and I am sure all the -II's on this forum are way above average so no shade thrown to the present company, seems to have a head full of arcane knowledge that might help on a an oral, but not enough real world experience in the system. And they train the next -II, and so on down the line. Many have a rudimentary understanding of autopilot modes, which they bury under the excuse "need to hand fly mostly in training."

100% support more random X/C in training, along with some sort of requirement for a reasonable amount of IMC - say 5 hours, all hand flown. The idea that you can get the rating in the local area, doing the same approaches as will probably be on the check ride, and entirely using a hood, is not rationale.
 
midlifeflyer said:
I don’t disagree with you. Ever since my first solo IFR experience, I’ve bemoaned the lack of realistic cross country training. And that was in 1992.

But, realistically, I don’t see it happening. Too cost prohibitive (both time and money). Kind of like getting actual during training. Ideal, but can’t always be done without significantly increasing cost.
Click to expand...
It's been long enough since I did my instrument training that I don't really remember, but how long does it generally take to miss an approach, fly out and get set up for the next approach and shoot it? I think it might be possible to not go completely overboard on cost and time while making the training more "real world".

Steamflyer said:
100% support more random X/C in training, along with some sort of requirement for a reasonable amount of IMC - say 5 hours, all hand flown.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, that'll never happen. Too many big flight schools in Arizona (where IMC is far too rare to require any) and Florida (where IMC usually takes the form of thunderstorms). There are plenty of CFIIs who trained and work in those areas who have thousands of hours and zero actual.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
It's been long enough since I did my instrument training that I don't really remember, but how long does it generally take to miss an approach, fly out and get set up for the next approach and shoot it? I think it might be possible to not go completely overboard on cost and time while making the training more "real world".
Click to expand...
That’s done ad nauseum. What’s missing is real world cross country with things like choosing good routes and route amendments.
 
midlifeflyer said:
That’s done ad nauseum. What’s missing is real world cross country with things like choosing good routes and route amendments.
Click to expand...
Nothing like flying IFR in the northeast to eliminate the fear of the words "I have an amendment to your route, advise ready to copy"
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Part of the problem is that the test (and the training for it) does not at all resemble real world operations. You really only have to have that one flight under IFR at all, and none of it requires going to both towered and untowered fields.
Click to expand...
I guess I was lucky getting my Inst. Rating in the NYC area under the NY Class B and next to ISP Class C. A lot of my flights were on IFR Flight Plans and many were in IFR conditions. And even if VMC, you were always talking to ATC, my CFII was not pretending to by ATC. Probably most of the flights we were in actual, it was more in and out or climbing and descending through layers, but there were other times the flights were all in IMC and a lot of Approaches at least started in IMC.

That dang NDB Rwy 1 always seem to have an evening marine layer that would hang around 8-900ft. Glad we flew those all the time, but they were a royal pain. :D
 
midlifeflyer said:
That’s done ad nauseum. What’s missing is real world cross country with things like choosing good routes and route amendments.
Click to expand...
No, what I mean is starting from the first flight with every single one being a cross country flight to at least one other airport. Longer flights to start with to work on basic attitude instrument stuff and basic navigation, and then ever shorter ones once they can fly the plane on instruments and need more approaches.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
No, what I mean is starting from the first flight with every single one being a cross country flight to at least one other airport. Longer flights to start with to work on basic attitude instrument stuff and basic navigation, and then ever shorter ones once they can fly the plane on instruments and need more approaches.
Click to expand...
Are you talking about 50+ NM flights or just to another airport?
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Just to another airport, under IFR, unless they're short of XC time and need it anyway.

Of course, the short flights are the hardest ones.
Click to expand...
That doesn’t really solve the cross country experience problem. I did my instrument training at an airport with no approaches.
 
midlifeflyer said:
That doesn’t really solve the cross country experience problem. I did my instrument training at an airport with no approaches.
Click to expand...
I don't necessarily mean the old Field Morey adventure trip style thing - Just that every flight would be an IFR XC flight with a filed IFR plan, picking up said plan from CD/Ground/FSS or Center over the phone as appropriate, flying the appropriate departure procedure whether that's a SID all the way down to a standard 400-foot turn (but looking it up every time), using the radio in all the different classes of airspace, listening to ATIS, choosing and flying an approach, and then closing the flight plan as appropriate. Just getting in the rhythm of what is involved in real-world IFR flying.

Really, when you're IFR in a piston single, the main difference between a 50nm XC and a 500nm XC is just the number of times you get handed off in the middle and how bored you get between the beginning and the end.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
50nm XC and a 500nm XC is just the number of times you get handed off in the middle and how bored you get between the beginning and the end.
Click to expand...
I’d add route amendments which includes adding unfamiliar fixes and airways, and unfamiliar procedures, things you are not likely to get in the short flights I think you are describing. This is going to be geographically specific, but my experience is that the things that come up on a cross country flight to present real challenges don’t generally come up that often on short flights.

I completely agree with you about SID and STAR, but getting those will be very geo-specific too.
 
midlifeflyer said:
I’d add route amendments which includes adding unfamiliar fixes and airways, and unfamiliar procedures, things you are not likely to get in the short flights I think you are describing. This is going to be geographically specific, but my experience is that the things that come up on a cross country flight to present real challenges don’t generally come up that often on short flights.
Click to expand...
Those can be dealt with easily on a VFR training flight though, because as you noted, they're far less common. Or maybe you could add remarks requesting them on an IFR flight. ;)

I'm just talking about getting them in the habit of doing all the things that need to be done on a normal, everyday IFR flight that just don't get done much in the training environment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top