Today's stupid question: practice approaches with VFR equipment

[aterpster]

I've heard both positions argued reasonably.

Those who say no, say that it's not an IAP unless you have the equipment to fly the IAP. Even a sim, FTD, or ATD need to be certified and approved to be countable.

Those who say yes say that practicing for an emergency IAP, even using a handheld or EFB is valuable and an important skill.

All bets are off when exercising pilot's emergency authority. I doubt the FAA would accept an RNAV flown with a Garmin 496 as meeting currency requirements.

 

[aterpster]

Hmm. Radar Approaches have lost com instructions. The places I’ve worked GCA at had lost com instructions that included Non Radar routings. @Timbeck2 @Velocity173 ??? @aterpster , I can’t find any 8260’s on Radar Approaches. Do the Lost Com procedures always include Navaids?

Here is the Jepp radar chart for KPSM:

 

[luvflyin]

Here is the Jepp radar chart for KPSM:

Didn't know Jepp made Charts for Radar Approaches. The Missed Approach Procedure is there. The GOV doesn't include it their textual Radar Minimums. No Lost Com though. What got me wondering about it is this Note under Lost Communications Procedures in the 7110.
NOTE−
The approved procedures are those published on the FAA
Forms 8260 or applicable military document.

That implies Lost Com is part of the 'Procedure' and I was wondering if use of Navaids was a requirement. It follows the logic check. Radar is useless if you can't communicate with the guy with the Radar.

 

[mscard88]

In the Air Force we didn't use navaids for either PARs or Surveillance approaches. Approach controller vectored the plane onto an intercept angle (30* or less) and handed the plane off to the radar final controller (radar went out about 9 miles) and then the final controller did his deal down to a 100' DH, but continued lateral and GS trend info all the way to the runway. In an emergency in 0-0 weather we could get the plane down to the runway.

 

[aftCG]

Old school Needle and Ball? I can’t imagine finding a Citabria with an old Turn and Bank Indicator with no attitude indicator and no VOR. And some where the Handheld GPS doesn’t fit you old school image.

View attachment 66660

Uh .You just described my airplane

 

[luvflyin]

Uh .You just described my airplane

That might be a picture Of your plane. Have you checked your hangar lately?

 

[sarangan]

You can’t fly IFR without the minimum required equipment, which rules out actually filing when you don’t have an attitude indicator and so on.

I was talking about navigation instruments. Flight instruments are clearly spelled out in the regs.

 

[sarangan]

Let's say for example, you fly an ILS approach perfectly and land, under IFR, except your airplane does not have a glideslope receiver. Has there ever been case of action against a pilot under such a scenario?

 

[Jim Rosenow]

Old school Needle and Ball? I can’t imagine finding a Citabria with an old Turn and Bank Indicator with no attitude indicator and no VOR.

Uh .You just described my airplane

....and ours

Jim

 

[midlifeflyer]

Let's say for example, you fly an ILS approach perfectly and land, under IFR, except your airplane does not have a glideslope receiver. Has there ever been case of action against a pilot under such a scenario?

I'm not sure if that's the equivalent of a straw man argument or the inverse. It would be very rare to find a case of an action against a pilot under any scenario in which the flight was completely successful and no problem was caused for ATC or anyone else. Basically in your scenario, the pilot would have to undergo a random ramp check immediately after the flight (meaning some crazy ASI who wants to be out there in miserable weather to get his jollies busing pilots) and a pilot who freely admit he busted LOC minimums.

 

[midlifeflyer]

All bets are off when exercising pilot's emergency authority. I doubt the FAA would accept an RNAV flown with a Garmin 496 as meeting currency requirements.

Note how I phrased it.

"I don't agree with you" is not the same as "your argument is unreasonable*."


(*At least traditionally. Can't account for America in the 21st Century when either someone agrees with you 100% or they're an immoral idiot)

 

[Velocity173]

A 496 or a 696 would be absolutely absurd in logging a GPS IAP. Now, take a Garmin GPS 12, type the lat/lon manually and fly the “gray line” to MDA. Yeah, I’ll accept that as credit for an approach.

 

[Palmpilot]

...meaning some crazy ASI who wants to be out there in miserable weather to get his jollies busing pilots...

An ASI providing bus service to pilots would certainly be taking the "kinder, gentler FAA" thing to an extreme!

 

[midlifeflyer]

An ASI providing bus service to pilots would certainly be taking the "kinder, gentler FAA" thing to an extreme!

Some day I will learn how to type. Nah, probably not.

 

[Palmpilot]

Some day I will learn how to type. Nah, probably not.

Sometimes I find misspellings in my own posts months later!

 

[MauleSkinner]

Sometimes I find misspellings in my own posts months later!

Mi to...

 

[Sundancer]

Stop the madness.

 

[aterpster]

Didn't know Jepp made Charts for Radar Approaches. The Missed Approach Procedure is there. The GOV doesn't include it their textual Radar Minimums. No Lost Com though. What got me wondering about it is this Note under Lost Communications Procedures in the 7110.
NOTE−
The approved procedures are those published on the FAA
Forms 8260 or applicable military document.

That implies Lost Com is part of the 'Procedure' and I was wondering if use of Navaids was a requirement. It follows the logic check. Radar is useless if you can't communicate with the guy with the Radar.

Here is the currently effective 8260-4:

 

[luvflyin]

Here is the currently effective 8260-4:
View attachment 66715

Thanks for taking the time to find that

 

[Velocity173]

Thanks for taking the time to find that

Guarantee “As directed by ATC on initial contact” will include a some sort of NAVAID for guidance on the non radar route to be flown.

Only time we didn’t issue a specific non radar route was if the field (ARW) had no other approach. “...proceed VFR. If unable, say intentions.”

 

[luvflyin]

Guarantee “As directed by ATC on initial contact” will include a some sort of NAVAID for guidance on the non radar route to be flown.

Only time we didn’t issue a specific non radar route was if the field (ARW) had no other approach. “...proceed VFR. If unable, say intentions.”

Whats weird about this is the 7110 says
NOTE−
The approved procedures are those published on the FAA
Forms 8260 or applicable military document.

And the 8260 says "as directed by ATC." It's an endless loop

 

[aterpster]

Whats weird about this is the 7110 says
NOTE−
The approved procedures are those published on the FAA
Forms 8260 or applicable military document.

And the 8260 says "as directed by ATC." It's an endless loop

What's the ambiguity? If no instructions are issued by ATC the pilot flies the "own nav" missed approach procedure. If he goes lost comm, then it is an emergency, because 91.185 does not address missing the approach.

 

[Mooney Fan]

Whether it can be logged or not is debatable. I routinely navigate (w/FF) to the IAF or FAF of a given RNAV approach when flying into a non-familiar field. That does get controllers attention though. Last week while flying into L63 Logan County, ATC pointed out the filed at 11 O'clock as they saw I was obviously not direct. But flying an RNAV using Foreflight Syn Vision is good practice for a day when you hopefully don't need it

 

[steingar]

Says me you should have sufficient redundancy in your panel to not need it.