VOR-A with a Garmin 430

IK04 said:
People sure like to obfuscate things around here.

Just tune the VORTAC, and select the NAV for the HSI and fly the CDI. Use the DME display for the fixes.

Easy.
Click to expand...
What DME? :)

And for some, the other way is even easier. Some folks like a manual E6B. Others like electronic alternatives. Paper charts or EFB. Not sure a preference one way or the other meets the definition of "obfuscate".
 
Last edited:
IK04 said:
People sure like to obfuscate things around here.

Just tune the VORTAC, and select the NAV for the HSI and fly the CDI. Use the DME display for the fixes.

Easy.
Click to expand...
Obfuscate vs. thread discussion.
 
Doug Reid said:
Looking at the plate, the only other VOR stations left or right of course are pretty far away. At approach altitude, these VOR signals might not be reliable. That is my guess why DME is required...otherwise you could use a VOR fix to identify the IAF and FAF and use a timing table. Just my 2 cents...
Click to expand...
In addition to signal reliability, the angle has to sufficient to contain +/- 3.6 degrees within a specified distance along the approach course. (FAAO 8260.3D, Section 2-9.)
 
Doug Reid said:
Looking at the plate, the only other VOR stations left or right of course are pretty far away. At approach altitude, these VOR signals might not be reliable. That is my guess why DME is required...otherwise you could use a VOR fix to identify the IAF and FAF and use a timing table. Just my 2 cents...
Click to expand...

Yup. And there are no Intersections along the segment of V14-50 along there, only DME Fixes
 
The GPS doesn't really need the CNF for non-overlay approaches. Mine just would mark it as RWY19 or some other invented name which it does on any other similar approach. As Wally says, it appears to be a vestige of this being an overlay approach previously.
 
obfuscate
verb
ob·fus·cate | \ ˈäb-fə-ˌskāt ; äb-ˈfə-ˌskāt, əb-\
obfuscated; obfuscating
Definition of obfuscate
transitive verb

1a : to throw into shadow : darken
b : to make obscure obfuscate the issueofficials who … continue to obscure and obfuscate what happened— Mary Carroll
2 : confuse obfuscate the reader
intransitive verb

: to be evasive, unclear, or confusing The suspect often obfuscated during the interrogation.
 
Folks seem to be missing that an IFR GPS substitutes for DME.

EdFred said:
I don't use the GPS as primary if it's a non GPS approach. It's classified as non-GPS I'm flying it as non-GPS. Is the moving map displayed? Sure is. Is the CDI tuned to a radio station? Youbetcha.
Click to expand...

Why? You can, legally.

aterpster said:
Here is one at my former home drome. DME for every fix. But, there are also radials from SLI. So, it is not "DME Required" and it must have a timing table for the pilot without DME. When possible, they should be built this way, both with DME and crossing radials. (That is, if they are making these any longer.)
Click to expand...

Of course, it is still impossible to see KEMT till you're practically on top of it, LOL. I got a visual to Runway 1 a few months ago and was happy they instructed me to fly the base over the 10, because its hard to keep your eyes on it.

aterpster said:
View attachment 77115
It's been 12.2 DME since the approach was implemented in the 1960s. They made a new original when they deleted the "or GPS" last year.
Click to expand...

Well, they do have the GPS approach from the other side, though strangely higher mins. I'd imagine that airport is never getting a straight in, given the combination of terrain and conflicting airports. Of course, you can still technically fly it "or GPS" as long as you have a working VOR set to back it up.
 
N1120A said:
Why? You can, legally.
Click to expand...
It's called understanding we have multiple options and choosing the one you like. My favorite real-world example (which I use in training) is the clearance in this video (not mine). Some would use GPS, some would opt for VOR; some wouldn't even know how to set it up in a GPS.
 
flyingron said:
AIRMET POA for Thread Obfuscation.
Click to expand...

Oh that’s a SIGMET for sure ... except ...

He’s right, obfuscate isn’t the right word.

aterpster said:
obfuscate
verb
ob·fus·cate | \ ˈäb-fə-ˌskāt ; äb-ˈfə-ˌskāt, əb-\
obfuscated; obfuscating
Definition of obfuscate
transitive verb

1a : to throw into shadow : darken
b : to make obscure obfuscate the issueofficials who … continue to obscure and obfuscate what happened— Mary Carroll
2 : confuse obfuscate the reader
intransitive verb

: to be evasive, unclear, or confusing The suspect often obfuscated during the interrogation.
Click to expand...

But... he helped un-obfuscate that. :)

I still remember when I bought into the 182 and saw a real DME and was all excited about it. The rental owners never popped for them.

Liked flying with that thing too. Simple and it didn’t care what approach you had “loaded” or waypoint. You tuned the VOR, flipped the Nav 1/2 selector for it, and it told you how far away you were in less than a second. Also told you your groundspeed to or from the station. You know how easy it is to do an arc when all you have to do is keep the groundspeed zero?

Darn thing failed on the flight home from my Instrument checkride. At least it held in there until then. LOL.
 
N1120A said:
Well, they do have the GPS approach from the other side, though strangely higher mins. I'd imagine that airport is never getting a straight in, given the combination of terrain and conflicting airports. Of course, you can still technically fly it "or GPS" as long as you have a working VOR set to back it up.
Click to expand...
The approach from the west has high minimums because of the increasingly poor performance of the PDZ VOR. The conversion of this approach to RNAV is on hold because of a dispute over whether the minimums should be lowered. (They can be for CATS A, B, and C; significantly for A and B.)

As to seeing the airport, that depends upon whether you are based there. That's where I learned how to fly.
 
aterpster said:
The approach from the west has high minimums because of the increasingly poor performance of the PDZ VOR. The conversion of this approach to RNAV is on hold because of a dispute over whether the minimums should be lowered. (They can be for CATS A, B, and C; significantly for A and B.)

As to seeing the airport, that depends upon whether you are based there. That's where I learned how to fly.
Click to expand...

What were the Minimums they came up with first and how much lower can they be? What is it that is in dispute?
 
luvflyin said:
What were the Minimums they came up with first and how much lower can they be? What is it that is in dispute?
Click to expand...
El Monte is CTL only. They evaluate the CTL area without regard to whether the descent gradient or width of the final can support those minimums. The VOR-A could not. The proposed RNAV-B could, but the FAA procedures staff did not want to do the extra work required. I objected, then elevated to AFS-1. AFS-1 agreed with me, but the minions are still fighting tooth and nail.

CAT A could B 780; B 960, per their TERPs maps.

These folks work in their own vindictive self-interests.

Sign me jaded.
 
aterpster said:
The approach from the west has high minimums because of the increasingly poor performance of the PDZ VOR. The conversion of this approach to RNAV is on hold because of a dispute over whether the minimums should be lowered. (They can be for CATS A, B, and C; significantly for A and B.)

As to seeing the airport, that depends upon whether you are based there. That's where I learned how to fly.
Click to expand...

Yeah, after being based at KMYF for almost 2 years, I'm finally a lot better at spotting it, though it is still a PITA at night.

You'd think they'd be maintaining PDZ better, because it is part of the MON and those VORs are supposed to be kept up to a higher standard. Also, I don't see it needing to be converted to an RNAV - it can just be a GPS approach that doesn't meet RNAV standards, though it could easily have higher mins. They could do an RNAV straight in to Runway 1, but it would probably conflict with LAX arrivals, and we know they aren't going to do that.
 
N1120A said:
Yeah, after being based at KMYF for almost 2 years, I'm finally a lot better at spotting it, though it is still a PITA at night.

You'd think they'd be maintaining PDZ better, because it is part of the MON and those VORs are supposed to be kept up to a higher standard. Also, I don't see it needing to be converted to an RNAV - it can just be a GPS approach that doesn't meet RNAV standards, though it could easily have higher mins. They could do an RNAV straight in to Runway 1, but it would probably conflict with LAX arrivals, and we know they aren't going to do that.
Click to expand...
The issue with PDZ was the low altitude (minimums used to be 400 feet lower) combined with the distance from the VOR. May have subsequently been fixed, but the left hand didn't inform the right hand.

BTW, there is no such thing as a GPS approach under current criteria. All approaches predicated on GPS, or GPS/WAAS, when created or revised, are RNAV IAPs.

As to Runway 1, you're right, LAX would never allow it. But, the visual segment is full of close-in obstacles, that is why it is not authorized for CTL at night.
 
Just tune the VORTAC, and select the NAV for the HSI and fly the CDI. Use the DME display for the fixes.

Easy.
Click to expand...

Except when it's not :)

My plane has a Garmin 420 driving the HSI and a KX-155 driving the NAV2 CDI elsewhere on the panel. If I were to fly this approach, I'd be tempted to make use of the "new" guidance which allows you to use the GPS as the primary source of guidance on a non-RNAV approach as along as the VOR is being monitored elsewhere.

Specifically, I'd load the approach into the Garmin 420 (which has NO VOR, hence no CDI button to speak of) and fly it all the way on the HSI while correlating it with the NAV2 CDI once inside the FAF.
 
I doubt this is what he wants to see, BUT

I’d just fly the GPS overlay, use the waypoints and all just like a GPS approach, have the HSI in GPS mode and have your second nav head dialed into the VOR to monitor it and ID it.

Flying the overlay is easier, more precise and likely a smoother transition to the missed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top