What about an HSI?

[Piloto]

Watch out for the rocks, is all I'll say. You've proven my point. You're required to set and trust the HSI, with good reasons. If the EFB shows information that differs from the nav radio, which will you believe?

Tim you are assuming that the HSI/NAV receiver is the absolute accuracy. To begin the VOR/ILS receiver accuracy is +/- 3 deg when out of the factory. Not to mention that some NAV receivers are prone to FM interference that bias the ILS indication. On top of that you are assuming a perfect pilot that never enters the wrong radial on the HSI or CDI. Or that a plane on the ground is blocking the NAV ground station causing erroneus indication.

You don't have to convince me but thousands of others that use the geo-referenced EFB on a daily basis including the airlines.

José

 

[poadeleted20]

But it definitely improves your situational awareness, specially during a missed approach procedure. Try that with an HSI alone and your hands are full switching frequencies and the HSI CRS. Not to mention your entry at a holding waypoint. Thats the beauty of showing your position on the approach plate, you just fly to where you need to without fumbling with the HSI.

José

That's all great stuff, but you don't need the FAA's permission to use something to supplement the required equipment as an aid to situational awareness. OTOH, you cannot use an EFB to substitute for that required equipment even if it is AC 120-76A-approved.

 

[azure]

Yes there are even some VOR approaches that I would never fly for real using the NAV radio because the course defined by the VOR is inaccurate and even unstable, varying back and forth by a degree or two. I'd certainly trust my EFB over my HSI if the HSI was driven by the NAV radio on that kind of approach. (Of course, if the approach had a GPS overlay, like the VOR-A into VLL that I'm specifically thinking of, I'd switch the HSI to the GPS and fly the overlay). That said, if my HSI were driven by a panel-mounted, IFR certified GPS, and it conflicted with the magenta line on either the panel mount moving map display or the EFB, I know I'd fly the HSI and treat the magenta line as an approximation.

 

[TMetzinger]

Tim you are assuming that the HSI/NAV receiver is the absolute accuracy. To begin the VOR/ILS receiver accuracy is +/- 3 deg when out of the factory. Not to mention that some NAV receivers are prone to FM interference that bias the ILS indication. On top of that you are assuming a perfect pilot that never enters the wrong radial on the HSI or CDI. Or that a plane on the ground is blocking the NAV ground station causing erroneus indication.

You don't have to convince me but thousands of others that use the geo-referenced EFB on a daily basis including the airlines.

José

Go on, show me ANY 121 or 135 operator who navigates using the portable EFB instead of the panel-mounted equipment. I dare ya. I double-dog dare ya!


I'm NOT saying they're BAD, and I'm not saying I wouldn't use one. But the way I use one would not include navigating by it unless I had an emergency and it was my only working equipment.

When I finish my CFII, if I were evaluating a student or giving an IPC and the pilot flew a missed approach by looking at his iPad first rather than setting up the airplane equipment properly (as was discussed above), that would be a bust on the IPC and for the student the iPad would be off for the remainder of the lesson, and there may not be any more lessons with me as the CFII.

On the other hand, somebody who flies using the normal nav equipment and adds the iPad to his scan gets an A+ for resource management, provided he's getting all his duties done.

I hope you can see the difference.

 

[TMetzinger]

Yes there are even some VOR approaches that I would never fly for real using the NAV radio because the course defined by the VOR is inaccurate and even unstable, varying back and forth by a degree or two. I'd certainly trust my EFB over my HSI if the HSI was driven by the NAV radio on that kind of approach. (Of course, if the approach had a GPS overlay, like the VOR-A into VLL that I'm specifically thinking of, I'd switch the HSI to the GPS and fly the overlay). That said, if my HSI were driven by a panel-mounted, IFR certified GPS, and it conflicted with the magenta line on either the panel mount moving map display or the EFB, I know I'd fly the HSI and treat the magenta line as an approximation.

And if it didn't have a GPS overlay, are you really saying you'd fly the approach using the little airplane on the iPad chart instead of the "all over the place" VOR needle?

Really?

 

[HPNPilot1200]

Go on, show me ANY 121 or 135 operator who navigates using the portable EFB instead of the panel-mounted equipment. I dare ya. I double-dog dare ya!

The FAA has repeatedly stated that Part 121 and 135 operators are not to use EFBs for navigation and have gone so far as to require own-ship position be turned off for those operators in the approval of Class I EFBs with Type B software.

 

[TMetzinger]

The FAA has repeatedly stated that Part 121 and 135 operators are not to use EFBs for navigation and have gone so far as to require own-ship position be turned off for those operators in the approval of Class I EFBs with Type B software.

Jason, that's the guidance I'm thinking of... Do you have a source document?

Explanation - Class I EFBs are the portable devices like the iPad that are not connected to any A/C systems except possibly a power source.

I know that the higher grades of EFBs incorporated into systems like Honeywell and Garmin glass panels do show own ship position, but both the source of the position and the software/map it's displayed on undergo a high level of QA. Even then, as Mari mentioned, you don't navigate with them.

 

[rpadula]

We just got the Aspen installed in Cloud Nine's 44-year-old 310, and it will be going back to the avionics shop soon for a stormscope and KWX56 install. But, this is a plane that we're intending on keeping for a long time (if not forever), and given how we use it, it's a worthwhile investment.

Ahhh, I wuz just razzin' ol' Henning with my post.

Plus, since the old HSI and AI were trying to fly me into the side of mountains, they both needed to go anyway.

Yeah, I could see how that could be a bad thing.

 

[Piloto]

The FAA has repeatedly stated that Part 121 and 135 operators are not to use EFBs for navigation and have gone so far as to require own-ship position be turned off for those operators in the approval of Class I EFBs with Type B software.

Which FAA document states the above? My hangar neighbor 777 captain for United always verify he is on the correct airway and on the correct approach by checking plane position on the EFB. Whats wrong with cross checking your position with another NAV source?

José

 

[Piloto]

Here is a good example on a 757 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_472JZpyoio were an EFB or a portable GPS with terrain would have adverted the crash. HSI are only as good as the pilot setting them. And unlike a portable GPS with obstacle/terrain the HSI gives no warning on an impending crash. Now, who are you going to trust?

José

 

[denverpilot]

Yes there are even some VOR approaches that I would never fly for real using the NAV radio because the course defined by the VOR is inaccurate and even unstable, varying back and forth by a degree or two.

That's called "broken" and needs to be reported for a flight check by the FAA unless the wavering is within the protected airspace defined for the approach.

There's a reason they're called "non-precision" approaches.

 

[Henning]

Watch out for the rocks, is all I'll say. You've proven my point. You're required to set and trust the HSI, with good reasons. If the EFB shows information that differs from the nav radio, which will you believe?

With an SVT panel, you get to do exactly that...

Anyone that uses an iPad as IMC primary guidance over a nav radio that isn't indicating a fault is making an interesting choice IMO.

 

[TMetzinger]

Henning...

SVT is the greatest enhancement to situational awareness since the moving map GPS. I've flown various G1000 airplanes with it and I REALLY miss it when it's not available.

And if they made failproof I'd agree that we could train instrument pilots in less time. But unfortunately the need to be able to keep the plane upright and navigate with nothing more than one gyro, the airspeed and altimeter, and a compass and a watch (when everything else fails) means we still have to teach folks the fundamentals of instrument flying.

 

[TMetzinger]

Which FAA document states the above? My hangar neighbor 777 captain for United always verify he is on the correct airway and on the correct approach by checking plane position on the EFB. Whats wrong with cross checking your position with another NAV source?

José

Nothing... but I don't think your captain's EFB is an IPad. He's probably got one of the EFBs that's integrated with the ship systems, which means the position information is coming from the airplane GPS/INS (not a different nav source), and the charts are meeting that higher standard of QA.

 

[Henning]

Henning...

SVT is the greatest enhancement to situational awareness since the moving map GPS. I've flown various G1000 airplanes with it and I REALLY miss it when it's not available.

And if they made failproof I'd agree that we could train instrument pilots in less time. But unfortunately the need to be able to keep the plane upright and navigate with nothing more than one gyro, the airspeed and altimeter, and a compass and a watch (when everything else fails) means we still have to teach folks the fundamentals of instrument flying.

Not true, there are SVT backup options as well. You never need to look at a gyro in an airplane ever again. Av Shilo's Comanche has one round dial left in it, the flap indicator. Using instruments that were being eliminated in the industry due to unreliability as your back up doesn't make any logical sense if you are really depending on it in an emergency mode any more, the only reason to use mechanical gyros as your back up are economical ones.

 

[poadeleted20]

The FAA has repeatedly stated that Part 121 and 135 operators are not to use EFBs for navigation and have gone so far as to require own-ship position be turned off for those operators in the approval of Class I EFBs with Type B software.

Actually, they've said that for all operators in the AIM and several AC's. You can use them for your chart needs, and for "situational awareness," but not for IFR navigation (outside of a no-foolin' emergency when 91.3(b) kicks in).

 

[TMetzinger]

Not true, there are SVT backup options as well. You never need to look at a gyro in an airplane ever again. Av Shilo's Comanche has one round dial left in it, the flap indicator.

Hmm, that's correct if one wants to spend the money. OK, we can likely teach a student to use an airplane so equipped in less time. We'll have to issue him an instrument rating with a "fully redundant SVT" limitation on it, the way we issue centerline-thrust limitations to folks to take their ME ride in centerline thrust airplanes.

 

[Henning]

Hmm, that's correct if one wants to spend the money. OK, we can likely teach a student to use an airplane so equipped in less time. We'll have to issue him an instrument rating with a "fully redundant SVT" limitation on it, the way we issue centerline-thrust limitations to folks to take their ME ride in centerline thrust airplanes.

That wouldn't be much of a limitation to people who own those planes and equipment because they are like me, they will not fly IMC without it, it's silly at this point in technology. If I can't afford to do something right, I don't do it. Without SVT, I much prefer staying VFR, I've been there when it all goes wrong with your gyros in IMC (especially if it's the one that drives your auto pilot and you are the type that turns it on after take off and turns it off after breaking out) and then more problems are introduced to the situation. The workload for a person who does not fly a mechanical panel in IMC on a routine basis, like someone flying **** and blood every night, gets pretty damn high; if you're not way ahead of everything, it's a tough nut.

 

[HPNPilot1200]

Jason, that's the guidance I'm thinking of... Do you have a source document?

InFO 11011 and while not yet official guidance, AC 120-76B (draft).

Note: Class 1 EFBs with Type B software must not display the aircraft’s position, also referred to as “own-ship position,” in accordance with current policy (see AC 120-76A, paragraph 7c, and Appendix B ). The Jeppesen Mobile TC App inhibits own-ship position

AC 120-76B is still a draft document but the FAA's policy on not allowing own-ship position for Class 1 and 2 EFBs is pretty clear.

Own-ship position is not authorized for display or used for any application, for navigation or otherwise, on a Class 1 or Class 2 EFB in flight.

....

For guidance on the display of own-ship position, see Technical Standard Order (TSO)-C165,
Electronic Map Display Equipment for Graphical Depiction of Aircraft Position (current edition).

Which FAA document states the above? My hangar neighbor 777 captain for United always verify he is on the correct airway and on the correct approach by checking plane position on the EFB. Whats wrong with cross checking your position with another NAV source

Class 3 EFBs are not subject to the same restriction. B777's are typically equipped with Class 3 EFBs.

Actually, they've said that for all operators in the AIM and several AC's. You can use them for your chart needs, and for "situational awareness," but not for IFR navigation (outside of a no-foolin' emergency when 91.3(b) kicks in).

Precisely, thanks for pointing that out. I didn't mean to direct my comments strictly to 121/135 ops but was just responding to Tim's comment.

 

[HPNPilot1200]

And if it didn't have a GPS overlay, are you really saying you'd fly the approach using the little airplane on the iPad chart instead of the "all over the place" VOR needle?

Really?

This isn't directly related to your question but this is how I would do it. Without a published GPS overlay I would tune and identify the VOR on Nav 2 and verify that I do not exceed tolerances on the VOR while I shoot the approach using GPS on Nav 1/HSI. Raw data course guidance is still available and visible to me on Nav 2. This is harder to do in some glass panel aircraft where the only nav needles are displayed on the HSI and not on separate nav head units.

 

[azure]

And if it didn't have a GPS overlay, are you really saying you'd fly the approach using the little airplane on the iPad chart instead of the "all over the place" VOR needle?

Really?

Of course not, but that has more to do with legality than what actually works. I think that in that particular case, you could fly the approach better, and just as safely, with the magenta line than with the CDI. If faced with that situation in real life, with no overlay, I'd break off and ask for a different approach.

 

[azure]

That's called "broken" and needs to be reported for a flight check by the FAA unless the wavering is within the protected airspace defined for the approach.

It probably is or they would have done something about it long ago. I know there is nothing you could hit, or violate obstacle clearances on, unless you were way offscale. I wonder if they would invest the money in flight checking it though, since the VOR it's based off of is slated for decommissioning.

You're right, it's about as non-precision as an approach can get. Luckily (for me) there's a very nice RNAV (GPS) coming from generally the same direction, and straight in. But my CFII doesn't have a choice -- he's /U.

 

[poadeleted20]

This isn't directly related to your question but this is how I would do it. Without a published GPS overlay I would tune and identify the VOR on Nav 2 and verify that I do not exceed tolerances on the VOR while I shoot the approach using GPS on Nav 1/HSI. Raw data course guidance is still available and visible to me on Nav 2. This is harder to do in some glass panel aircraft where the only nav needles are displayed on the HSI and not on separate nav head units.

Completely legit. Works for NDB approaches with no overlay and LOC(BC) approaches, too.

 

[TMetzinger]

This isn't directly related to your question but this is how I would do it. Without a published GPS overlay I would tune and identify the VOR on Nav 2 and verify that I do not exceed tolerances on the VOR while I shoot the approach using GPS on Nav 1/HSI. Raw data course guidance is still available and visible to me on Nav 2. This is harder to do in some glass panel aircraft where the only nav needles are displayed on the HSI and not on separate nav head units.

That's how I'd do it too. I have a flight manual for a recently merged airline and that's how they do it. Raw nav data is up on the HSI, but the autoflight system is in LNAV driven by the FMS.

Something like a G1000 wouldn't be able to do this as there's only ONE CDI and it drives the autopilot. I don't think putting up the RMI needle for NAV2 as a substitute for the CDI would meet the intent of the rules.

For an NDB approach it's fine as you can drive the CDI with the GPS and use an RMI needle for the ADF (assuming you have one).

 

[HPNPilot1200]

That's how I'd do it too. I have a flight manual for a recently merged airline and that's how they do it. Raw nav data is up on the HSI, but the autoflight system is in LNAV driven by the FMS.

What type of aircraft? I have only experienced auto flight systems which couple to the selected nav source on the HSI. For example on the CRJ you would select the FMS (white needle) and select "NAV" on the mode control panel. I suppose the F/o could be looking at the raw data and comparing.

 

[azure]

That's how I'd do it too. I have a flight manual for a recently merged airline and that's how they do it. Raw nav data is up on the HSI, but the autoflight system is in LNAV driven by the FMS.

Neat trick, I'll have to remember that. I would have thought that stretched the definition of "primary navigational instrument" past the limit, coupling the A/P to the device that is only supposed to be used for situational awareness. I guess if you make sure that you don't exceed tolerances on the primary instrument, you're good. On the VOR-A into VLL with the "all-over" needle, you'd be okay only because the GPS version of the approach is a real overlay. If it weren't, the center of the VOR course is displaced far enough from that of the overlay (I've verified the offset with both of my NAV receivers) that you would be offscale at least some of the time. That's another reason I'm sure the protected airspace is large enough that the FAA isn't concerned about the poor course guidance from the VOR.

 

[Everskyward]

What type of aircraft? I have only experienced auto flight systems which couple to the selected nav source on the HSI.

Same here.

I suppose the F/o could be looking at the raw data and comparing.

That would probably be my choice if I was going to do it using the FMS but I would probably opt for the old school way of using the actual VOR if it had no overlay. There's also the VOR bearing pointer which acts like a ADF needle but I don't know if that would meet the requirements of having something displayed.

 

[TMetzinger]

What type of aircraft? I have only experienced auto flight systems which couple to the selected nav source on the HSI. For example on the CRJ you would select the FMS (white needle) and select "NAV" on the mode control panel. I suppose the F/o could be looking at the raw data and comparing.

737-NG series. You can put the Nav Display (ND) in VOR mode to monitor the raw data while the flight director/autopilot is coupled to the FMS in LNAV mode.

I dug up the manual again (it's a Continental Manual from 2002) and verified that VOR approaches are flown in LNAV and VNAV (Sec. 3 p. 226), while the raw data is monitored on the HSI display.

I think most newer autoflight systems follow the logic you've seen, where you pick one nav source and that drives both the single HSI or other course deviation indicators AND the FD/AP. You might still be able to have the PM look at raw data on their side but I guess that would depend on OpSpecs. Continental (at least in 2002) had both sides set up showing the same information unless there was a non-normal situation.

 

[HPNPilot1200]

Neat trick, I'll have to remember that. I would have thought that stretched the definition of "primary navigational instrument" past the limit, coupling the A/P to the device that is only supposed to be used for situational awareness.

Besides the autopilot, the airplane doesn't know and doesn't care how it's navigated. If you couple the autopilot to the GPS and you are within tolerances on the raw data VOR, that is just as legal as flying it just in VOR. Though I'd bet the GPS is a heck of a lot more accurate.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

There's also the VOR bearing pointer which acts like a ADF needle but I don't know if that would meet the requirements of having something displayed.

It does in my world.

 

[TMetzinger]

It does in my world.

Cool! That explains the "1 dot or 5 degrees" language I was seeing. I never thought about it that way.

 

[Ted]

That wouldn't be much of a limitation to people who own those planes and equipment because they are like me, they will not fly IMC without it, it's silly at this point in technology. If I can't afford to do something right, I don't do it. Without SVT, I much prefer staying VFR, I've been there when it all goes wrong with your gyros in IMC (especially if it's the one that drives your auto pilot and you are the type that turns it on after take off and turns it off after breaking out) and then more problems are introduced to the situation. The workload for a person who does not fly a mechanical panel in IMC on a routine basis, like someone flying **** and blood every night, gets pretty damn high; if you're not way ahead of everything, it's a tough nut.

While I do agree with giving yourself every advantage you can (it's a hostile world out there), I disagree that flying without SVT means you're not "doing it right."

Don't get me wrong, I want SVT in the plane (along with traffic), and the SVT upgrade for the Aspen is on the list. Already getting the Aspen, WAAS upgrade for the 530, and the KWX56 and stormscope upgrades that are coming shortly will be getting the avionics to where it "should be." But one could easily make the argument that you're not doing it right unless you get anything less than a King Air.

 

[gismo]

While I do agree with giving yourself every advantage you can (it's a hostile world out there), I disagree that flying without SVT means you're not "doing it right."

Don't get me wrong, I want SVT in the plane (along with traffic), and the SVT upgrade for the Aspen is on the list. Already getting the Aspen, WAAS upgrade for the 530, and the KWX56 and stormscope upgrades that are coming shortly will be getting the avionics to where it "should be." But one could easily make the argument that you're not doing it right unless you get anything less than a King Air.

A King Air can't overtop lines of TRW, so to do it right you probably need a twin jet certified for FL520.

 

[Ted]

A King Air can't overtop lines of TRW, so to do it right you probably need a twin jet certified for FL520.

You're right.

That's it, I'm putting the 310 on eBay and buying a G-V. I want to do this right.

 

[HPNPilot1200]

You're right.

That's it, I'm putting the 310 on eBay and buying a G-V. I want to do this right.

Dibs on the first ride.

 

[Ted]

Dibs on the first ride.

Well, you should be getting your own. After all, you want to fly right, don't you?

We might be able to get by with a G-II. But only if the avionics are upgraded to Honeywell EFIS with a Universal FMS.

 

[Everskyward]

But one could easily make the argument that you're not doing it right unless you get anything less than a King Air.

Just because it's a King Air doesn't mean it has modern avionics. I remember flying some without GPS or a moving map of any kind.

 

[denverpilot]

Just because it's a King Air doesn't mean it has modern avionics. I remember flying some without GPS or a moving map of any kind.

Someone was hot sectioning a King Air 100 and ripping out the entire panel and replacing it up in the shop in Lincoln.

Looked darned expensive.

 

[Ted]

Just because it's a King Air doesn't mean it has modern avionics. I remember flying some without GPS or a moving map of any kind.

Certainly, but compared to Henning's 310, there's much more in terms of weather capability.

As I said, it's just time for all of us to get G-Vs. We don't want to be messing around with not doing things right.

 

[TMetzinger]

No, a G-V won't work at some of the fields I want to use. Clearly I need a C-17 Bizjet with a helicopter (Maybe a Hind?) loaded on it - the aerial equivalent of some of those big yachts.