What to do with #2 - NAV

midlifeflyer

midlifeflyer

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
May 25, 2006
Messages
17,231
Location
KTTA, North Carolina
Display Name
Display name:
Fly
I thought that was a very good and helpful discussion on what gets put in the #2 Comm.

But what about the #1 and #2 NAV setups, especially as you are briefing the approach while still navigating en route?
 
Good subject Mark.

I use to monitor 121.5 but since it is no longer monitored I just turn it off. Open to suggestions as I have not given it much thought.
 
If I'm navigating using VORs only without an autopilot, then I use a different radio for each VOR/Radial pair I'm flying, and switch between them, with one caveat. As I approach the destination I make sure that I'll be using #1 for the approach, so that may mean changing the way I alternate things.

If I've got an autopilot coupled to NAV1, then I switch it between NAV and HDG modes when I'm messing about with the NAV1 radio. NAV2 gets used for cross radials to identify intersections.

When I'm flying with G1000, then NAV2 is rarely used, as I am using GPS for lateral navigation and backing it up with the #1 NAV as appropriate.
 
Nav#2 is always my backup for navigating to each VOR and used to cross reference radials/intersections. Nav#2 is also my backup glideslope for any ILS approach in case the 530 craps the bed.
 
Nav 2 starts out on the same VOR as Nav 1 as a backup. It then gets used to find the next VOR, or cross radials to identify intersections or anything that might make it useful during the flight. Much better than only having 1 Nav radio.
 
I use and teach using #1 as the on-course guidance and #2 for crossbearings. When you start flip-flopping, it's too easy to forget which one you're using for what, and then you end up going somewhere you shouldn't, and that can have both legal and physical consequences.
 
Let's try a specific scenario. You are en route, navigating to Pueblo Colorado, expecting the ILS or LOC 26R - http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/1113/00334IL26R.PDF Since there is switching from VOR to LOC primary naviagtion as part of the approach, I thought I'd use it as an example.

It's going to be own nav and you will be coming in on where the PUB R333 intercepts the 10 DME arc. En route, you are navigating using the PUB VOR to the IAF.

You are now briefing the approach. Amusing your approach methodology includes setting up as much as you can while briefing the plate, how are your two NAVs being set up? Three actually, don't forget the missed!

I'm asking mostly because I've seen more variation in this kind of NAV scenario than with the Comm issues being discussed in the other thread. And some of which look scary to me from the "which radio am i using now?" standpoint Ron mentions.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Let's try a specific scenario. You are en route, navigating to Pueblo Colorado, expecting the ILS or LOC 26R - http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/1113/00334IL26R.PDF Since there is switching from VOR to LOC primary naviagtion as part of the approach, I thought I'd use it as an example.

It's going to be own nav and you will be coming in on where the PUB R333 intercepts the 10 DME arc. En route, you are navigating using the PUB VOR to the IAF.

You are now briefing the approach. Amusing your approach methodology includes setting up as much as you can while briefing the plate, how are your two NAVs being set up? Three actually, don't forget the missed!
Click to expand...
I'd start the approach with PUB in the #1 active, and I-TFR in the #1 stby. The DME will either be directly tuned to PUB DME or in Remote-1 with "hold" selected so it doesn't switch when I flip-flop the #1 nav. When I cross the PUB 065 on the 10 DME arc, I'll start my turn to 257 and hit the flip-flop button, then twist 257 (not necessary, I know, but it helps keep me oriented) and join the localizer. #2 is really irrelevant -- don't need it at all, but I'll probably have it tuned the same as #1 as a backup. I might also ID the localizer on #2 while tracking the DME arc.

And, of course, if I have an ADF, it will be tuned to PU for the missed. If not (and no GPS), I'll coordinate with the controller for the TACAN-only missed approach before accepting a clearance for the approach (DME is assumed based on the given scenario).
 
Ron Levy said:
And, of course, if I have an ADF, it will be tuned to PU for the missed. If not (and no GPS), I'll coordinate with the controller for the TACAN-only missed approach before accepting a clearance for the approach (DME is assumed based on the given scenario).
Click to expand...

I thought TACAN would only be found on military aircraft???:dunno:
 
Jaybird180 said:
I thought TACAN would only be found on military aircraft???:dunno:
Click to expand...
Generally true, but you could fly this TACAN missed in an aircraft equipped with VOR and DME just as easily as with TACAN (which uses the same DME signal but a different azimuth signal) when the stations are colocated as they are here. Honestly not sure of the legality, but quite certain of the safety, and it gives an option if you don't have ADF or GPS.
 
I use to monitor 121.5 but since it is no longer monitored I just turn it off. Open to suggestions as I have not given it much thought.
Click to expand...
Actually, it is the other way around. Since the SARSAT constellation is no longer monitoring 121.5, the only hope for a downed aircraft with a 121.4 ELT is that someone will be monitoring Guard. Your monitoring Guard is more, not less, important.

Airliners at 30K+ feet monitor Guard but about all their reports can say is which state the signal is probably coming from. It is lower-flying aircraft that can help point SAR resources in the right direction.
 
Ron Levy said:
And, of course, if I have an ADF, it will be tuned to PU for the missed. If not (and no GPS), I'll coordinate with the controller for the TACAN-only missed approach before accepting a clearance for the approach (DME is assumed based on the given scenario).
Click to expand...

Okay, I'm probably missing something here.

The Missed Approach aside, since you've already gotten creative and requested the missed published on the TACAN plate...

This plate says "ADF Required". (It's also quite a "messy" plate and fun to read. GRIN...)

From the discussion thus far, I have assumed you have no GPS. DME to ARUBA is not provided on the plate. (There's miles at the bottom of the plan view, but it's not a DME distance flag, it's ground distance to the threshold, right?)

You said, "if I have an ADF". How are you legally flying it without one???

Technically, they didn't provide enough information to substitute DME to identify ARBUA, correct? Were you assuming you have a GPS to identify ARUBA?

I'm guessing I'm missing something here... might as well ask and learn...
 
Ron Levy said:
Generally true, but you could fly this TACAN missed in an aircraft equipped with VOR and DME just as easily as with TACAN (which uses the same DME signal but a different azimuth signal) when the stations are colocated as they are here. Honestly not sure of the legality, but quite certain of the safety, and it gives an option if you don't have ADF or GPS.
Click to expand...
Methinks that unless the FAA has flight checked that approach with VOR and DME they wouldn't consider it "legal" for you to do so either. This doesn't seem a lot different than flying a NDB approach with a GPS when there's no overlay, in fact that ought to be safer than flying a TACAN approach with VOR/DME.
 
denverpilot said:
The Missed Approach aside, since you've already gotten creative and requested the missed published on the TACAN plate...

This plate says "ADF Required". (It's also quite a "messy" plate and fun to read. GRIN...)

From the discussion thus far, I have assumed you have no GPS. DME to ARUBA is not provided on the plate. (There's miles at the bottom of the plan view, but it's not a DME distance flag, it's ground distance to the threshold, right?)

You said, "if I have an ADF". How are you legally flying it without one???
Click to expand...
TACAN-only aircraft can do it by using the TACAN missed. With a colocated TACAN/VOR, having VOR and DME is the same as having TACAN. So, with VOR and DME but no ADF, I see no problem with flying the TACAN missed approach procedure.

Technically, they didn't provide enough information to substitute DME to identify ARBUA, correct? Were you assuming you have a GPS to identify ARUBA?
Click to expand...
With GPS, yes, you can use the GPS to sub for DME on the arc and then to sub for ADF on the missed to ARUBA.
 
Last edited:
gismo said:
Methinks that unless the FAA has flight checked that approach with VOR and DME they wouldn't consider it "legal" for you to do so either. This doesn't seem a lot different than flying a NDB approach with a GPS when there's no overlay,
Click to expand...
Big difference -- while flying the missed, you're not subbing for the specified system for lateral guidance on the final segment which is the big no-no when using GPS to sub for DME or ADF.

in fact that ought to be safer than flying a TACAN approach with VOR/DME.
Click to expand...
I don't agree, especially in this case where HUNER is already a legal IAF for VOR/DME-equipped aircraft. However, I'll ask and see what they say.
 
Ron Levy said:
With GPS, yes, you can use the GPS to sub for DME on the arc and then to sub for ADF on the missed to ARUBA.
Click to expand...

Exactly my point. Wasn't Mark assuming we didn't have a GPS in the original question? It's an unflyable approach (other than VFR for practice) in my /A without ADF aircraft.

(Clark and I did fly it VFR on the way to KRTN but it's useless to me without published DME distance to ARUBA otherwise...)

I've been analyzing the plates around here seeing what's flyable with our aircraft. It's a surprisingly low number of approaches compared to Nebraska where there were a lot more co-located DME transmitters and published DME fixes on approach plates. Still, even there, Jesse and I had to venture out a ways to find a reasonable mix of approach types to fly.

GPS is likely in our airplane's future after looking at what's around. A number of the plates around the Metro area are RADAR Required also, and have no good transition routes, which is spiffy, right up until you go NORDO. Not a great thing to be filed to if that happens.

Just about zero chance of ever flying a published missed here either, which we did regularly at night in Nebraska. The published misseds here put you in the way of a lot of DIA's high speed aluminum tubing operators. ;) Others (at least altitude-wise) bump up against the Bravo. Sometimes you can get a clearance, sometimes you're making altitude restrictions up on the fly.
 
denverpilot said:
Exactly my point. Wasn't Mark assuming we didn't have a GPS in the original question?
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. Even with GPS, one might still put a relevant navaid in at least a stand-by position.

But yes, for the most part, I was thinking in terms of situations in which there are multiple VLOCs for the approach, where one might have to switch between an en route VOR, a localizer for the final approach course approach and then a VOR for the missed.
 
As long as the chart doesn't say "DUAL VOR REQUIRED," you only need one and can switch back and forth. Where you usually see that note is when there's a stepdown fix using a VOR crossradial inside the FAF on a VOR or LOC approach.
 
well, so much for focusing the discussion on the question posed in the OP of what to do with the #2 NAV radio.

Assuming I'm flying with just the two NAV radios (plus an ADF or GPS as required in case I go missed), I would:

#1 NAV - keep the localizer tuned in the whole time.
#2 NAV -
  • start out with the PUB VOR located near the airport
  • then once established on the localizer I'd flip it over to the BRK VOR, with the OBS set to the 140 radial, to identify the intersection that is 10 miles from PUB.
  • Once I've passed that intersection I'd flip #2 back to the PUB VOR so that it's ready in case I go missed and receive radar vectors for another try.
 
Last edited:
No Heat,

Thanks.

I'm not disagreeing. That's exactly the answer I was considering when I asked the question.

What I's trying to do is see if we can stuff the nav situation into a model such as the #1 in the air; #2 on the ground model that some folks urged for COMM 1 and 2. The idea is to have a resulting SOP that works at least almost most of the time

With Navs, it might be "courses guidance now" vs "cross reference/backup." In that case, approaching the IAP for the arc, you might still have the VOR in the #1 NAV with the #1 Flip flop and continue to keep the #1 on the VOR for guidance around the arc, switching the #1 flip flop to the LOC when crossing a (not necessarily the published) lead radial.

During this, such a model would, unless there were a VOR for the missed (that would be moved into #1 once off the arc), the VOR and LOC might be backed up in the posiitons in #2.

Not saying that's "the" way to do it. What I'm looking for is consistent approach to avoid what Rom correctly pointed out as a problem of not being sure which you're are navigating with if you're haphazard in how they get set up.

Make any sense?
 
Another comment from a pilot (non-CFII) when discussing this topic recently that you may or may not have time or inclination to use in real-life flying, Mark...

He suggested that if a particular Nav was NOT in use, "fail" it. Tune it to something that flips the fail flag into view, pegs the needle to one side, and make sure it's static on the ID... And spin the OBS to something "standard" for you that says "not used". 360, for example. (Just watch out when really flying 360.)

Personally I'm tending to the opposite... If only using one Navaid, tune both of 'em to it until you want a cross-radial, etc. If they don't match, something's wrong.

The only "gotcha" for that in my aircraft is accidentally leaving the DME selector on Nav 2 and then forgetting about it when you go to use that second Nav for something else. I've been working out a callout to "select DME to Nav X" as a reminder to myself any time I touch a Nav, but it's not 100% ingrained yet as a habit.

Any other time it's Primary Nav in #1 unless intercepting a LOC/GS since only #1 has a GS in my airplane. I also am trying to say something out loud to myself if consciously flying Nav 2 that will include where I will stop flying Nav 2.

At changeover points on an airway I swap them top/bottom until something more useful for Nav 2 is determined. There's usually something useful it can be doing "next".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top