With the new ACS rules, is GPS alone sufficient for IR?

[chemgeek]

Yeah, but. Push the wrong button and it leads to having to push a whole lot more buttons to unf*** what pushing the wrong button ef’d up. There have been some accidents where there is no doubt in my mind that buttonology is what killed the pilot.

Or you can get an ATC directive that requires the dance of the seven veils (hurried, frantic unf***ing) to get re-configured with only a few minutes to get sorted. While this is less likely to happen while in real IMC, it happens frequently in training. On an IPC, I was sitting fat, dumb, and happy being vectored to final for an RNAV approach (the controller assured me this would be vectors to final) when I get a last minute clearance to an intersection that is not an IAF or intermediate waypoint on the approach, but an waypoint that has a transition to one of the IAFs. And it is minutes away. Talk about fumbling with buttons...it got sorted, but I was thinking how much simpler the ILS would have been to fly. I don't do VTF anymore, no matter how high the stack of Bibles ATC swears on that this will be vectors-to-final.

No doubt GPS approaches are sooooo much simpler to fly and monitor, but you have to be up to snuff on your buttonology. Last minute changes can be the devil to sort out, and there are lots of gotchas in Garmin-GPS-land, such as HILPTs you have to delete when on a NoPT TAA arrival, and remembering to not follow any advisory vertical guidance past the DA on an LNAV approach. These are not things you have to do on an ILS or LOC approach.

My CFII swore up and down that a Garmin 430 should know not to include the HILPT if approaching on a TAA NoPT heading. Nope. The autopilot will take you around the HILPT, no matter what, unless you manually delete it. My home drome has this issue, and I discovered it the first time during an IPC. Glad that was sorted before doing it in IMC on a return trip home. The advisory vertical guidance issue cropped up at a nearby airport. Following advisory vertical guidance at night beyond the DA will take you through a cumulogranite hill. (I like flying the stepdowns anyway--give you a better chance of breaking out early if possible, and there should be no cumulogranite in the way if you are flying the approach as published.)

 

[MauleSkinner]

I meant the list of tasks is not system-specific. Neither is the difference between DA and MDA.
But sure, the methods used to do various tasks and some of the verbiage vary by system. Two which immediately come to me are, "green needles vs pink" needles means nothing to a pilot with an Aspen PFD. OBS mode operates differently in Avidyne and Garmin boxes (and from John's list, "course to fix" is not an Avidyne term although it does it).

again, I agree. But I find that pilots can be so poorly potty-trained that I can’t use the term “activate the final approach course” to explain the process, because they have no clue what that means. They don’t have enough of a handle on the difference between DA and MDA For me to be able to use those terms to explain the automation.

“Green needles vs pink” is a useless discussion until they understand that just because there’s a line on the moving map doesn’t mean that’s where the navigator will take them.

 

[midlifeflyer]

again, I agree. But I find that pilots can be so poorly potty-trained that I can’t use the term “activate the final approach course” to explain the process, because they have no clue what that means. They don’t have enough of a handle on the difference between DA and MDA For me to be able to use those terms to explain the automation.

“Green needles vs pink” is a useless discussion until they understand that just because there’s a line on the moving map doesn’t mean that’s where the navigator will take them.

The one that got me scratching my head was this. I do one where I announce “vectors to [the IF]” when the GPS automatically loaded the hold-in-lieu. I vector them into a position where my final instruction is, “direct to [the IF], maintain Y,000 until established on the final approach course, cleared straight in…” I was shocked when they didn’t clear or bypass the hold on the navigator and (three pilots in a row, including a CFII) the airplane turned outbound for the hold.

 

[midlifeflyer]

when I get a last minute clearance to an intersection that is not an IAF or intermediate waypoint on the approach

Another of my standard tasks because it is not only common already but becoming more so because it actually saves both pilot and controller workload. Doing it correctly takes about 6 seconds, even if one loaded VTF on a box which removes them.

 

[Kritchlow]

Well, I’m not going to respond to individual posts, but I will say I have done extensive IFR flying using VOR/ADF type equipment as well as today’s GPS.

No contest imo, today’s equipment is vastly easier. Almost mindless by comparison. YMMV.

 

[RussR]

Well, I’m not going to respond to individual posts, but I will say I have done extensive IFR flying using VOR/ADF type equipment as well as today’s GPS.

No contest imo, today’s equipment is vastly easier. Almost mindless by comparison. YMMV.

Often it will depend on the definition of "easier". Figuring out where you are in space and time is definitely harder with VOR/ILS/ADF. But knowing the intricacies of a GPS or FMS (i.e. the buttonology and capabilities) is definitely harder than "programming" a VOR/ILS/ADF receiver.

As I've read this thread, something occurred to me which I wonder if it's a factor. For someone like you, who flies for a living, and is therefore very comfortable with the operation of the FMS, the FMS becomes pretty much a non-issue. I'm the same way at work. I know the FMS really well, and it's not an impediment in any way. This is, of course, how it should be. We should all strive to be so at ease with the operation of our avionics. It makes things so much easier.

But for the typical light GA pilot, who either doesn't fly much IFR, or only uses the most basic of the GPS functions like Direct-to and loading an approach, the actual programming of the GPS becomes a major factor when asked to do something that's out of their ordinary procedures. I see this just like @midlifeflyer does - they "drop the plane" to fly the box. In that respect it's harder. I have definitely had clients who would rather fly the ILS versus the RNAV just so they didn't have to deal with the box. Granted those pilots have generally been older, and learned to fly IFR before GPS, but it shows that at least they think the GPS is harder than the NAV radio. And then they put in a new GPS and have to learn everything all over again, whereas that VOR/ILS receiver still works exactly the same way it did 50 years ago.

There's a reason that there are tons and tons of courses on how to master your avionics suites. Any of the big training suppliers have a bewildering assortment of training manuals, videos, interactive online simulators and such for any modern GPS. But you don't see the same for a VOR/ILS receiver.

 

[MountainDude]

Often it will depend on the definition of "easier". Figuring out where you are in space and time is definitely harder with VOR/ILS/ADF. But knowing the intricacies of a GPS or FMS (i.e. the buttonology and capabilities) is definitely harder than "programming" a VOR/ILS/ADF receiver.

As I've read this thread, something occurred to me which I wonder if it's a factor. For someone like you, who flies for a living, and is therefore very comfortable with the operation of the FMS, the FMS becomes pretty much a non-issue. I'm the same way at work. I know the FMS really well, and it's not an impediment in any way. This is, of course, how it should be. We should all strive to be so at ease with the operation of our avionics. It makes things so much easier.

But for the typical light GA pilot, who either doesn't fly much IFR, or only uses the most basic of the GPS functions like Direct-to and loading an approach, the actual programming of the GPS becomes a major factor when asked to do something that's out of their ordinary procedures. I see this just like @midlifeflyer does - they "drop the plane" to fly the box. In that respect it's harder. I have definitely had clients who would rather fly the ILS versus the RNAV just so they didn't have to deal with the box. Granted those pilots have generally been older, and learned to fly IFR before GPS, but it shows that at least they think the GPS is harder than the NAV radio. And then they put in a new GPS and have to learn everything all over again, whereas that VOR/ILS receiver still works exactly the same way it did 50 years ago.

There's a reason that there are tons and tons of courses on how to master your avionics suites. Any of the big training suppliers have a bewildering assortment of training manuals, videos, interactive online simulators and such for any modern GPS. But you don't see the same for a VOR/ILS receiver.

That's a very good point.
I am personally more comfortable learning all the options on my GPS, including those that would normally be covered by VOR/DME (for example, join a radial at XX DME), then do that AND keep proficiency with VOR/DME/ILS/LOC.

 

[Kritchlow]

Often it will depend on the definition of "easier". Figuring out where you are in space and time is definitely harder with VOR/ILS/ADF. But knowing the intricacies of a GPS or FMS (i.e. the buttonology and capabilities) is definitely harder than "programming" a VOR/ILS/ADF receiver.

As I've read this thread, something occurred to me which I wonder if it's a factor. For someone like you, who flies for a living, and is therefore very comfortable with the operation of the FMS, the FMS becomes pretty much a non-issue. I'm the same way at work. I know the FMS really well, and it's not an impediment in any way. This is, of course, how it should be. We should all strive to be so at ease with the operation of our avionics. It makes things so much easier.

But for the typical light GA pilot, who either doesn't fly much IFR, or only uses the most basic of the GPS functions like Direct-to and loading an approach, the actual programming of the GPS becomes a major factor when asked to do something that's out of their ordinary procedures. I see this just like @midlifeflyer does - they "drop the plane" to fly the box. In that respect it's harder. I have definitely had clients who would rather fly the ILS versus the RNAV just so they didn't have to deal with the box. Granted those pilots have generally been older, and learned to fly IFR before GPS, but it shows that at least they think the GPS is harder than the NAV radio. And then they put in a new GPS and have to learn everything all over again, whereas that VOR/ILS receiver still works exactly the same way it did 50 years ago.

There's a reason that there are tons and tons of courses on how to master your avionics suites. Any of the big training suppliers have a bewildering assortment of training manuals, videos, interactive online simulators and such for any modern GPS. But you don't see the same for a VOR/ILS receiver.

I do not disagree, but not imagine the same guy trying to figure out entries, bearings, winds, and adjust timing which can take a few turns to get reasonably close. The “box” is a one step process once you get it entered.