Avidyne Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Avidyne General > IFD 5 Series & IFD 4 Series Touch Screen GPS/NAV/COM
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Holding patterns (check ride)
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Holding patterns (check ride)

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Message
arkvet View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie
Avatar

Joined: 12 May 2017
Location: Arkansas
Status: Offline
Points: 87
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote arkvet Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Holding patterns (check ride)
    Posted: 14 Jun 2018 at 4:51pm
In the real world I'm really not worried about holding patterns. I completely understand how to insert a hold at any waypoint and how to make adjustments to that patterns. It's a beautiful thing really.

However, I was doing some IFR practice with a CFII a week or so ago and he asked me to track the 183 radial (V69) from ARG until intercepting the 270 radial from the JBR VOR. Hold West on the 270 radial from the JBR VOR.


OK, now I admit I haven't done much IFR flying (even as a pax) but I don't think these are real world (2018) things to expect. However, obviously this is testing my ability to do the hold.


My question. Is there an easy way to create that waypoint and get the hold displayed on the IFD 550 or am I simply going to have to go dual VOR style and do this thing the old way. Since the hold is on the JBR radial I am thinking I want that one tuned into the IFD 550 since I have dual G5's and the CDI (HSI display) function of the G5 is really nice. Use the #2 Kx155 to track the initial 183 radial from ARG.


What are my options? I don't want to bust my IFR check ride when I say WTF to instructions like this. lol
Brent

PA32-301
IFD550 / AXP322 / SkyTrax100
Back to Top
Gring View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 30 Dec 2011
Location: Kingston, NY
Status: Offline
Points: 510
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gring Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Jun 2018 at 8:28pm
all of these IFR practice scenarios are hard because they are done in a small airspace with lots of stuff thrown at you in a short amount of time. Most real world scenarios are much easier.

Option 1 - using GPS
 - create a user waypoint using the RAD/RAD format (ARG/183 and JBR/270)
 - insert the user waypoint into the flight plan after ARG
 - create the old off the user waypoint

Option 2 - using Dual VORs
 - put the unit(s) in VLOC mode and do it old school


Edited by Gring - 14 Jun 2018 at 8:32pm
Back to Top
Kentucky Captain View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 21 Mar 2015
Location: KBRY
Status: Offline
Points: 110
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kentucky Captain Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jun 2018 at 3:27am
Originally posted by arkvet arkvet wrote:

In the real world I'm really not worried about holding patterns. I completely understand how to insert a hold at any waypoint and how to make adjustments to that patterns. It's a beautiful thing really.

However, I was doing some IFR practice with a CFII a week or so ago and he asked me to track the 183 radial (V69) from ARG until intercepting the 270 radial from the JBR VOR. Hold West on the 270 radial from the JBR VOR.


OK, now I admit I haven't done much IFR flying (even as a pax) but I don't think these are real world (2018) things to expect. However, obviously this is testing my ability to do the hold.


My question. Is there an easy way to create that waypoint and get the hold displayed on the IFD 550 or am I simply going to have to go dual VOR style and do this thing the old way. Since the hold is on the JBR radial I am thinking I want that one tuned into the IFD 550 since I have dual G5's and the CDI (HSI display) function of the G5 is really nice. Use the #2 Kx155 to track the initial 183 radial from ARG.


What are my options? I don't want to bust my IFR check ride when I say WTF to instructions like this. lol


Another option is to create the waypoint using the Rad/Dist option.  In my opinion, it's a lot quicker than using Lat/Lon.  When you create the new waypoint, change the format from Lat/Lon to Rad/Dist by tapping the format LSK.   After creating the waypoint and inserting it into the FPL on the FMS page, you can then add a Hold at the waypoint.  After the hold is created you can change the holding radial.  It actually took me longer to write this that it did to enter it.

One more thing.  Holding on the 270 radial will having you holding east, while holding west would be the 090 radial.
Spending my kid's inheritance, one upgrade at a time.
Back to Top
dmtidler View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie
Avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2016
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 92
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote dmtidler Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jun 2018 at 9:55am
The Rad/Dist option would work well if the distance to the intersecting radials was known along at least one of  the radials. I agree that the Lat/Lon method could be cumbersome; I'd be prone to use the BT keyboard for that one. I would suggest that if the Lat/Lon of the intersection could be referenced on a chart (or map layer), the intersection is probably named and very likely to be a waypoint in the IFD navigation database.

All of these options would require more information than initially presented in the problem that may (or may not) be found by referencing the appropriate chart (or map layer).

I agree with Gring's option 1; using the Rad/Rad user waypoint format is probably the easiest way to create the appropriate holding waypoint in the IFD without the need to look up any additional information.

Back to Top
oskrypuch View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 09 Nov 2012
Location: CYFD
Status: Offline
Points: 2306
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oskrypuch Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jun 2018 at 11:22am
Originally posted by Kentucky Captain Kentucky Captain wrote:

...

One more thing.  Holding on the 270 radial will having you holding east, while holding west would be the 090 radial.

Holding on the 270 radial, your holding pattern will be west of the VOR (or other anchor waypoint). But, you will be flying eastbound inbound to the VOR. Is that what you meant?

* Orest

Back to Top
Kentucky Captain View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 21 Mar 2015
Location: KBRY
Status: Offline
Points: 110
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kentucky Captain Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jun 2018 at 4:23pm
Originally posted by oskrypuch oskrypuch wrote:

Originally posted by Kentucky Captain Kentucky Captain wrote:

...

One more thing.  Holding on the 270 radial will having you holding east, while holding west would be the 090 radial.

Holding on the 270 radial, your holding pattern will be west of the VOR (or other anchor waypoint). But, you will be flying eastbound inbound to the VOR. Is that what you meant?

* Orest



If you enter 270 in the heading section of the holding pattern, it will have you holding on the east side. You must enter 090 to get the holding pattern on the west side.  The original instructions said to hold west of the waypoint.
Spending my kid's inheritance, one upgrade at a time.
Back to Top
Kentucky Captain View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 21 Mar 2015
Location: KBRY
Status: Offline
Points: 110
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kentucky Captain Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jun 2018 at 4:34pm
Originally posted by dmtidler dmtidler wrote:

The Rad/Dist option would work well if the distance to the intersecting radials was known along at least one of  the radials. I agree that the Lat/Lon method could be cumbersome; I'd be prone to use the BT keyboard for that one. I would suggest that if the Lat/Lon of the intersection could be referenced on a chart (or map layer), the intersection is probably named and very likely to be a waypoint in the IFD navigation database.

All of these options would require more information than initially presented in the problem that may (or may not) be found by referencing the appropriate chart (or map layer).

I agree with Gring's option 1; using the Rad/Rad user waypoint format is probably the easiest way to create the appropriate holding waypoint in the IFD without the need to look up any additional information.



I just added the vor and the fix into foreflight, then measured the distance with the foreflight function of the finger ruler.
Spending my kid's inheritance, one upgrade at a time.
Back to Top
oskrypuch View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 09 Nov 2012
Location: CYFD
Status: Offline
Points: 2306
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oskrypuch Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jun 2018 at 7:02pm
Originally posted by Kentucky Captain Kentucky Captain wrote:

...
You must enter 090 to get the holding pattern on the west side. 

Maybe a bit of semantics, but in the IFD you do need to enter the INBOUND COURSE when setting the HOLD, but that is still the reciprocal of the VOR RADIAL.

So, if you are assigned to hold WEST of the VOR on the 270 RADIAL, you will be flying 090 for the INBOUND COURSE, but you will still be located on the 270 RADIAL.

* Orest

Back to Top
Gring View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 30 Dec 2011
Location: Kingston, NY
Status: Offline
Points: 510
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gring Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jun 2018 at 7:50pm
Orest is right for sure and it is something that caught me out one time when playing with the hold feature during pre certification testing.
Back to Top
Kentucky Captain View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 21 Mar 2015
Location: KBRY
Status: Offline
Points: 110
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kentucky Captain Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jun 2018 at 8:32pm
Originally posted by oskrypuch oskrypuch wrote:

Originally posted by Kentucky Captain Kentucky Captain wrote:

...
You must enter 090 to get the holding pattern on the west side. 

Maybe a bit of semantics, but in the IFD you do need to enter the INBOUND COURSE when setting the HOLD, but that is still the reciprocal of the VOR RADIAL.

So, if you are assigned to hold WEST of the VOR on the 270 RADIAL, you will be flying 090 for the INBOUND COURSE, but you will still be located on the 270 RADIAL.

* Orest



Exactly
Spending my kid's inheritance, one upgrade at a time.
Back to Top
Ibraham View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 21 May 2016
Location: KHWO
Status: Offline
Points: 193
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ibraham Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jun 2018 at 11:01pm
If you are asked to do a hold using intersecting VOR's, I believe the examiner would expect it to be done using the VORs and not a GPS waypoint. Since the hold is not based on a DME/GPS, it would have to be based on time (1 minute) and a hold depicted by the IFD is based on distance.
Therefore, the old way may be the way to do it.
Back to Top
Gring View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 30 Dec 2011
Location: Kingston, NY
Status: Offline
Points: 510
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gring Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Jun 2018 at 6:30am
For sure, we as pilots, should not let ourselves become over reliant on technology in lieu of performing tasks manually.

For a check ride either hold method will be acceptable.  The practical test standards do not specify which technology is to be used, but rather, the performance standards the task is to be performed at.

The IFD can fly a hold using either time ie 1 min or by distance and is configurable in the hold waypoint information box.  Since the FARs say that GPS is approved for DME, I see no reason any examiner would have an issue using an IFD to fly a hold in the manner described above.

Additionally, if you haven’t tried flying a hold using the VLOC function with the green/White VOR radial indication, you should try it, it works great to depict the inbound course.

Furthermore, at the end of the day, we are tested on performance based on course deviation from an HSI or CDI, and that instrument, not a moving map with a magenta line is the only thing that matters.  Let’s not lose sight of our basic flying skills.


Edited by Gring - 21 Jun 2018 at 6:31am
Back to Top
Catani View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 21 Jan 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 208
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Catani Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Jun 2018 at 11:20am
The Examiner can simulate failures on a check ride.  What if he said during the check to assume a regional GPS outage due to military exercises, and asked you to hold somewhere?  Don't know if you would pass the check if you insisted on demonstrating your HSI or course following skills by using the GPS anyway.
Back to Top
Gring View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 30 Dec 2011
Location: Kingston, NY
Status: Offline
Points: 510
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gring Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Jun 2018 at 1:13pm
Originally posted by Catani Catani wrote:

The Examiner can simulate failures on a check ride.  What if he said during the check to assume a regional GPS outage due to military exercises, and asked you to hold somewhere?  Don't know if you would pass the check if you insisted on demonstrating your HSI or course following skills by using the GPS anyway.


That is not what I'm saying, and there are always exceptions. In your example, if you have a GPS outage, then you need to either go to an alternate navigation system (Radio Navigation), or be on ATC Vectors. If the former, then you would hold using the assigned VOR, Radial, Distance, and holding instructions. Your HSI or CDI will still be your primary instrument used to maintain proper navigation while in the hold.
Back to Top
Catani View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 21 Jan 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 208
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Catani Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Jun 2018 at 5:30pm
Originally posted by Gring Gring wrote:

Originally posted by Catani Catani wrote:

The Examiner can simulate failures on a check ride.  What if he said during the check to assume a regional GPS outage due to military exercises, and asked you to hold somewhere?  Don't know if you would pass the check if you insisted on demonstrating your HSI or course following skills by using the GPS anyway.
 

That is not what I'm saying, and there are always exceptions. In your example, if you have a GPS outage, then you need to either go to an alternate navigation system (Radio Navigation), or be on ATC Vectors. If the former, then you would hold using the assigned VOR, Radial, Distance, and holding instructions. Your HSI or CDI will still be your primary instrument used to maintain proper navigation while in the hold.
It sounds like you may have been trying to make the point the AA Training Capt did in the "Children of the Magenta" video, something we can all agree on.  What I was responding to was your prior post that either method of locating the holding waypoint (GPS or VOR) would be acceptable since the PTS does not specify which technology must be used, and that an Examiner should not mind if you use the GPS to find the waypoint.  My point was that using the GPS won't be an acceptable means of finding the holding fix and entering the hold if the Examiner simulates a GPS failure.  So you have to learn and practice how to use both the VOR and the GPS system to find waypoints and hold there, you're not merely tested at the end of the day how well you can hold a course.  Taking VOR radios out of the plane to avoid being tested on VOR skills (as was permitted with ADFs) would likely render it an unsuitable plane for an instrument checkride. Also, if you have a GPS, you should know what the magenta line is and how to use it  also.  The Examiner can test you on any piece of navigational equipment you have in the plane.  I'm not sure you disagree with any of this, I just wanted to point out that it may not be enough on a rating ride to know how to perform navigational tasks using your GPS, but not your VORs. Either method is acceptable as you say, unless the Examiner says otherwise, then it's not.
Back to Top
Gring View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 30 Dec 2011
Location: Kingston, NY
Status: Offline
Points: 510
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gring Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Jun 2018 at 7:51pm
I agree with most of what you are saying, and we are saying similar things. One minor disagreement is that since WAAS GPS is legal as the sole source of navigation, it would be legal and acceptable to perform a checkride with only GPS. I don't believe the examiner can say you have to have certain equipment installed in the airplane for a checkride - either the airplane is IFR legal or it is not. Now practically speaking, I have never seen an airplane with only GPS equipment installed, so that point is probably moot.
Back to Top
Catani View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 21 Jan 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 208
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Catani Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Jun 2018 at 9:48pm
Originally posted by Gring Gring wrote:

I agree with most of what you are saying, and we are saying similar things. One minor disagreement is that since WAAS GPS is legal as the sole source of navigation, it would be legal and acceptable to perform a checkride with only GPS...
It is legal to fly IFR using only WAAS GPS equipment, so long as you go VFR only when the GPS system is NOTAM'd out.  But the instrument checkride must be done in accordance with the PTS (and effective this month, the new ACS).  The PTS/ACS requires you to demonstrate two non-precision approaches, each using two separate navaids.  You can do that in an aircraft with only VOR/LOC receivers, but not in an aircraft with only WAAS GPS boxes.  

So, if you use an airplane for the check equipped with GPS as well as the required VOR/LOC - as the OP's plane had that started this thread - you have to be proficient in both VOR and GPS navigation procedures (including how to hold using both systems).
Back to Top
Gring View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 30 Dec 2011
Location: Kingston, NY
Status: Offline
Points: 510
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gring Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Jun 2018 at 6:58am
I know we are splitting hairs here, but under the aircraft requirements (page 7 of the PTS) it does not say that you need two navigation methods for the two non precision approaches.

From the PTS

The required radio equipment is that which is necessary for communications with air traffic control (ATC), and for the performance of two of the following nonprecision approaches: very high frequency omnidirectional range (VOR), nondirectional beacon (NDB), global positioning system (GPS) without vertical guidance, localizer (LOC), localizer-type directional aid (LDA), simplified directional facility (SDF), or area navigation (RNAV) and one precision approach: instrument landing system (ILS), GNSS landing system (GLS), localizer performance with vertical guidance (LPV) or microwave landing system (MLS). GPS equipment must be instrument flight rules (IFR) certified and contain the current database. 

You can fly your two nonprecision approaches using two VOR approaches, two GPS approaches, two NDB approaches, two LDA approaches, two LOC approaches, two SDF approaches, or any combination.



Edited by Gring - 22 Jun 2018 at 6:59am
Back to Top
Catani View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 21 Jan 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 208
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Catani Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Jun 2018 at 2:58pm
You're looking in the wrong place Gring.  Take a look at the Task Listing (in the ACS to be current, but the PTS is the same) that specifies what the candidate is required to demonstrate proficiency to the Examiner.  Specifically, look at the Instrument Approach task requirements.  The Examiner is not at liberty to deviate from them, and the two require NP approaches must each use two separate nav aids.  So, no VOR, no checkride.  Or plane has VOR, but candidate cannot demonstrate proficiency in how to use it - failed ride.
Back to Top
Gring View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 30 Dec 2011
Location: Kingston, NY
Status: Offline
Points: 510
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gring Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Jun 2018 at 3:16pm
Fair enough, I see that now. Two different types of navaids. I suppose you could do a GPS and NDB and not use a VOR at all...

Edited by Gring - 22 Jun 2018 at 3:25pm
Back to Top
Catani View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 21 Jan 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 208
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Catani Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Jun 2018 at 4:41pm
GPS and NBD might technically meet requirements, but as a practical matter you'd have to have two different reasonably close NDB approaches for that combination to work on a checkride.  But who wants to get proficient on no-gyro NDB approaches anymore?  And who wants to keep the ADF unit in their plane in good working order?  Learning how to demonstrate proficiency with VOR navaids is a whole lot easier, and planes still have VOR receivers in them that can be easily repaired, if need be.  

Incidentally, it's not only the rating ride, but CFIs are supposed to look for the same proficiency on the same types of NP approaches to sign somebody off on an IPC.  So it's good to stay proficient on both the legacy VOR navaids as well as GPS.  I think the FAA's position on that is unlikely to change for the foreseeable future.
Back to Top
Kentucky Captain View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 21 Mar 2015
Location: KBRY
Status: Offline
Points: 110
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kentucky Captain Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Jun 2018 at 5:19pm
Originally posted by Catani Catani wrote:

GPS and NBD might technically meet requirements, but as a practical matter you'd have to have two different reasonably close NDB approaches for that combination to work on a checkride.  But who wants to get proficient on no-gyro NDB approaches anymore?  And who wants to keep the ADF unit in their plane in good working order?  Learning how to demonstrate proficiency with VOR navaids is a whole lot easier, and planes still have VOR receivers in them that can be easily repaired, if need be.  

Incidentally, it's not only the rating ride, but CFIs are supposed to look for the same proficiency on the same types of NP approaches to sign somebody off on an IPC.  So it's good to stay proficient on both the legacy VOR navaids as well as GPS.  I think the FAA's position on that is unlikely to change for the foreseeable future.


I do see the PTS/ACS standards changing sometime in the future due to the reduction of VORs in the NAS.  Already in the airspace that I fly, there are no more NDB approaches to be had that I know of and we lost one VOR to a tornado several years ago, never to be replaced.  There are two more VORs in the airspace that are on the list of ones to be deactivated.  That will only leave one VOR and one TVOR within 75 miles.  The VOR has no approaches off of it and the TVOR has one VOR to the airport that it is on.  Three airports have an ILS and everything else is GPS approaches.
Spending my kid's inheritance, one upgrade at a time.
Back to Top
Gring View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 30 Dec 2011
Location: Kingston, NY
Status: Offline
Points: 510
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gring Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Jun 2018 at 5:25pm
I agree with you that we need to be proficient with the two main navigation methods - GPS and VOR, and I'm a back to basics guy who believes that automation is eroding Pilot SA and basic skills. These skills are important as the electronics just are not as reliable as the old mechanical and radio based units (my experience). I've been in IMC and had a complete GPS failure including iPad and iPhone that turned out to be a bad antenna. I was able to isolate the offending GPS unit and turn it off to restore GPS in the airplane, but I did fly first on vectors until I transitioned to a VOR radial, and eventually back to GPS. In some ways, I wish I didn't pull my DME when I upgraded my panel.
Back to Top
rpostmo View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 20 Jul 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 22
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rpostmo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Jun 2018 at 12:04am
Agreed,  I pulled my KN64, then found a spot on the R side and put it back in!
Back to Top
Bob H View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie


Joined: 26 Jan 2018
Location: NH - KMHT
Status: Offline
Points: 58
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bob H Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Jun 2018 at 6:04pm
Originally posted by Catani Catani wrote:

GPS and NBD might technically meet requirements, but as a practical matter you'd have to have two different reasonably close NDB approaches for that combination to work on a checkride.
Why?  Couldn't a NP GPS approach and an NDB meet that requirement?
Originally posted by Catani Catani wrote:

And who wants to keep the ADF unit in their plane in good working order?
ME!  The ADF was my favorite when IFR training.  It required me to work and think and know where everything was around me.  During a turn onto the final and getting the DG course and Needle to Top Dead Center simultaneously was very rewarding, neither overshoot nor undershoot.  I kept the ADF when putting in the IFD, also the DME.  I just couldn't let it go and I didn't need the room.  Besides I hear the siren song of Canada and Alaska!
Bob
Back to Top
Catani View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 21 Jan 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 208
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Catani Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Jun 2018 at 9:50pm
Originally posted by Bob H Bob H wrote:

Originally posted by Catani Catani wrote:

GPS and NBD might technically meet requirements, but as a practical matter you'd have to have two different reasonably close NDB approaches for that combination to work on a checkride.
Why? Couldn't a NP GPS approach and an NDB meet that requirement?
Yes, if a local GPS approach available to the Examiner required use of an NDB for a segment of the approach.  That's unlikely in most places, I would think.
Back to Top
Bob H View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie


Joined: 26 Jan 2018
Location: NH - KMHT
Status: Offline
Points: 58
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bob H Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Jun 2018 at 10:59pm
Originally posted by Catani Catani wrote:

Originally posted by Bob H Bob H wrote:

Originally posted by Catani Catani wrote:

GPS and NBD might technically meet requirements, but as a practical matter you'd have to have two different reasonably close NDB approaches for that combination to work on a checkride.
Why? Couldn't a NP GPS approach and an NDB meet that requirement?
Yes, if a local GPS approach available to the Examiner required use of an NDB for a segment of the approach.  That's unlikely in most places, I would think.
Bear with me as I'm still not fully understanding.  Are you saying that I can't do two independent NP approaches, one GPS and one NDB, that the two NP navaids must be part of the same approach?
Bob
Back to Top
Catani View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 21 Jan 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 208
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Catani Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Jun 2018 at 9:34am
No.  Read up a little higher in the thread.  Each of the required NP approaches must use two separate navs.
Back to Top
Bob H View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie


Joined: 26 Jan 2018
Location: NH - KMHT
Status: Offline
Points: 58
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bob H Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Jun 2018 at 5:10pm
Originally posted by Catani Catani wrote:

No.  Read up a little higher in the thread.  Each of the required NP approaches must use two separate navs.
OK, so to parse this differently.
I must use two different types of navs for each one of the required NP approaches.  So the approach plate must have two different types of navs incorporated into the approach.  If I haven’t gotten this wrong again, the answer to my question above is yes.

Thanks for your patience as I work through this.
Bob
Back to Top
Catani View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 21 Jan 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 208
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Catani Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Jun 2018 at 6:06pm
Sorry for the confusion, but I was a little confused by your question.  So I just added what I was trying to say: "Each of the required NP approaches must use two separate navs."  So for example, a GPS LNAV approach might have a VOR missed approach holding point, or a LOC approach might have a VOR radial that defines a fix.  The FAA wants you to demonstrate your ability to integrate both to successfully complete the NP approach.
Back to Top
Bob H View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie


Joined: 26 Jan 2018
Location: NH - KMHT
Status: Offline
Points: 58
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bob H Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Jun 2018 at 7:48pm
Originally posted by Catani Catani wrote:

"Each of the required NP approaches must use two separate navs."  So for example, a GPS LNAV approach might have a VOR missed approach holding point, or a LOC approach might have a VOR radial that defines a fix.  The FAA wants you to demonstrate your ability to integrate both to successfully complete the NP approach.
Clear. Thanks!
Bob
Back to Top
PA20Pacer View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 07 Mar 2012
Location: Illinois (LL22)
Status: Offline
Points: 132
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote PA20Pacer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jun 2018 at 8:30am
Originally posted by Catani Catani wrote:

Sorry for the confusion, but I was a little confused by your question.  So I just added what I was trying to say: "Each of the required NP approaches must use two separate navs."  So for example, a GPS LNAV approach might have a VOR missed approach holding point, or a LOC approach might have a VOR radial that defines a fix.  The FAA wants you to demonstrate your ability to integrate both to successfully complete the NP approach.

Hi Catani-

Your statements are the first time that I have been exposed to the interpretation that each required non-precision approach must use two separate navigation sources. That interpretation would preclude many GPS-based RNAV approaches from being used on a practical test. The language from the 6/11/18 Airman Certification Standards follows:

"Task A. Nonprecision Approach The evaluator will select nonprecision approaches representative of the type that the applicant is likely to use. The choices must use at least two different types of navigational aids. Examples of acceptable nonprecision approaches include: VOR, VOR/DME, LOC procedures on an ILS, LDA, RNAV (RNP) or RNAV (GPS) to LNAV, LNAV/VNAV or LPV line of minima as long as the LPV DA is greater than 300 feet HAT. The equipment must be installed and the database must be current and qualified to fly GPS-based approaches. The applicant must accomplish at least two nonprecision approaches in simulated or actual weather conditions. 
• One must include a procedure turn or, in the case of a GPS-based approach, a Terminal Arrival Area (TAA) procedure. 
• At least one must be flown without the use of autopilot and without the assistance of radar vectors. The yaw damper and flight director are not considered parts of the autopilot for purposes of this Task. • One is expected to be flown with reference to backup or partial panel instrumentation or navigation display, depending on the aircraft’s instrument avionics configuration, representing the failure mode(s) most realistic for the equipment used. The evaluator has discretion to have the applicant perform a landing or a missed approach at the completion of each non precision approach."

It seems that the relevant language is : "The choices must use at least two different types of navigational aids." It does not say that each choice must use two different types of navigational aids. Is there some additional language that I am missing?

Regards,

Bob
Bob Siegfried, II
Brookeridge Airpark (LL22)
Downers Grove, IL
Back to Top
Catani View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 21 Jan 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 208
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Catani Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jun 2018 at 11:36am
You may be right, Bob, it is only my interpretation.  The fact you must have more than a GPS in the plane to satisfy the NP approach requirements means that the Examiner can, if he wants to, select approaches that require two separate navaids - which means you have to be able to do them no matter whether you are right or I am.  If you are right, the ACS would allow the Examiner to pass you even though each approach he selects uses only one navaid. I spent some looking to see if I could get something specific on this and could not find anything.  I would admit that unless there is something specific that says you MUST use two navaids on an approach, then you have the better argument. Since I could not find anything, I think you are probably right.  Thanks for pointing this detail out.

In the old days, you could pass an IFR check in an airplane without DME or GPS or Loran or INS or RNAV or ADF.  All you needed was a single box with VOR, LOC and glideslope functionality, whose output could be displayed on a single VOR/LOC indicator with GS (ah, for the good old days - not!).  Even though in one box, the VOR and LOC receivers in the box were rightfully regarded as two different navaids (because they are).  That's not so with a GPS only box - it uses the same functionality for any NP GPS approach flown.  So, for the instrument checkride, you need a GPS and a LOC receiver.  Or a GPS and a VOR receiver.  Or a GPS and an ADF.  Or a plane with no GPS, equipped with a VOR and an ADF.  Or a VOR and a LOC.  Etc.  Some combination, however arrived at, that enables an Examiner to give you two NP approaches using different navaids using approaches available in the local area of the checkride.
Back to Top
Bob H View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie


Joined: 26 Jan 2018
Location: NH - KMHT
Status: Offline
Points: 58
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bob H Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jun 2018 at 10:01am
Originally posted by PA20Pacer PA20Pacer wrote:

It seems that the relevant language is : "The choices must use at least two different types of navigational aids." It does not say that each choice must use two different types of navigational aids. Is there some additional language that I am missing?
Probably dangerous, but I thought I'd jump back in here.  This whole discussion points out how ambiguous the regs can be if wording is not selected carefully.  "The choices must use..." could easily mean "Each choice must use...".  It just isn't definitive.  Stating: "...must use at least TWO different types of navigational aids..." is the problem.  Wouldn't it be simpler and clearer to simply state:  "The two choices must use different types of navigational aids."?  Also note that the requirement is for different TYPES of navaids, not just separate or different.
Bob
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.082 seconds.