IFR Checkride without ADF?
JD Smith
he does not have an ADF, DME, or GPS on board. The FAR states that NDB
instruction is required, and the PTS states that the only approachs that
do not have to be flown during the checkride are any with a DME if the
aircraft is not DME equipped. I did not find in the PTS that the
applicant will only be tested on the approaches that the aircraft is
equipped for. In this pilot's case he can only do VOR and ILS
approaches.
So, can he get away with not getting any instruction with and NDB
approach? And take the checkride without executing an NDB approach?
He can always rent a plane for NDB training and for the checkride. But
most owners prefer to not rent because they already have their money
tied up in the ownership.
I want to tell him that I personally would not fly IMC without either an
IFR approved GPS that has NDB overlay approaches or an ADF in the
aircraft. If something were to go wrong while in IMC and an immediate
landing is necessary he will not be able to get down to an airport that
has only an NDB approach, which is all most rural airports have. It is
completely unsafe and I think irresponsible (if even legal, which is a
gray area, I think). The FAR states something like "navigation radios
required for the approaches to be used". Planning an emergency approach
to a rural airport should always be done in case of a problem.
I would appreciate any experience you might have in this area and
opinions to the safety of flight without an ADF or IFR GPS.
Thanks,
JD Smith
CFII/ASEL
Ron Natalie
JD Smith wrote:
>
> I am a new CFII and have a possible student that owns his own plane, but
> he does not have an ADF, DME, or GPS on board. The FAR states that NDB
> instruction is required, and the PTS states that the only approachs that
> do not have to be flown during the checkride are any with a DME if the
> aircraft is not DME equipped. I did not find in the PTS that the
> applicant will only be tested on the approaches that the aircraft is
> equipped for. In this pilot's case he can only do VOR and ILS
> approaches.
The PTS requires that a precision and two non-precision approaches be flown
using different approach systems. This has been clarified to me that he
can do a VOR and an LOC for his two non-precision approaches.
> He can always rent a plane for NDB training and for the checkride. But
> most owners prefer to not rent because they already have their money
> tied up in the ownership.
Could also be done in a simulator (ground trainer actually).
> I want to tell him that I personally would not fly IMC without either an
> IFR approved GPS that has NDB overlay approaches or an ADF in the
> aircraft. If something were to go wrong while in IMC and an immediate
> landing is necessary he will not be able to get down to an airport that
> has only an NDB approach, which is all most rural airports have.
Depends on where you are in the country.
k...@ki-aikido.com
JD Smith <toys...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>In this pilot's case he can only do VOR and ILS
>approaches.
So he can do 2 non-precision approaches (VOR, LOC, LDA, ...) and 1
precision approach (ILS) as required.
>So, can he get away with not getting any instruction with and NDB
>approach? And take the checkride without executing an NDB approach?
He has to be able to answer NDB questions on the written or do well
enough without them :-). <He also has to have an examiner that
understands that the ADF is an antiquated piece of equipment that
needn't occupy his learning time if he's never going to fly with one
[Oops was that the outside voice again :-)]>.
>I want to tell him that I personally would not fly IMC without either an
>IFR approved GPS that has NDB overlay approaches or an ADF in the
>aircraft.
I don't think I've ever flown an airplane with a working ADF! I'd
support the idea of an IFR GPS and that's what'll be in my
"traveling" plane but I personally have never seen a circumstance
where an ADF approach was the only choice or even the best
choice. Your mileage may vary depending on where you are.
I'm firmly in the "get a GPS and let the NDB die" camp so I don't see
the point in wasting the time learning the ADF to the level necessary
to use one seriously and safely, I think the time is better spent
developing skills that are going to be used - That works for me since
I do intend to have and use "modern" instrumentation and I don't live in
Europe or anywhere else where NDBs are still maintained :-).
You may see the world differently but you did ask for opinions!
*************************************************************
* Kevin D. Jones (k...@ki-aikido.com) *
* The Ki Aikido Center *
* (510) 796-6754 *
* http://www.ki-aikido.com *
* DHC-1 N68031 *
*************************************************************
Michael
> I am a new CFII and have a possible student that owns his own plane, but
> he does not have an ADF, DME, or GPS on board.
No problem.
> The FAR states that NDB instruction is required
Which FAR? Chapter and verse please.
> and the PTS states that the only approachs that
> do not have to be flown during the checkride are any with a DME if the
> aircraft is not DME equipped.
Again, please quote chapter and verse, and make sure you are
using the current PTS.
> I did not find in the PTS that the
> applicant will only be tested on the approaches that the aircraft is
> equipped for. In this pilot's case he can only do VOR and ILS
> approaches.
He can also do localizer approaches.
> So, can he get away with not getting any instruction with and NDB
> approach? And take the checkride without executing an NDB approach?
Yes he can.
> He can always rent a plane for NDB training and for the checkride. But
> most owners prefer to not rent because they already have their money
> tied up in the ownership.
Quite right. Nor is there any need to, in this case.
> I want to tell him that I personally would not fly IMC without either an
> IFR approved GPS that has NDB overlay approaches or an ADF in the
> aircraft. If something were to go wrong while in IMC and an immediate
> landing is necessary he will not be able to get down to an airport that
> has only an NDB approach, which is all most rural airports have.
A VFR GPS is perfectly adequate for shooting an NDB approach in an
emergency. I consider that perfectly adequate for redundancy. If you are
so concerned about something going wrong in IMC and needting to get
down immediately, what are you doing flying single engine IMC?
> It is
> completely unsafe and I think irresponsible (if even legal, which is a
> gray area, I think).
Nonsense. There's no gray area. It's perfectly legal.
> The FAR states something like "navigation radios
> required for the approaches to be used". Planning an emergency approach
> to a rural airport should always be done in case of a problem.
And what kind of problem will allow you to actually land at a rural airport
if you have an ADF in the panel? Engine failure? Nope. Electrical
failure?
Nope. Maybe alternator failure or the failure of the Nav unit itself. Now,
what are the odds that your VFR GPS will also fail at the same time while
the IFR GPS won't?
> I would appreciate any experience you might have in this area and
> opinions to the safety of flight without an ADF or IFR GPS.
I took a checkride in an airplane that can only legally do VOR, ILS,
and LOC approaches. This is perfectly legal. Unlike most light singles,
my airplane can maintain com (via handheld radio/external antenna) and
nav (GPS) even in the event of a total electrical failure. I think the
addition of an ADF would have negligible safety benefit, though it
would give me more flexibility.
Basically, I think that when it comes to the legality of this, you are
misinformed at best. When it comes to evaluating the safety of this,
I don't think you've thought this through carefully.
IMC flying is a calculated risk, and available equipment strongly
affects the risk level. There are all sorts of options available to
reduce the risk, including weather avoidance, anti-ice, and redundant
engines, alternators/generators, batteries, contactors, navigation
systems, gyros, com radios, etc. Each of these involves a
cost/benefit analysis based on known and probable failure
modes and their consequences, as well as the utility of the device.
I can understand those who consider GPS a necessity for IFR
flight. While I don't think it's strictly speaking necessary, I think
that as cheap as it's gotten, it's silly not to have it. I can even
understand those who consider an IFR GPS necessary. I have
very little faith in the TSO process and doubt that there are
significant differences in the performance of, say, a GNS430
vs a GPSMAP 295, in actual conditions but not everyone will
agree. However, in the event of an emergency landing a
non-TSO'd VFR GPS is so much more useful than a
TSO'd ADF that the ADF might as well not be there.
Michael
Roy Smith
> However, in the event of an emergency landing a
> non-TSO'd VFR GPS is so much more useful than a
> TSO'd ADF that the ADF might as well not be there.
That's not true. The ADF will allow you to listen to the radio news reports
about you after you crash.
--
Roy Smith <r...@popmail.med.nyu.edu>
CP-ASEL-IA, CFI-ASE-IA
Eric W. Seelig
JD Smith wrote:
> I am a new CFII and have a possible student that owns his own plane, but
> he does not have an ADF, DME, or GPS on board. The FAR states that NDB
> instruction is required, and the PTS states that the only approachs that
> do not have to be flown during the checkride are any with a DME if the
> aircraft is not DME equipped. I did not find in the PTS that the
> applicant will only be tested on the approaches that the aircraft is
> equipped for. In this pilot's case he can only do VOR and ILS
> approaches.
And LOC/LOC Back-Course. He must do one precision (ILS) and two
non-precision (VOR, LOC, LOC/BC) approaches. Sounds like he can
take the test although he probably does need to get some NDB
training. This can be done in a couple of hours in a rental
(maybe when his plane is down for an annual) or as someone else
mentioned, in a simulator. The checkride need not be taken in
the rental, though.
> So, can he get away with not getting any instruction with and NDB
> approach? And take the checkride without executing an NDB approach?
Don't think he needs the ADF for the checkride. He should probably
(to be legal...no other reason I can think of) get the appropriate
NDB training.
JD: Well, Bob, now we've done a couple of hours of NDB
instruction and you've flown a half-dozen NDB approaches.
How do you feel?
Bob: I feel like I've really learned something, JD!
JD: Excellent Bob, what have you learned?
Bob: Well, I already knew that NDB was an antiquated technology
and was on its way out. Now I know WHY! It sucks! I can
see why many airlines prohibit NDB approaches!
> He can always rent a plane for NDB training and for the checkride. But
> most owners prefer to not rent because they already have their money
> tied up in the ownership.
Maybe for the training, but no need for the checkride! Look up some
past posts here...I seem to recall at least one person taking his
checkride in a plane with no ADF. St. Stephen, perhaps? Was that
the thread about flying IFR in a plane with only a single VOR?
> I want to tell him that I personally would not fly IMC without either an
> IFR approved GPS that has NDB overlay approaches or an ADF in the
> aircraft. If something were to go wrong while in IMC and an immediate
> landing is necessary he will not be able to get down to an airport that
> has only an NDB approach, which is all most rural airports have.
Bah! In IMC I'd much rather have a handheld GPS (no need for it to be
IFR cert) than the ADF. It's FAR better for situational awareness, and
in an emergency (say loss of electrical power) the handheld and its
batteries will allow me to fly any NDB approach I want with FAR more
accuracy than the ADF could (even if it were still working when the
lights went out!) And if you're worried about the legality, then note
that this would certainly qualify as an emergency.
> It is
> completely unsafe and I think irresponsible (if even legal, which is a
> gray area, I think). The FAR states something like "navigation radios
> required for the approaches to be used". Planning an emergency approach
> to a rural airport should always be done in case of a problem.
My emergency approach to that rural airport would be done with a
handheld. More accurate than NDB, easier to interpret than NDB, and
it has an obstruction database, so in a real pinch, I could probably
get into an airport with NO instrument approaches.
> I would appreciate any experience you might have in this area and
> opinions to the safety of flight without an ADF or IFR GPS.
You've got it! While IFR GPS would be nice, I tend to think a handheld
is far better for situational awareness and safety than an ADF could
possibly be.
I agree with Kevin...down with NDB!
Eric
JD Smith
Some good points were brought to my attention, and some clarifications.
I see the LOC basically the same approach as a VOR, so when I read "three
different kinds of approaches" (61.65(d)) I think that an NDB approach
should be used.
When I read "navigational equipment appropriate to the facilities to be
used" (91.205(d)) I see every airport with an NDB approach along my route as
a possible landing point. Maybe some emergencies would not allow you to
land at an airport, but others still would give you that opportunity. What
if you have low IFR at your destination and you need to divert because IMC
is below your personal minimums? Another airport that still has IMC but not
below your minimums could be used, but what if it only has an NDB approach?
Without the NDB or IFR GPS you are stuck. I do a lot of flying over
sparsely populated areas in West Texas and Oklahoma, so there are a lot of
little airports that only have an NDB approach.
I have no problem with single engine IFR, but think the aircraft should have
enough of the right equipment to provide several alternatives if your
planned flight goes bad. A backup handheld GPS is a wonderful tool, but can
not be effectively used to shoot an NDB approach.
I also agree that NDBs are a dinosaur and will/should be replaced by GPS,
and it would be silly to purchase an ADF. But, until the price of IFR GPS
comes down ($8-12K is still a lot to me) I think that picking up a used
(working) ADF would be a good investment.
In some cases I have made some assumptions based on my cautious attitude
about instrument flight.
Perhaps "legality" was the wrong word to use in the scenario I brought up.
"Smart" would have been better. Always plan an out.
Again, thanks for everybody's feedback.
JD
JD Smith wrote:
> I am a new CFII and have a possible student that owns his own plane, but
> he does not have an ADF, DME, or GPS on board. The FAR states that NDB
> instruction is required, and the PTS states that the only approachs that
> do not have to be flown during the checkride are any with a DME if the
> aircraft is not DME equipped. I did not find in the PTS that the
> applicant will only be tested on the approaches that the aircraft is
> equipped for. In this pilot's case he can only do VOR and ILS
> approaches.
>
> So, can he get away with not getting any instruction with and NDB
> approach? And take the checkride without executing an NDB approach?
>
> He can always rent a plane for NDB training and for the checkride. But
> most owners prefer to not rent because they already have their money
> tied up in the ownership.
>
> I want to tell him that I personally would not fly IMC without either an
> IFR approved GPS that has NDB overlay approaches or an ADF in the
> aircraft. If something were to go wrong while in IMC and an immediate
> landing is necessary he will not be able to get down to an airport that
> has only an NDB approach, which is all most rural airports have. It is
> completely unsafe and I think irresponsible (if even legal, which is a
> gray area, I think). The FAR states something like "navigation radios
> required for the approaches to be used". Planning an emergency approach
> to a rural airport should always be done in case of a problem.
>
> I would appreciate any experience you might have in this area and
> opinions to the safety of flight without an ADF or IFR GPS.
>
> Thanks,
> JD Smith
> CFII/ASEL
Eric W. Seelig
Roy Smith wrote:
> That's not true. The ADF will allow you to listen to the radio news reports
> about you after you crash.
ROTFLMAO!
Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU!
I REALLY needed that.
Eric
Michael
> A backup handheld GPS is a wonderful tool, but can
> not be effectively used to shoot an NDB approach.
Have you ever tried? I find that it's actually easier (and
more accurate) than using most ADF's.
Michael
David Gerstl
"Eric W. Seelig" wrote:
>
> Maybe for the training, but no need for the checkride! Look up some
> past posts here...I seem to recall at least one person taking his
> checkride in a plane with no ADF. St. Stephen, perhaps? Was that
> the thread about flying IFR in a plane with only a single VOR?
>
Be aware that DEs can (and do) ask you to describe how to do something
the plane is not equipt for. I know someone that blew an instrument ride
in a plane without a DME when the DE asked him to describe the steps
involved in flying a DME arc. He thus should get some sim time to get
used to the %%*%#)$%*#$ ADF =-}
dave
JD Smith
I have not, another assumption being made. You know what they say about
assumptions :)
Could you describe to me how I could do this? It would be helpful to me
and to my students for another backup.
Thanks,
JD
Tom Armour
news:399308B2...@nwu.edu...
> I agree with Kevin...down with NDB!
A somewhat more sympathetic viewpoint (and fairly instructive article)
appeared in AOPA's magazine a while ago. It is here (members only):
http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/2000/needles0004.html
-Tom
Ron Rapp
wrote:
>In this pilot's case he can only do VOR and ILS
>approaches.
Not true. He can do ILS, VOR, LOC, LDA, and BC approaches, I don't
think there's anything irresponsible about flying IFR with that
instrumentation. I'd have him rent a plane a couple of times just so
he can get the instruction and practice on NDB approaches, holds, etc.
Ron Rapp PP-ASEL/ASES/IA
N6594M (C182P), N7366W (PA28)
rm...@my-deja.com
A PAR is a precision approach. Demo a ASR (surveillance approach)
and one other non-pre and you've got it done!!
(BTW: My DE wanted to make sure I had a ADF before the checkride,
he had me hold and shot on it).
In article <3992F5BF...@sensor.com>,
Ron Natalie <r...@sensor.com> wrote:
>
>
> JD Smith wrote:
> >
> > I am a new CFII and have a possible student that owns his own plane,
but
> > he does not have an ADF, DME, or GPS on board. The FAR states that
NDB
> > instruction is required, and the PTS states that the only approachs
that
> > do not have to be flown during the checkride are any with a DME if
the
> > aircraft is not DME equipped. I did not find in the PTS that the
> > applicant will only be tested on the approaches that the aircraft is
> > equipped for. In this pilot's case he can only do VOR and ILS
> > approaches.
>
> The PTS requires that a precision and two non-precision approaches be
flown
> using different approach systems. This has been clarified to me that
he
> can do a VOR and an LOC for his two non-precision approaches.
>
> > He can always rent a plane for NDB training and for the checkride.
But
> > most owners prefer to not rent because they already have their money
> > tied up in the ownership.
>
> Could also be done in a simulator (ground trainer actually).
>
> > I want to tell him that I personally would not fly IMC without
either an
> > IFR approved GPS that has NDB overlay approaches or an ADF in the
> > aircraft. If something were to go wrong while in IMC and an
immediate
> > landing is necessary he will not be able to get down to an airport
that
> > has only an NDB approach, which is all most rural airports have.
>
> Depends on where you are in the country.
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Larry Fransson
>
> I wonder if you even need a glide slope.
> A PAR is a precision approach. Demo a ASR (surveillance approach)
> and one other non-pre and you've got it done!!
Practical considerations aside, I don't think that would fly. ASR/PAR
are not considered to be navigation systems.
Larry
Dan Luke
>... A backup handheld GPS is a wonderful tool, but can
> not be effectively used to shoot an NDB approach.
Huh? It's actually much easier than using the ADF. Keep track=bearing and
the wind correction is done for you.
Dan
N9387D at BFM
macho...@nosoup4u.net
wrote:
>
>
>JD Smith wrote:
>>
>> I am a new CFII and have a possible student that owns his own plane, but
>> he does not have an ADF, DME, or GPS on board. The FAR states that NDB
>> instruction is required,
I do not believe this is now the case.
macho...@nosoup4u.net
>JD Smith <jsm...@metro-optix.com> wrote
>> A backup handheld GPS is a wonderful tool, but can
>> not be effectively used to shoot an NDB approach.
>
>Have you ever tried? I find that it's actually easier (and
>more accurate) than using most ADF's.
>
>Michael
>
Without a doubt.
>
>
>
>
>
Michael
> I have not, another assumption being made. You know what they say about
> assumptions :)
Yup...
> Could you describe to me how I could do this? It would be helpful to me
> and to my students for another backup.
You bet. Always glad to help.
Every GPS will be able to, as a minimum, give you bearing and
distance to a waypoint and your heading (really track) and
groundspeed. That's all you need.
If you have a non-aviation unit, you will need to punch in the
latitude and longitude of the NDB as a waypoint. Be
careful when you do it (doing it in flight in IMC while trying to fly
is not recommended). Select the waypoing and use the GOTO
function (I think every GPS has one).
Now you have a distance, bearing to the station, and your heading
and groundspeed. Remember that the heading and grounspeed
will lag, but the bearing and distance are correct (this is true of
any GPS) so DON'T try to use the HSI/RMI type display available
on most GPS units - use the number and your DG (or compass).
I'll use the NDB approach charted for my home field (EYQ) as
an example. If you don't have a plate, it's an on-field NDB with
the final approach course on the 025 bearing TO the NDB. Of
course this means the outbound course is 205.
Fly to the NDB, and when you reach it turn to the outbound
course (205), correct for crosswind as appropriate. Check your
bearing number. Ideally it should be 025. Of course it won't be.
if it's higher (say 035) you are to the right of course. Correct
left. And of course just the opposite if it's lower.
After a couple of minutes, you should be on your bearing, with a
crosswind correction dialed in, and about 2-4 nm from the beacon.
At 5nm from the beacon, perform your procedure turn normally.
EYQ procedure turn is to the left, heading 160.
Once you are procedure turn inbound, watch the bearing. It
will start out being lower than 025 (maybe as low as 005 or
even 355) and as you get closer to the final approach course
it will get closer. Don't wait for it to be 025 - lead your turn
by about 10 degrees (start turning at 015).
You are now established, so start your descent to the MDA.
If your heading drifts to a higher value (030) you are to the left
of course, so correct to the right. If it drifts to a lower value,
you are to the right of course so correct to the left.
Just keep the number on your bearing to the station and watch
your distance. If you don't see the airport by the time you
pass the station, go missed.
IMPORTANT NOTE:
Every GPS out there has some sort of signal integrity monitoring.
A certified GPS will have RAIM, but that merely means the signal
integrity monitoring was done to FAA specifications, which mostly
add cost, not value. Whatever method a GPS uses, it will have a
way of alerting you that signal integrity is lost. On the expensive
Garmin 295, it's an announcement on the screen. On the cheap
non-aviation Magellan 90, it's a little sign that says TRACKING
that disappers. Whatever it is, make sure you know it and watch
it. If signal integrity is lost, climb like a bat out of hell.
If you need any more explanation, just let me know. If you want
a demo, I'm based out of EYQ.
Michael
>
> Thanks,
> JD
Antonio Aponte
Michael wrote:
>Remember that the heading and grounspeed
> will lag, but the bearing and distance are correct (this is true of
> any GPS) so DON'T try to use the HSI/RMI type display available
> on most GPS units - use the number and your DG (or compass).
>
What do you mean that the heading and groundspeed will lag? My cheepo
handheld GPS (Garmin 12XL) updates every 1 sec. Is that too much lag? I
was following you til you said this. Would you clarify this for me
please?
Also, wouldn't it be much simpler to just use the track feature and
simply draw a nice oval around the NDB?
Antonio
KOTV Weather Center
> So, can he get away with not getting any instruction with and NDB
> approach? And take the checkride without executing an NDB approach?
JD,
My IFR checkride was ILS, VOR and LOC approach, with one (LOC) partial
panel.
My DE said we had to do one precision and two non-precision and let me
choose the approaches I wanted to shoot.
James Aydelott
PP-ASEL-IA
meteorologist
KOTV, Tulsa, OK
Ron Natalie
rm...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> I wonder if you even need a glide slope.
> A PAR is a precision approach. Demo a ASR (surveillance approach)
> and one other non-pre and you've got it done!!
>
Damn hard to find PAR approaches most places these days. Even the few
military fields around sometimes are a bit cranky about giving them of
late.
Ron Natalie
Larry Fransson wrote:
>
> rm...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > I wonder if you even need a glide slope.
> > A PAR is a precision approach. Demo a ASR (surveillance approach)
> > and one other non-pre and you've got it done!!
>
> Practical considerations aside, I don't think that would fly. ASR/PAR
> are not considered to be navigation systems.
>
Radar is not a navigation system?
Michael
> >Remember that the heading and grounspeed
> > will lag, but the bearing and distance are correct (this is true of
> > any GPS) so DON'T try to use the HSI/RMI type display available
> > on most GPS units - use the number and your DG (or compass).
> >
> What do you mean that the heading and groundspeed will lag? My cheepo
> handheld GPS (Garmin 12XL) updates every 1 sec. Is that too much lag? I
> was following you til you said this. Would you clarify this for me
> please?
Sure. Your GPS figures out your 'heading' (remember - it's not really a
heading - it's a track) based on the idea that you are going in a straight
line. But you're in a standard rate turn. Sure your position will update
every second - but the deading and groundspeed you are showing will
be based on not only the current update but also several older ones.
See, the GPS is a position device. When you have it set up to go to a
waypoint, it's giving you a position vector to that waypoint - distance
and bearing (ignore the fact that we're really in threespace for now).
Your speed and heading (or track) give you a velocity vector. The
velocity vector is the first derivative of the position vector. But your
only method to calculate the velocity vector is to numerically differentiate
the position vector. And that means you have to use at least two points -
more if you want any kind of stability.
So what all that physics/math mumbo-jumbo means is that if you try
to use the needle on the RMI/HSI display of the GPS, you'll turn
to the wrong heading for sure.
Once you are established on course flying a straight line, it will work
fine, which is why lots of people who use them for VFR don't realize
the problem.
> Also, wouldn't it be much simpler to just use the track feature and
> simply draw a nice oval around the NDB?
I don't understand what you mean.
Michael
Ron Natalie
Michael wrote:
>
>
> Sure. Your GPS figures out your 'heading' (remember - it's not really a
> heading - it's a track) based on the idea that you are going in a straight
> line. But you're in a standard rate turn. Sure your position will update
> every second - but the deading and groundspeed you are showing will
> be based on not only the current update but also several older ones.
My 195 certainly updates the track fast enough that you can roll out of
turns based solely on it's update. If it has averaging, it doesn't have
much time history. A standard rate turn is only 3 degrees a second.
>
> So what all that physics/math mumbo-jumbo means is that if you try
> to use the needle on the RMI/HSI display of the GPS, you'll turn
> to the wrong heading for sure.
Not my experience.
Dan Luke
>.....Remember that the heading and grounspeed
> will lag, but the bearing and distance are correct (this is true of
> any GPS) so DON'T try to use the HSI/RMI type display available
> on most GPS units - use the number and your DG (or compass).
Huh????? If you shouldn't, why are there GPS overlays for NDB approaches?
Don't know how your GPS works, but I use my KLN90B for just about all
non-precision approaches. It drives a real CDI that works just like the
synthetic HSI on my Garmin 295. No lag problems with either one, and they
will nail the approach every time.
> ...I'm based out of EYQ.
Please say "hi" to Dave Montgomery for me.
Dan
N9387D at BFM
Michael
> >.....Remember that the heading and grounspeed
> > will lag, but the bearing and distance are correct (this is true of
> > any GPS) so DON'T try to use the HSI/RMI type display available
> > on most GPS units - use the number and your DG (or compass).
>
> Huh????? If you shouldn't, why are there GPS overlays for NDB approaches?
> Don't know how your GPS works, but I use my KLN90B for just about all
> non-precision approaches. It drives a real CDI that works just like the
> synthetic HSI on my Garmin 295.
Umm, no. An externally driven CDI doesn't work like the synthetic HSI on
your 295 (though I'll admit my warning came from using a cheap $100 GPS,
not a 295 - haven't tried that yet with the 295, it might update faster).
There's nothing wrong with using an external CDI on a GPS, or an internal
one for that matter (you can set some of them up to use cross-track error
from a selected course to drive an internal CDI), or using the GPS to
drive an HSI. All those things use the GPS as a souce of position data.
The main problem with the 'HSI' on your 295 is that it's not using heading
data from a compass or gyro - it's using track data. So if you are turning,
the heading lags. The slower you turn, the less it lags - and maybe the
295 is fast enough that the lag is not noticeable - but when I tried to use
the Magellan RMI display on the '90, it lagged too badly in turns to be
usable. Worked fine in staright and level flight, though.
Michael
Dan Luke
> Umm, no. An externally driven CDI doesn't work like the synthetic HSI on
> your 295
Other than mechanically, how is it different? That is, how is the
information you get from the mechanical display different from what you see
on the 295? They always seem to agree exactly when I'm flying.
I may have misunderstood you here. Are you saying one should not use the GPS
track pointer as if it were a gyro HI? If you are, I see the sense of your
point, but have not had any problem using the 295 HSI to fly full procedure
approaches. I will admit though, that the gyro HI is better on a localizer
approach when you get close to the transmitter.
Dan
N9387D at BFM
Jack
When is the last time you shot a PAR? Where is the closest
facility to you that offers them?
They were rare years ago. I can't remember the last time I
did one. I think you'd be lucky to find a controller
proficient in the provision of an ASR to useful minimums,
let alone PAR.
Some major Airlines' Ops Specs no longer include them.
--
Jack
MAIL: < mailto:bar...@earthlink.net >
HOME: < http://home.earthlink.net/~baron58/index.html >
Antonio Aponte
Michael wrote:
>
>
> So what all that physics/math mumbo-jumbo means is that if you try
> to use the needle on the RMI/HSI display of the GPS, you'll turn
> to the wrong heading for sure.
Ok, so accepting for the moment that the GPS does not give me the
information as current or in the same way as the compass, DG, or HSI, is
the error something that would amount to anything significant?
>
> > Also, wouldn't it be much simpler to just use the track feature and
> > simply draw a nice oval around the NDB?
>
> I don't understand what you mean.
Sorry....I mistook the thread subject for "NDB holds" instead of "NDB
approaches" when we started on this standard-rate turn thingy. I was
referring to the feature of a GPS that lays down the breadcrum track on
the display so that, when flying a holding pattern, you can simply fly
perfectly over the track again and again...
Thanks!
Antonio
>
> Michael
Rob Luce
Well, not to stick my nose in, but....
There are a couple generalizations in this thread.
GPS Lag rule #1: All GPS's Lag.
GPS Lag rule #2: Not all GPS's lag equally.
GPS Lag rule #3: For the most part, lag on a GPS doesn't mean much.
Rule 1 should be simple enough for everyone to understand. GPS's know
where they are, and where they've been. So they use this information
to extract out the information we see on the screen. The GPS
basically know information like, I am currently at X Lat, Y Long, and
Z MSL, 1 second ago I was at X-88ft, Y Long, and Z-10ft, 2 seconds ago
I was at X-176ft, Y long, and Z-20ft. Given this information, I must
be going West @ 60smph, and climbing at 600 fpm. Seems simple. I
believe most GPS's use a multisecond sample due to jitter (real or
SA).
Rule 2 is based around what the GPS is normally used for, and when it
was produced. A hiking GPS uses a different sample history and
algorithm than a aviation GPS. Most aviation GPS's are concerned with
update speed, so they will normally be around a little less than 2
seconds behind you. A hiking GPS normally has to deal with smaller
deltas, and smaller accuracy requirements. So, more averaging is
done, if the GPS is in motion.
The second part of Rule 2 is Selective Availability. That's right, SA
isn't in effect any longer, but most GPS's don't know this. Take a
typical hiker's GPS that was made last year. If you stood still in
one spot, the GPS might still read that you are moving, due to the
degradation in the signal timing. So, most of these GPS's applied
averages in an attempt to "smooth out" SA errors. This caused lag,
but made it look like the GPS signal wasn't jumping around. I
wouldn't be surprised if some of the older hand helds were a half
dozen seconds behind in a fast moving vehicle.
Rule 3, even if your in-panel or handheld GPS lags a few seconds, it
doesn't mean much as far as aviation goes. I've flown several
different hand helds (including the 295, which I own), and my in panel
135A. Normally when you come to the end of a turn, you start to level
out, decreasing the rate of the turn. While the GPS still stays
around 2 seconds behind me, the rate of change continues to decrease
until the 2 second lag no longer matters
How it works, to my knowledge.
Rob Luce | http://home.att.net/~rdluce/plane.html
PP-ASEL, IR wannabe |
172G N3747L @ C52 |
DG_pilot
ADF to shoot NDB approaches (in VMC of course). My CFII has an
ADF for the plane, he just hasn't put it in yet.
I wonder how different it will be to actually use the ADF rather
than the GPS.
Dustin Graves
PPL-ASEL; IR student
Fairfax, MO
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
Stan Prevost
GPS. Fly over the navaid, follow a ground track. No sweat. Flying an NDB
approach with ADF is a LOT different in wind and turbulence, especially
outbound from the NDB. At least outbound is more confusing for me.
You can simulate it with the GPS. Set direct to NDB, cover up everything
except the bearing number. Fly that. Set the GPS for bearing to/from as
appropriate, if your unit will allow that.
Stan
DG_pilot <fhsdusti...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:1e15ff24...@usw-ex0106-046.remarq.com...
DG_pilot
be fun, but I could be wrong. ;-)
Plus, I get sick of all those cords in there. ;-) I can just see
the report now: "Pilot crashed plane due to avionics
strangulation".
Randall Becker
news:1e15ff24...@usw-ex0106-046.remarq.com...
> Throughout all my IR training we have used a GPS in place of an
> ADF to shoot NDB approaches (in VMC of course). My CFII has an
> ADF for the plane, he just hasn't put it in yet.
>
> I wonder how different it will be to actually use the ADF rather
> than the GPS.
Unless they've programmed into the GPS things like "Twilight error",
"Positioning error", "Forgetting about the truck obstructing the antenna
error", etc., it's going to be a whole bloody lot different. :-)
C J Campbell
demonstrate familiarity with the navigation aids with which the aircraft is
equipped. This was supposed to be part of the phase-out of NDBs. If you take
the check ride with an IFR certified GPS, the examiner is entirely within
his rights to ask you to demonstrate a GPS approach. If you have no ADF, he
can't ask you to fly an NDB approach. He could probably ask you about these
items on the oral portion, however.
I have to really wonder whether an ADF is really that much of a safety
asset. Most NDB approaches have minimums that are close to VFR conditions
anyway. At best, they might get you through a thin layer of clouds.
Some people mentioned the Garmin 195 and 295. These handheld units actually
draw the approach course on the screen and give you vectors on the HSI
depiction to that course. You could easily follow an NDB approach with one
of these units, but it would be nothing like flying an NDB approach,
especially flying an NDB approach with nothing but a fixed card ADF. It is
more like flying a VOR approach with an HSI -- and you can even select how
sensitive it is. None of this pushing the ADF needle around as you turn to
final or the usual wandering of the needle 20 or 30 degrees this way and
that. And if you are going to simulate an NDB approach with a GPS, be sure
to have the instructor continually beep the identifier to simulate
monitoring the signal. To make it more realistic, the instructor should use
an annoying, nasally tone of voice.
"JD Smith" <jsm...@metro-optix.com> wrote in message
news:3992F1F2...@metro-optix.com...
| I am a new CFII and have a possible student that owns his own plane, but
| he does not have an ADF, DME, or GPS on board. The FAR states that NDB
| instruction is required, and the PTS states that the only approachs that
| do not have to be flown during the checkride are any with a DME if the
| aircraft is not DME equipped. I did not find in the PTS that the
| applicant will only be tested on the approaches that the aircraft is
| equipped for. In this pilot's case he can only do VOR and ILS
| approaches.
|
| So, can he get away with not getting any instruction with and NDB
| approach? And take the checkride without executing an NDB approach?
|
| He can always rent a plane for NDB training and for the checkride. But
| most owners prefer to not rent because they already have their money
| tied up in the ownership.
|
| I want to tell him that I personally would not fly IMC without either an
| IFR approved GPS that has NDB overlay approaches or an ADF in the
| aircraft. If something were to go wrong while in IMC and an immediate
| landing is necessary he will not be able to get down to an airport that
| has only an NDB approach, which is all most rural airports have. It is
| completely unsafe and I think irresponsible (if even legal, which is a
| gray area, I think). The FAR states something like "navigation radios
| required for the approaches to be used". Planning an emergency approach
| to a rural airport should always be done in case of a problem.
|
| I would appreciate any experience you might have in this area and
| opinions to the safety of flight without an ADF or IFR GPS.
|
| Thanks,
| JD Smith
| CFII/ASEL
|
Antonio Aponte
Antonio
rm...@my-deja.com
* wrote:
> Larry Fransson wrote:
>
> > rm...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > > A PAR is a precision approach. Demo a ASR (surveillance approach)
> > > and one other non-pre and you've got it done!!
> >
> > Practical considerations aside, I don't think that would fly.
ASR/PAR
> > are not considered to be navigation systems.
>
> When is the last time you shot a PAR? Where is the closest
> facility to you that offers them?
>
> They were rare years ago. I can't remember the last time I
> did one. I think you'd be lucky to find a controller
> proficient in the provision of an ASR to useful minimums,
> let alone PAR.
The military must still use them because their controllers seem
to do a good job of giving them. The military liked the PAR
approach because it's too easy for the enemy to screw with an
ILS and take out a squadron. Perhaps with GPS the story is different
nowadays.
BTW: The AirForce controllers seems to enjoy giving PAR approaches.
Perhaps they don't get to do it often. They will often grant
a 172 to even do a touch and go afterward (just don't stop unless
you can run from the MPs!!)
Michael
> I may have misunderstood you here. Are you saying one should not use the
GPS
> track pointer as if it were a gyro HI?
Yeah, basically. It's perfectly OK to use the portion of the HSI that gives
you
deviation from the final approach course.
Michael
Michael
> Throughout all my IR training we have used a GPS in place of an
> ADF to shoot NDB approaches (in VMC of course). My CFII has an
> ADF for the plane, he just hasn't put it in yet.
> I wonder how different it will be to actually use the ADF rather
> than the GPS.
My experience was that the old guys who talk about how it takes
a real man to fly an ADF approach are full of it.
I rented a Cherokee 180 with a working ADF in the middle of my
instrument training. My checkout consisted of taking off from
Sugarland, going under the hood (at night), tracking the NDB to
West Houston (about 10 miles away), and then shooting the
NDB-A into Weiser (about 8 miles away). Previously I had
done the approach using my handheld GPS. It was a no-brainer -
the ADF wasn't really any harder to fly (and yes, there was a
crosswind and some turbulence) but the lack of distance
information forced me to be more aware of time (i.e. increased
the cockpit workload).
Michael
Ron Natalie
rm...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> The military must still use them because their controllers seem
> to do a good job of giving them. The military liked the PAR
> approach because it's too easy for the enemy to screw with an
> ILS and take out a squadron. Perhaps with GPS the story is different
> nowadays.
Of course it's been shown that if the enemy takes out the ILS, the
AF can't fly an NDB approach either.
rm...@my-deja.com
Piper News Reader
> Ron Natalie <r...@sensor.com> wrote:
> > rm...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >
> > > The military must still use them because their controllers seem
> > > to do a good job of giving them. The military liked the PAR
> > > approach because it's too easy for the enemy to screw with an
> > > ILS and take out a squadron. Perhaps with GPS the story is different
> > > nowadays.
> >
> > Of course it's been shown that if the enemy takes out the ILS, the
> > AF can't fly an NDB approach either.
>
> Again, none of this prevents a PAR approach.
>
That depends on the radius of the damage, yes? Where was the radar/controllers?
Also, if the ILS is out due to hostile action is that a runway (or airport)
one would want to approach, let alone land at?
Phil T
-----------------------------
N9312P PA24-260C
Jack
> > I think you'd be lucky to find a controller
> > proficient in the provision of an ASR to useful minimums,
> > let alone PAR.
>
> The military must still use them because their controllers seem
> to do a good job of giving them.
I'm sure they do, as they always did for me, but as I said, how many of us live
within workable distance of a military facility which offers ASR/PAR approaches?
The number continues to dwindle.
If you get the chance to practice them, by all means do so. But when it comes to
doing a check ride and using one for a required IFR approach, the possibilities
are very slim.
C J Campbell
such a contingency. As a navigator, I would paint the proposed landing field
(not necessarily a runway) with my weather/navigation radar and direct the
pilot as in an ASR approach -- Turn left ... stop turn, etc. There were
standardized minimums we used to use, but I can't remember them. Some
military runways had metal reflectors at the end of the runways to make the
ARA easier, but they weren't really necessary. I did ARA approaches to a
dirt strip located in the middle of a pineapple field with no difficulty. If
you wanted to really make the field visible in an emergency you could just
park a truck at the end of the runway. I wonder if the military still does
these?
"Piper News Reader" <p-h-...@i-e-e-e.o-r-g> wrote in message
news:39989...@data.wt.net...
| <rm...@my-deja.com> wrote
| > Ron Natalie <r...@sensor.com> wrote:
| > > rm...@my-deja.com wrote:
| > > >
| > > > The military must still use them because their controllers seem
BARR DOUG
should be able to clear this up, and after all, he is the guy who will
be signing off.