Checkride Trickery..

[jtrain609]

So what you are saying is that without GPS, your average instrument pilot cannot proceed direct to an ICAO fix?

That is really, really sad.

To me, that is a basic skill, just as important as being able to hold or fly a non-precision approach.

That's exactly what I'm saying, and I think where a lot of confusion has been in this discussion. The only reason I'm not sitting here wondering WTF you're talking about is because a ground school instructor once showed us how they used to go direct, like 20 years ago. Now? It's out of the question. It's not taught, I doubt it's in the AIM, and I'm not sure the FAA would even sanction the idea. Heck I'll bet most the kids that have been flying less than 20 years in this discussion are saying, "Fix to fix...with a GPS? No GPS? How? What do you mean?"

I know it's certainly possible, but I also know it's not done anymore.

 

[aloft]

"I used to do this in ONT weekly off the Mission VOR..."

Secondly, there is no Mission VOR in SoCal.

Uh...there's a Mission Bay VOR in San Diego...MZB.

 

[TFaudree_ERAU]

To me, that is a basic skill, just as important as being able to hold or fly a non-precision approach.

Why is it sad that a civilian pilot can't fly fix-to-fix? I think it takes just as much knowledge of "the system" to be able to flight plan a route so that the enroute portion terminates at an IAF to the destination. The ability to do such a thing not only negates the need to fly fix-to-fix, but also proves a true understanding of IFR. To me, IFR means "what do I do when the comms crap out?"

You hear it all the time. The freight dawgs in the old steam gauged 727s and Diesel 9s heading out late at night, and departure tells them to proceed direct to a fix. The next transmission is "unable, negative RNAV", followed by the controller saying "oh yeah, I forgot" and then issuing a heading to intercept an outbound radial that leads to the fix. If you're saying that it is sad that a 15,000 hour 727 captain can't fly direct to a fix, then I don't know what to say.

As for merit's scenario, I would say turn to intercept the desired radial at a 90* angle. If you are on the 085 outbound and are instructed to turn to intercept the 040 inbound, then the examiner wanted the applicant to turn left to heading 310 to intercept.

 

[Hacker15e]

My lesson learned here is that I have a narrow perspective because of the airplanes I've been flying the last 10 years.

Every aircraft has had a TACAN/VOR as the primary radio NAVAID and been HSI equipped. Most of them have also had INS or EGI (which is a non-approach capable GPS system) as the primary self-contained navigation system.

The radio NAVAID fix-to-fix has been part of the primary bread and butter of instrument flying for guys in my circles. It is taught in basic training, and is performed on every annual checkride and on every evaluated simulator (even in aircraft where there is an INS or EGI available to help you get directly to an ICAO point). Controllers at the military bases I've been flying in and out of frequently give instructions to "procced direct to EEGUL and hold as published....", and the pilots all have no issue getting there since it is a basic skill.

The idea of finding a fix by going to the radial, then turning to ride the radial to the DME fix is, in my circles, percieved as totally amateur and a laughable way to fly instruments.

So much for JTtrain's assertion that some of us have spent too much time flying GPS and in a radar environment. Guess it's the other way around for me...I've been flying with the dinosaurs for years and didn't even know it. In fact, I've never flown a GPS approach in my life!

 

[Hacker15e]

...be able to flight plan a route so that the enroute portion terminates at an IAF to the destination. The ability to do such a thing not only negates the need to fly fix-to-fix, but also proves a true understanding of IFR. To me, IFR means "what do I do when the comms crap out?"

What?

Not every IAF sits at the end of an airway. If you are comm out, the way that you find an IAF like that is...ta-da...a fix-to-fix.

The ability to file to an IAF proves a true understanding of IFR? You lost me there completely.

What to do when comm craps out? Simple...squawk appropriately, then fly Assigned, Vectored, Expected, Filed. When you get to the IAF, fly the approach.

 

[KLB]

My lesson learned here is that I have a narrow perspective because of the airplanes I've been flying the last 10 years.

Every aircraft has had a TACAN/VOR as the primary radio NAVAID and been HSI equipped. Most of them have also had INS or EGI (which is a non-approach capable GPS system) as the primary self-contained navigation system.

The radio NAVAID fix-to-fix has been part of the primary bread and butter of instrument flying for guys in my circles. It is taught in basic training, and is performed on every annual checkride and on every evaluated simulator (even in aircraft where there is an INS or EGI available to help you get directly to an ICAO point). Controllers at the military bases I've been flying in and out of frequently give instructions to "procced direct to EEGUL and hold as published....", and the pilots all have no issue getting there since it is a basic skill.

The idea of finding a fix by going to the radial, then turning to ride the radial to the DME fix is, in my circles, percieved as totally amateur and a laughable way to fly instruments.

So much for JTtrain's assertion that some of us have spent too much time flying GPS and in a radar environment. Guess it's the other way around for me...I've been flying with the dinosaurs for years and didn't even know it. In fact, I've never flown a GPS approach in my life!

Another something to look at is that all GA aircraft are not equipped as well as you may think. Try going direct to a fix with nothing but maybe to VOR recievers and no DME. Things get a little tougher that way.

 

[aloft]

My lesson learned here is that I have a narrow perspective because of the airplanes I've been flying the last 10 years.

Every aircraft has had a TACAN/VOR as the primary radio NAVAID and been HSI equipped. Most of them have also had INS or EGI (which is a non-approach capable GPS system) as the primary self-contained navigation system.

In reading the 11-217 description, it seems both an HSI and RMI (or an HSI with an integral bearing pointer, as many military HSIs seem to have, along with a TACAN DME readout) are required for fix-to-fix nav, so the overwhelmingly vast majority of light general aviation aircraft aren't even equipped for it.

 

[TFaudree_ERAU]

What?

Not every IAF sits at the end of an airway. If you are comm out, the way that you find an IAF like that is...ta-da...a fix-to-fix.

Not if you're a civilian and, like JTrain said, that method hasn't been taught in 20 years.

The ability to file to an IAF proves a true understanding of IFR? You lost me there completely.

With the exception of the major airports where radar vectors is a way of life, pretty much every (smaller) airport that has an instrument approach has an IAF that somehow ties into the airway system. Why? Because radar coverage can't be guaranteed. Taking that into consideration, in my opinion, it shows good planning, judgment, and understanding when the pilot can plan a route that allows a "continuous" route from takeoff to touchdown; flying an ODP or SID (if applicable), remaining on airway until crossing a fix that is mutual with an airway (or STAR, if applicable) and the instrument approach, and then completing the approach. Basically, the idea is to always have at least one CDI needle centered on a published course. Unfortunately, it is not always possible with the complex airspace in the US, but its a damn near necessity when flying outside of the country, as I have recently learned by doing a lot of trips to the Bahamas and one to Aruba.

If you look at charts for Latin and South America, you'll notice that in most cases the STARS and/or airways all terminate at or include an IAF to all of the approaches at any given airport. Being able to determine that and file a flight plan accordingly says a lot to me.

 

[Hacker15e]

it shows good planning, judgment, and understanding when the pilot can plan a route that allows a "continuous" route from takeoff to touchdown; .

Still not following you, I'm afraid.

First, you say that it's pretty much standard for an airway to terminate at an IAF at smaller airports.

Then you say that it shows judgment and skill to be able to plan your way to that IAF without having any segments of the route without course guidance.

Hmmm. That's a little like saying it shows judgment and skill to be able to find your way to your own driveway using only roads and not having to drive across anyone's lawn.

To me, a "good understanding" of how to fly IFR means that you know what to do when you go electrical out or NORDO while IMC. What you're saying above seems to me to be a "basic" level of understanding.

 

[aloft]

I disagree that all--or even most--IAFs are colocated on airway segments. HOWEVER, if they aren't, and unless it's an RNAV approach, they will all have a charted feeder route which will be navigable via course guidance in virtually all cases. I've never seen one that wasn't. So really, the point is moot.

I agree that fix-to-fix nav is pretty neat and requires a good level of understanding to perform, but it's been obsolesced (at least, in the terminal environment), primarily because most civilian aircraft aren't equipped to do it.

 

[TFaudree_ERAU]

Still not following you, I'm afraid.

First, you say that it's pretty much standard for an airway to terminate at an IAF at smaller airports.

Then you say that it shows judgment and skill to be able to plan your way to that IAF without having any segments of the route without course guidance.

Hmmm. That's a little like saying it shows judgment and skill to be able to find your way to your own driveway using only roads and not having to drive across anyone's lawn.

To me, a "good understanding" of how to fly IFR means that you know what to do when you go electrical out or NORDO while IMC. What you're saying above seems to me to be a "basic" level of understanding.

Using your analogy of driveways and lawns, lets say that you drive a 4x4 truck. The 4x4 could get you across all those lawns, "direct" to your driveway, but it ain't the right thing to do. Now, replace 4x4 with GPS equipped airplane and roads are airways.

So, there are a hundred and one different routes that would guide you to the airport, but they may not all allow you to stay on an airway and arrive over an IAF when your radio decides it wants to check out for the day.

Yes, airways usually do terminate at an IAF or a feeder fix, but these gee-whiz airplanes now days encourage all that to go out of the window with the D-> button. I've seen pilots file flight plans that have the final waypoint being a VOR at least 50 miles from the destination. Being a small airport, ATC will clear the flight as filed. Approaching the destination the pilot subsequently descends. Somewhere along the way, the radio craps out, so the pilot goes direct from the last waypoint on the flightplan to the IAF for the approach. Since we all know that when something happens out of the ordinary in an airplane, our cog wheels fail to turn as quickly as they should. Being tied up in other flying tasks, he ignores the MSA for the sector through which he is flying and instead descends to the initial approach altitude for the approach at the destination. Smack...they have to come fix the TV tower so the people can watch their reality shows again, not to mention a pilot is dead.

Had the pilot filed a proper flight plan, leaving no question as to how to proceed from the airway to the approach, the flight probably would have been uneventful, other than the broken radio.

 

[Hacker15e]

Somewhere along the way, the radio craps out, so the pilot goes direct from the last waypoint on the flightplan to the IAF for the approach. Since we all know that when something happens out of the ordinary in an airplane, our cog wheels fail to turn as quickly as they should. Being tied up in other flying tasks, he ignores the MSA for the sector through which he is flying and instead descends to the initial approach altitude for the approach at the destination. Smack...they have to come fix the TV tower so the people can watch their reality shows again, not to mention a pilot is dead.

Had the pilot filed a proper flight plan, leaving no question as to how to proceed from the airway to the approach, the flight probably would have been uneventful, other than the broken radio.

To make this simple, I've hilighted where the pilot error occurred. The root cause of the dead pilot is failing to adhere to published minimum altitudes and other basic instrument procedures. Note that it has nothing to do with the flight planned route or the fix at which his flight plan terminated. A pilot who violates basic safety rules like minimum altitudes but is "saved" somehow because of his flight planning is an accident waiting to happen, not an example of a high SA, careful instrument pilot.

So, I'm still not following the argument.

Using your analogy of driveways and lawns, lets say that you drive a 4x4 truck. The 4x4 could get you across all those lawns, "direct" to your driveway, but it ain't the right thing to do. Now, replace 4x4 with GPS equipped airplane and roads are airways.

That implies that GPS is the only way to proceed direct...which we've thoroughly discussed here as not being true.

I'm with you that the advent of cheap GPS has spawned pilots who don't have the same level of radio nav skills that the previous generation has, but to generically categorize proceeding direct as "ain't the right thing to do" is asinine.

 

[E6BAV8R]

So what you are saying is that without GPS, your average instrument pilot cannot proceed direct to an ICAO fix?

That is really, really sad.

To me, that is a basic skill, just as important as being able to hold or fly a non-precision approach.

So, given all this, I would like to know how YOU would proceed fix-to-fix in a Cessna 172; conventional 6-Pack (no HSI), 1 VOR, no GPS.

 

[B767Driver]

So, given all this, I would like to know how YOU would proceed fix-to-fix in a Cessna 172; conventional 6-Pack (no HSI), 1 VOR, no GPS.

You can't. The old military point to point maneuver is not suitable for IFR nav in the civilian world. You need an approved RNAV system to be able to do this.

However, if you're a military pilot in the midst of combat...it might be nice to be able to get in the vicinity of a known point without electronic guidance. It is not suitable for precise nav.

 

[Hacker15e]

So, given all this, I would like to know how YOU would proceed fix-to-fix in a Cessna 172; conventional 6-Pack (no HSI), 1 VOR, no GPS.

If there was DME on board, it could be done.

If not, then I couldn't.

it might be nice to be able to get in the vicinity of a known point without electronic guidance. It is not suitable for precise nav.

Sort of outside the purvey of this conversation, but that's what an INS is for.

 

[Hacker15e]

It's been an interesting thread-jack, guys.

Apologies for the derail of the thread, but seeing what life is like outside the bubble canopy has been enlightening.

 

[derg]

About holds, you can pretty much get them at any time at any position while you're flying IFR. Happened tonight in CVG where we got a hold at XYZ on the ABC radial, blah blah blah and you've really got to be mentally prepared to deal with the unexpected.

Not like I could say, "Indy Center, that hold wasn't given that way in the PTS so I can't comply". Theoretically, perhaps, but it's a lot easier when you know what's up.

 

[sdfcvoh]

About holds, you can pretty much get them at any time at any position while you're flying IFR. Happened tonight in CVG where we got a hold at XYZ on the ABC radial, blah blah blah and you've really got to be mentally prepared to deal with the unexpected.

Not like I could say, "Indy Center, that hold wasn't given that way in the PTS so I can't comply". Theoretically, perhaps, but it's a lot easier when you know what's up.

You could have requested VFR.

 

[derg]

You could have requested VFR.

Oh yeah, squawk 1200, depart Class-B airspace, maintain VFR, frequency change approved. Oh yeah, nothing like dropping 200-plus passengers on an offline airport!

 

[sdfcvoh]

Oh yeah, squawk 1200, depart Class-B airspace, maintain VFR, frequency change approved. Oh yeah, nothing like dropping 200-plus passengers on an offline airport!

I'm sure that wouldn't have any impact on your career...

Wait a minute - DISPATCH!! They'd take care of you!