Do you use GPS for IFR?
- Thread starter ZUM
- Start date
GregCollins2
Well-Known Member
If you have it available, you'd have to be insane not to, especially in hard actual. There's a lot of old school pilots that disagree, but it's the way of the future and it makes the flight exponentially safer, even if it's a hand held. Lots of pilots were resistant to VOR's when they were first installed, after all they were going to erode navigational skills. Thats like saying keep your 8-Tracks because casette tapes will never catch on (yeah I'm that old).
Many of your older, better off students will appreciate GPS skill too.
Many of your older, better off students will appreciate GPS skill too.
Alchemy
Well-Known Member
Yes, I use any GPS on board (if IFR approved, for situational awareness only). If the plane I'm flying has an IFR approved GPS with a current database, I won't hesitate to use it for approaches.
Since most of the planes I fly don't have current databases, sometimes I will go up and practice GPS approaches under VFR. It works fine as long as the fixes for the approach haven't moved since the database was last updated.
Next time, I'm going to try and figure out how to do an RNAV approach using the VOR/DME RNAV in our baron. Seems pretty simple from the experimentation I've done so far.
Since most of the planes I fly don't have current databases, sometimes I will go up and practice GPS approaches under VFR. It works fine as long as the fixes for the approach haven't moved since the database was last updated.
Next time, I'm going to try and figure out how to do an RNAV approach using the VOR/DME RNAV in our baron. Seems pretty simple from the experimentation I've done so far.
RiddlePilot
New Member
I did my instrument in /G aircraft...loved every minute. I've got no qualms with using GPS in actual.
FalconCapt
New Member
Yup... Triple IRS, Triple FMS, Dual GPS... IFR certified as well as RVSM, RNP-10, RNP-5 (B-RNav), RNP-4, RNP-1 (P-RNav), RNP-0.3, MNPS...
kellwolf
Piece of Trash
I really haven't used the GPS since I got my IR, and even then I only did approaches in it. If someone asked me how to program waypoints and flightplans into it, I'd draw a total blank. I mainly use it "in leiu of a DME." I know how to use the "Direct" function, and that's about it. If I had the extra $$$, I'd go up with an instructor and get him to show me all the cool tricks. I was thinking of buying the manual for the KLN-94, but since I won't be flying the 172 that much longer, I decided not to. I may get the manual on the Garmin 430 or 530, whichever one MAPD has in its planes.
stuckingfk
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Yup... Triple IRS, Triple FMS, Dual GPS... IFR certified as well as RVSM, RNP-10, RNP-5 (B-RNav), RNP-4, RNP-1 (P-RNav), RNP-0.3, MNPS...
[/ QUOTE ]
Show off!!
I have trained with either the 430 or King 89 and I absolutely love them.
Yup... Triple IRS, Triple FMS, Dual GPS... IFR certified as well as RVSM, RNP-10, RNP-5 (B-RNav), RNP-4, RNP-1 (P-RNav), RNP-0.3, MNPS...
[/ QUOTE ]
Show off!!
I have trained with either the 430 or King 89 and I absolutely love them.
USMCmech
Well-Known Member
My squadron was the last one to get GPS units for our CH-46s. By the time we got them the civilian GPS technology had leaped way past the military units. The military units were slightly more accurate, but they were so non user friendly it was pathetic. Our CO flew with the new units a couple of times, and they fustrated him so badley that we ripped them out to save weight.
The skipper personally bought handheld Garmin GPS 3 pilot models, and we velcroed them to the glareshiled. They worked great, and cost much less.
If anybody out there thinks the military is full of high tech equipment, this is not a unuseual example. It's pretty common.
Spending some time learning to use your GPS unit will make flying IFR much easier. The Garmin 430/530 in particular are so helpfull it's almost a crime.
The skipper personally bought handheld Garmin GPS 3 pilot models, and we velcroed them to the glareshiled. They worked great, and cost much less.
If anybody out there thinks the military is full of high tech equipment, this is not a unuseual example. It's pretty common.
Spending some time learning to use your GPS unit will make flying IFR much easier. The Garmin 430/530 in particular are so helpfull it's almost a crime.
mtsu_av8er
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
If anybody out there thinks the military is full of high tech equipment, this is not a unuseual example. It's pretty common.
[/ QUOTE ]
I remember when they started that GPS crap at the schoolhouse....funniest pieces of crap i'd ever seen!!
If anybody out there thinks the military is full of high tech equipment, this is not a unuseual example. It's pretty common.
[/ QUOTE ]
I remember when they started that GPS crap at the schoolhouse....funniest pieces of crap i'd ever seen!!
GregCollins2
Well-Known Member
RNAV on an instrument approach plate means GPS, not the "RNAV" track line computer. The track line computer is for enroute "Area Navigation."
A VOR/DME RNAV, or track line computer, is a great way to navigate based on azimuth and distance from VOR's. "RNAV", or area navigation refers to navigation using artificial waypoints. Track line computers simply allow you to artificially move a VOR and fly a straighter course. There are published RNAV enroute procedures that use a track line computer, however; there are no RNAV approaches that can be legally flown without another means of identifying fixes. The most that can be done with a VOR/DME RNAV is the standard Localizer, VOR, VOR/DME, SDF, LDA, or possibly an ILS, if the computer has a glideslope resolver, most GA versions, like the KNS 80, do not. The term "RNAV" also includes Intertial Nav Sytems, FMS, Loran C, and Omega Network, and all are approved for Area Navigation in designated airspace, but not terminal procedures.
It's important not to confuse RNAV Approaches with the old VOR/DME RNAV computers. RNAV APPROACH = GPS APPROACH. The government and Jeppesen have been slowly renaming the RNAV approaches to eliminate the confusion.
I use my Garmin 295 as a back up when shooting approaches in actual and that thing is amazingly acurate, and it has all of the way points and approach fixes in it. I have a subscription and I simply download the new database every 56 days. It's comforting to look down and see a perfect centerline on the GPS that agrees with what the wavering ADF needle shows when shooting an NDB approach in low IMC conditions!
A VOR/DME RNAV, or track line computer, is a great way to navigate based on azimuth and distance from VOR's. "RNAV", or area navigation refers to navigation using artificial waypoints. Track line computers simply allow you to artificially move a VOR and fly a straighter course. There are published RNAV enroute procedures that use a track line computer, however; there are no RNAV approaches that can be legally flown without another means of identifying fixes. The most that can be done with a VOR/DME RNAV is the standard Localizer, VOR, VOR/DME, SDF, LDA, or possibly an ILS, if the computer has a glideslope resolver, most GA versions, like the KNS 80, do not. The term "RNAV" also includes Intertial Nav Sytems, FMS, Loran C, and Omega Network, and all are approved for Area Navigation in designated airspace, but not terminal procedures.
It's important not to confuse RNAV Approaches with the old VOR/DME RNAV computers. RNAV APPROACH = GPS APPROACH. The government and Jeppesen have been slowly renaming the RNAV approaches to eliminate the confusion.
I use my Garmin 295 as a back up when shooting approaches in actual and that thing is amazingly acurate, and it has all of the way points and approach fixes in it. I have a subscription and I simply download the new database every 56 days. It's comforting to look down and see a perfect centerline on the GPS that agrees with what the wavering ADF needle shows when shooting an NDB approach in low IMC conditions!
[ QUOTE ]
If you have it available, you'd have to be insane not to, especially in hard actual. There's a lot of old school pilots that disagree, but it's the way of the future and it makes the flight exponentially safer, even if it's a hand held. Lots of pilots were resistant to VOR's when they were first installed, after all they were going to erode navigational skills. Thats like saying keep your 8-Tracks because casette tapes will never catch on (yeah I'm that old).
Many of your older, better off students will appreciate GPS skill too.
[/ QUOTE ]
IMO, use whatever you have available in your aircraft, but darn well know what to do if the technology fails. Knowing both ends of the navigation spectrum, from basics to advanced, is a must.
If you have it available, you'd have to be insane not to, especially in hard actual. There's a lot of old school pilots that disagree, but it's the way of the future and it makes the flight exponentially safer, even if it's a hand held. Lots of pilots were resistant to VOR's when they were first installed, after all they were going to erode navigational skills. Thats like saying keep your 8-Tracks because casette tapes will never catch on (yeah I'm that old).
Many of your older, better off students will appreciate GPS skill too.
[/ QUOTE ]
IMO, use whatever you have available in your aircraft, but darn well know what to do if the technology fails. Knowing both ends of the navigation spectrum, from basics to advanced, is a must.
GregCollins2
Well-Known Member
The guy that worked with me when I was doing my CFII set me straight on the whole RNAV issue and drilled it in to my head!
[ QUOTE ]
The most that can be done with a VOR/DME RNAV is the standard Localizer, VOR, VOR/DME, SDF, LDA, or possibly an ILS, if the computer has a glideslope resolver, most GA versions, like the KNS 80, do not.
[/ QUOTE ]
You are referring to approaches labeled "RNAV" only or "RNAV or GPS" only, right?
Example - KIGX VOR/DME RNAV RWY9 -- can this not be flown with a course line computer only?
The most that can be done with a VOR/DME RNAV is the standard Localizer, VOR, VOR/DME, SDF, LDA, or possibly an ILS, if the computer has a glideslope resolver, most GA versions, like the KNS 80, do not.
[/ QUOTE ]
You are referring to approaches labeled "RNAV" only or "RNAV or GPS" only, right?
Example - KIGX VOR/DME RNAV RWY9 -- can this not be flown with a course line computer only?
GregCollins2
Well-Known Member
Been doing some reading today and need to correct my earlier post. FMS and RNAV are legal for Terminal procedures if they are installed,certified, and maintained properly.
Yes, this approach can be flown with an RNAV unit, but only if the unit is a TSO-C129a or TSO-C115b compliant FMS or RNAV system. These approaches are intended for FMS type RNAV which is more sophisticated then the usual RNAV course line computer installed in smaller GA aircraft. It is possible to program the radials and distances of the IAF, FAF, and MAP into a KNS-80 type RNAV unit in order to make the unit indicate correctly, but the approach is only legal if the unit is installed and certified in accordance with the appropriate TSO. The problem with many RNAV units is that they are not set up to switch to a more sensitive indication mode when the terminal area is entered. If the unit cannot be manually or automatically toggled into a terminal sensitivity of .3nm full CDI deflection, then it's not legal.
The FAA is working on creating more RNAV (GPS) approaches at many airports to save vectoring time, and equipment costs. GPS and FMS together will most likely be very common as the WAAS technology improves.
Visit http://gps.faa.gov/Library/Data/8260-48.pdf if you want to see how RNAV approaches really work.
Yes, this approach can be flown with an RNAV unit, but only if the unit is a TSO-C129a or TSO-C115b compliant FMS or RNAV system. These approaches are intended for FMS type RNAV which is more sophisticated then the usual RNAV course line computer installed in smaller GA aircraft. It is possible to program the radials and distances of the IAF, FAF, and MAP into a KNS-80 type RNAV unit in order to make the unit indicate correctly, but the approach is only legal if the unit is installed and certified in accordance with the appropriate TSO. The problem with many RNAV units is that they are not set up to switch to a more sensitive indication mode when the terminal area is entered. If the unit cannot be manually or automatically toggled into a terminal sensitivity of .3nm full CDI deflection, then it's not legal.
The FAA is working on creating more RNAV (GPS) approaches at many airports to save vectoring time, and equipment costs. GPS and FMS together will most likely be very common as the WAAS technology improves.
Visit http://gps.faa.gov/Library/Data/8260-48.pdf if you want to see how RNAV approaches really work.
gomntwins
Well-Known Member
I like having a GPS for IFR... but I don't always fly airplanes that have one. Actually, most of my IFR experiences have been with a dual VOR's, 1 g/s, and an ADF. No GPS. But, if I've got a GPS on board.... you know for sure, regardless of if I'm flying VFR or IFR, it's set to something usefull.