ahw01
Well-Known Member
cant just argue the FAA agrees with him when it suits. I’m sure he’s thrown the FAA under the bus plenty of times…
Green vs Magenta needle on VOR Approach
- Thread starter Shiftace
- Start date
Wardogg
Meat Popsicle
Yes I agree. If you want to stay proficient with a raw data approach you have to fly a raw data approach.
Wardogg
Meat Popsicle
FDA? Yes! FAA? I dont think I have....
That’s the other thing you just reminded me of. Use of GPS DME instead of actual ground based DME. On the G750 user fields in the corners of the map display, one can put whatever they like, it’s purely technique; however there are some good bits of info to have and where to place it. VOR/LOC info field, the radial/DME, I recommend they place top right, right under the VOR/LOC frequencies. So the raw data radial/DME info…..essentially an RMI without the needle…is right there under the freqs. And, what is to be truly referenced on a VOR/LOC approach for DME info.
It drives me batty when a pilot sets up, for example, a VOR approach in all-magenta, And is still flying the overlay, and say, enters a hold that is off of a VOR, but is just following the magenta line telling the pilot how to enter and how to hold, but never at any time putting the VOR freq in as standby. Then, I simulate a failure of GPS a few miles from entering the hold by deleting the approach in the box and 1. They don’t know to immediately change to green needles, and 2. When they finally figure it out, and do change to green needles, no VOR freq is set up, and they have zero clue what to spin the CDI to, even though they reviewed the approach plate (but really, did they, mentally retaining?), nor is something easy like the RMI needle even pointing at the VOR for situational awareness, and that is assuming they even have the RMI needle actively selected and that they even know how to use the needle besides home with it versus track.
The degradation, and in some cases, loss of basic instrument skills, and the dependence on magenta needles and just following some line, is to me, akin to the concept of the development of the F-4 Phantom, where “it doesn’t need a gun, only missiles will be used in combat for air to air, no one is going to need a gun anymore. That’s so WWII”. Then, the North Vietnamese entered stage left…..
Now, if ground based instrument approaches disappear……“NDBs will be gone by 1990!”, but I flew one last week…..then sure, the skills related to that will go as well; as they will have no more use.
This may be where the disconnect is between what we are arguing. When I mention green needles, I’m talking full raw data. Not even loading the approach so there’s not even any magenta to follow. Ie- practicing both methods of approaches, GPS and ground based approaches, to maintain proficiency in both, namely because one is easy, and the other takes some skill and keeps that skill from getting lazy.
Been doing some fixed-wing to helicopter transition pilots, and it’s tough enough breaking habits like having them stop using circling minima on an approach plate and stop going missed at the VDP on a non-precision…get down to the MDA (not literally dive, but get down to there a little early, and drive a bit, all the way to the missed before going missed). Save the VDP for the fixed wing flying.
During my helicopter days it was raw data all the time and all the associated rules/ techniques/ practice MikeD advocates. As an examiner I was at least as hard core as him with that stuff.
At 121 airline? Boss said VOR approaches, on the odd chance you actually get one, are line selected in the FMS and flown in LNAV/VNAV. Boss pays a good wage so that’s what we do.
That said, we can (and are encouraged) to hand fly visual approaches without an approach loaded and without FDs if it situationally makes sense. So that’s good.
At 121 airline? Boss said VOR approaches, on the odd chance you actually get one, are line selected in the FMS and flown in LNAV/VNAV. Boss pays a good wage so that’s what we do.
That said, we can (and are encouraged) to hand fly visual approaches without an approach loaded and without FDs if it situationally makes sense. So that’s good.
I can’t even get any one of my people to understand the note in an RNAV IAP that has LNAV/VNAV mins regarding uncompensated systems for extreme high or low temps. “Uh, that doesn’t apply to us”. “We’re in GFK in the middle of winter, RAIM won’t come up for LPV. What does that note mean?”
*crickets*
arkflyr
Well-Known Member
If that is the guys in the guppy and you don't have IAN, fly an approach in VNAV with the ILS tuned in and you can see the difference between the GS for the uncompensated VNAV vs the ILS GS.
This is for my helo guys, who don’t realize that they have a compensated system in our birds if they make a couple of inputs, and thus can use LNAV/VNAV in those extreme temps. But they don’t even have the understanding of why the note is there.
Just like my guppy cohorts in our 737 Classics and their barely rudimentary understanding of our LPV capability beyond just using it, as well as the LNAV/VNAV limitations with the uncompensated system.
MidlifeFlyer
Well-Known Member
The GPS part of that is a big issue in instrument training these days. If we look at a typical instrument checkride we’ll see that the avionics knowledge and skill required are very basic. You can see evidence of that everywhere. Checkride failures tend to be due to inadequate set up or not understanding something that should be basic. I spoke to a CFII last year who was waiting for his instrument student to finish the checkride. “If he passes, is he ready to fly in the system tomorrow?” I asked. “Absolutely not,” was the answer.
I have a list of 6 GPS Tasks Pilots Don’t Know How To Do I bring out for recurrent and transition training. They are all real world things. For example, during club instrument checkouts I had three pilots in a row (including a CFII who trained with similar systems) who didn’t know to clear a hold in lieu when cleared straight in. In a recent Pilot Workshops scenario, only 20% chose the easiest and fastest solution.
To a large degree it can’t be helped. It’s not like 30 years ago when one could hop into the clouds with two VORs and an ADF and be quite competent with the avionics. Now, even DPEs can’t be masters of every system out there.
Not clearing the hold in lieu (HILO), because they don’t know the exceptions (SNoRT) for being able to skip having to do it, much less what a HILO even is or for as a hold, is a common thing I see. Just as is the pilot who should be flying the HILO at the IAF in order to use the course reversal it provides to align with the final approach course, instead trying to cross the IAF and just make a 100 degree turn right there to directly intercept the final segment (what are you doing?)
And the last paragraph is sadly true. Basic IFR competency and general knowledge is lacking more and more. One realistic scenario given is going inadverent IMC in the middle of nowhere where we work, in weather we probably don’t want to climb much higher into beyond being able to clear terrain; in areas so remote that ARTCC is the only ATC you can contact, but you’ll likely be below their radar coverage. So, the controller issues an IFR clearance via fixes and airways to the IAF on an instrument approach for the nearest field with useable Wx. The number of pilots who cannot turn the clearance into a functional flight plan, and begin working it to get themselves where they need to go, is perplexing. But, many haven’t been taught that, as their instrument instruction has been radar vectors to final or around a radar pattern for nearly all the approaches they fly. The good thing is that most of those whom this training and knowledge deficiency is identified in, have a desire to want to learn it and be good at it….be good at their craft of instrument flying. They just don’t know what they haven’t been taught. Then there are others who couldn’t seem to care less, and what little knowledge they do possess, is fine enough.
MidlifeFlyer
Well-Known Member
Oh, this one is not about knowing a stupid mnemonic. It's about not knowing what to do with the box when ATC instructs, "6 miles from ALAGE. Maintain 3200 until ALAGE. Cleared straight in ILS runway 30 approach" in this situation. I give a variation of this one regularly as a fully-coupled approach for an IPC. I'm using a GNS because it's just faster, but it can be any GA box in regular use today (I don't know about airline FMS boxes). I've stopped being surprised when the airplane turns outbound and am now pleasantly surprised when the pilot does it correctly.
Ha! They don’t know how to negate the hold or step past it? Or they don’t know that they need to in this case? But even that one being an ILS, at worst I’d let them load the approach for reference but have the A/P coupled to intercept the raw localizer so the hold doesn’t happen unless the pilot makes it happen. Though they still need to know how to do it anyway, as if this were an RNAV and doing it GPS-coupled, they’d have the same problem you’re describing. But still, your point is well made.
Shiftace
s***posting with decency. trolling with integrity.
I teach it both ways. But I am curious as to where WAAS comes into play. If one can shoot an approach down to LNAV mins without WAAS, certainly one can navigate to the VOR and do the procedure turn without WAAS as well, before switching to green needles.
DPE says it is in the IFH. I cannot find any reference to WAAS in there.
I am not at all familiar with that GPS… But is it not as simple as line selecting the hold and deleting it? Or alternatively selecting direct to the holding fix?
It’s been a long time since I dealt with WAAS, but from everything I remember what you are thinking sounds correct. Are used to fly an aircraft that can do basic LNAV all day long, but could not do LPV because we did not have WAAS.
And yeah, a system certified for IFR can navigate to any ground based navaid… doesn’t matter if it’s on an approach or not.