View Single Post
  #14  
Old 02-07-2020, 01:52 PM
thompsonbr87's Avatar
thompsonbr87 thompsonbr87 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Smyrna, TN
Posts: 139
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ColoradoSolar View Post
I think of the issues is in Appendix 7 page A-16 “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."

If you are being picky GPS is only one type of navigational aid, but in my opinion VOR and ILS are one type of navigational aid since they are both VHF nav aids so just GPS should count.
The closest guidance I could find regarding what constitutes "different type of navaids" are two legal interpretations Glaser 2008 and Pratte 2012. Although a VOR and ILS localizer both operate on VHF, they each provide different information. I do find it interesting that they mention LOC and LDA as different types of navaids though.

Would you consider GPS/WAAS a different type of NAVAID from GPS? I think that might make for the best argument in favor of a GPS-only IFR training being possible/legal. If so, your two non-precision approaches could be an LNAV and an LPV with >300' minimums. And you could demonstrate a precision approach with LPV to ≤300' minimums.

When I first considered OP's question, I initially thought it would be absurd that any CFI-I or DPE would sign-off without and applicant practicing or demonstrating any type of VHF navigation or approaches. Then after thinking about it, I realized somebody probably said the same about me never practicing or testing with an ADF... Oh the times they are a-changin'.
__________________
Barrett
Smyrna, TN - KMQY

RV-6A
Learning something knew everyday.
Donated dollars - 2019

Last edited by thompsonbr87 : 02-07-2020 at 02:18 PM. Reason: better grammer
Reply With Quote