VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics

  #11  
Old 02-07-2020, 12:21 AM
Aluminum Aluminum is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 221
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobTurner View Post
I know you asked specifically about the check ride. But the question extends to actual operation in IMC. How many backups, if any, are enough?
That is a question of a different nature: do I have the skill, experience and attitude to avoid entering conditions where I don't have an out in case of hardware failure. The answer, of course, will depend on the individual, their risk-tolerance and phase of the moon. For instance, I fly a BRS parachute, but will take higher risks because of its presence; does that make me a bad person? I don't think your question has an answer other than "Fly Safe, whatever that means to you."

My original question was more along the lines of why are FAA standards so woefully out of date and out of touch with reality. My next airplane will have two independent magnetometers and between three and five independent GPS/WAAS/GLONASS/Galileo/BeiDou receivers active at any time, two of which can drive the autopilot, and all but one survive total electrical system meltdown short of nucular EMP. Plus a handheld or two for COM/NAV backup, should it come to that. It will outperform and out-safetify every club airplane I ever trained in--the weak link is the fuel selector between the ears--but still it won't strictly satisfy the letter of the law for IFR training unless I string a LORAN/ADF lightning rod from the rudder to my posterior...sigh. I'll go pound some rivets now.
__________________
Dan V
'91 Zodiac flying since 2013
RV-14A in progress
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 02-07-2020, 12:40 AM
BobTurner BobTurner is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 6,159
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aluminum View Post
. Plus a handheld or two for COM/NAV backup, .
You’re all set. Velcro the portable nav to the panel, call it installed, be ready to shoot a vor approach with it. Problems solved.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 02-07-2020, 12:48 AM
Aluminum Aluminum is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 221
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobTurner View Post
Velcro the portable nav to the panel, call it installed
LOL! I'll bring paper charts and E6B to the checkride too!
__________________
Dan V
'91 Zodiac flying since 2013
RV-14A in progress
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 02-07-2020, 02:52 PM
thompsonbr87's Avatar
thompsonbr87 thompsonbr87 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Smyrna, TN
Posts: 136
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 03:18 PM. Reason: better grammer
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 02-07-2020, 03:13 PM
Canadian_JOY Canadian_JOY is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,185
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ColoradoSolar View Post
in my opinion VOR and ILS are one type of navigational aid since they are both VHF nav aids so just GPS should count.
VOR and ILS are quite different. VOR and Localizer frequencies are intermingled, making it easy for us to believe they are essentially the same technologies. Yes, they both work in the VHF band, but that's about where the similarities stop. The VOR signal is actually quite a complex signal if we take the time to examine how it is modulated to achieve the desired navigation outcome. Localizer, on the other hand, is a much less complex signal involving modulation with two different audio tones.

Additionally, for an ILS to function as an ILS there's that other component that comes into play, the Glideslope. Glideslope frequencies are typically invisible to us as a pilot because they are paired with Localizer frequencies, thus the GS receiver is magically tuned for us when we select a Localizer frequency which has an associated Glideslope.

Saying that VOR and ILS are one type of approach is, I believe, a rather critical over-simplification. A VOR approach is a very different beast as compared to an ILS approach or even a non-precision LOC approach.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 02-07-2020, 06:39 PM
BobTurner BobTurner is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 6,159
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aluminum View Post
LOL! I'll bring paper charts and E6B to the checkride too!
I know one guy who had his charts on an iPad. Day of his check ride was hot, and half way thru his iPad overheated and quit. He was able to fish some paper charts out of his flight bag and finish.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 02-08-2020, 05:25 AM
Tooch Tooch is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Amelia, Va
Posts: 254
Default No Nav

Quote:
Originally Posted by thompsonbr87 View Post
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.
That's exactly what I did 2 years ago. I have no nav radio in my plane except a Sportys hand held
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:01 PM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.