 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
aerobubba(at)earthlink.ne
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 4:46 am Post subject: instrument approach types, was 91.205 (WAAS) |
 |
|
Hi Bill-
Two types of non-precision approaches not on your list are VOR and visual.
Visual approaches tend to fall out of peoples thinking since they are, uh,
visual, but the fact remains that you can / will only be issued a visual
approach clearance while operating under IFR. IFR is, of course, a
distinct concept from IMC, which is another detail that tends to get
blurred.
Before the firestorm starts, let me say that I've "been there, done that".
| Quote: | Question from a fledgeling IFR student (meaning I've begun reading for
the written, but have zero instructional time with a live mentor so
far): The practical flight test standards call for 3 different types
of instrument approaches to be made, a requirement that I interpret to
mean an NDB would be required if there were not an approach-certified
GPS on board to substitute for it (localizer and ILS being the other
two types of approach I can think of). Without getting sidetracked
into a discussion of how to avoid unpopular NDB navigation, can you
explain how one might satisfy the training and checkride requirements
in a WAAS-GPS-only equipped plane with no VHF nav? You didn't say
this was the case, but the question has relevance to me as a
homebuilder still planning his IFR panel upgrade.
Thanks, gentlemen.
Bill B.
|
glen matejcek
aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
sportav8r(at)gmail.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 5:20 am Post subject: instrument approach types, was 91.205 (WAAS) |
|
|
Well, Glen, I hadn't thought about that. Maybe a student for the IFR
rating could go fly with the examiner with only an approach-certified
GPS on board for nav, and shoot a GPS approach, a PAR approach to a
military airport, and a contact visual approach in VMC and walk away
with his ticket. I bet that's never been done, though. It seems to
violate the spirit of the thing, somehow 
-Bill B.
On 1/5/07, glen matejcek <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
Hi Bill-
Two types of non-precision approaches not on your list are VOR and visual.
Visual approaches tend to fall out of peoples thinking since they are, uh,
visual, but the fact remains that you can / will only be issued a visual
approach clearance while operating under IFR. IFR is, of course, a
distinct concept from IMC, which is another detail that tends to get
blurred.
Before the firestorm starts, let me say that I've "been there, done that".
> Question from a fledgeling IFR student (meaning I've begun reading for
> the written, but have zero instructional time with a live mentor so
> far): The practical flight test standards call for 3 different types
> of instrument approaches to be made, a requirement that I interpret to
> mean an NDB would be required if there were not an approach-certified
> GPS on board to substitute for it (localizer and ILS being the other
> two types of approach I can think of). Without getting sidetracked
> into a discussion of how to avoid unpopular NDB navigation, can you
> explain how one might satisfy the training and checkride requirements
> in a WAAS-GPS-only equipped plane with no VHF nav? You didn't say
> this was the case, but the question has relevance to me as a
> homebuilder still planning his IFR panel upgrade.
>
> Thanks, gentlemen.
>
> Bill B.
>
glen matejcek
aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
|
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mlas(at)cox.net
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 6:55 am Post subject: instrument approach types, was 91.205 (WAAS) |
|
|
Don't confuse training and real life. Training is to learn something
(hopefully as much as you can cause most GA pilots will never see
training again). Real life is getting the job done. You could fly on
an IFR clearance without any navigation equipment. For example if you
filed IFR from say Phoenix AZ to Falcon Field AZ (15~20nm both under
Phoenix class B) and the ceiling and visibility was 3000 and 3, you
probably wouldn't need any of that fancy stuff or the old stuff for that
matter. The flight would be a tower to tower radar vectors to a visual
approach unless you wanted the non-precession instrument approach. All
you would need would be a Com radio and transponder with encoder, that's
it. You need the equipment needed to navigate, nothing more. So radar
is usable to pilots and that is what you use on a GCA or PAR approach.
Mike Larkin
--
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sportav8r(at)gmail.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 9:42 am Post subject: instrument approach types, was 91.205 (WAAS) |
|
|
Thanks, Mike.
The thread started out being about whether WAAS GPS met the letter of
the law for "ground-based facilities to be used," and I asked a
question expanding the scope from operational IFR to include the
training environment, which is where I'm soon to be.
I've concluded that, even though our current ground-based VHF
technology is antiquated, it is essential for adequate IFR
instrumentation in today's cockpit, and will be in continued use for
decades more, if only because the system is standardized worldwide and
there are a lot of nations without the funding to replace VHF 1940's
tech with anything better for the air carriers to use. It might be
somehow legal to fly IFR in IMC with only a WAAS GPS for nav and
approach, but I don't think for a minute I'd ever get an istructor or
examiner willing to train and sign me off that way, so it's back to
plan A for me, which means there will be an SL-30 in the panel besides
the GPS gear. Redundancy is a good thing.
-Bill B.
On 1/5/07, Mike <mlas(at)cox.net> wrote:
[quote]
Don't confuse training and real life. Training is to learn something
(hopefully as much as you can cause most GA pilots will never see
training again). Real life is getting the job done. You could fly on
an IFR clearance without any navigation equipment. For example if you
filed IFR from say Phoenix AZ to Falcon Field AZ (15~20nm both under
Phoenix class B) and the ceiling and visibility was 3000 and 3, you
probably wouldn't need any of that fancy stuff or the old stuff for that
matter. The flight would be a tower to tower radar vectors to a visual
approach unless you wanted the non-precession instrument approach. All
you would need would be a Com radio and transponder with encoder, that's
it. You need the equipment needed to navigate, nothing more. So radar
is usable to pilots and that is what you use on a GCA or PAR approach.
Mike Larkin
--
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bakerocb
Joined: 15 Jan 2006
Posts: 727
Location: FAIRFAX VA
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 7:40 am Post subject: instrument approach types, was 91.205 (WAAS) |
|
|
1/6/2007
Hello Bill, You wrote: ".....skip........a contact visual approach in
VMC....skip...."
In order to keep our semantics correct a contact approach and a visual
approach are two different approaches used in different circumstances. See
the AIM for a description of each -- very easy to confuse the two.
OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.
________________________________
Time: 05:20:06 AM PST US
From: "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: instrument approach types, was 91.205
(WAAS)
Well, Glen, I hadn't thought about that. Maybe a student for the IFR
rating could go fly with the examiner with only an approach-certified
GPS on board for nav, and shoot a GPS approach, a PAR approach to a
military airport, and a contact visual approach in VMC and walk away
with his ticket. I bet that's never been done, though. It seems to
violate the spirit of the thing, somehow
-Bill B.
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
