With the new ACS rules, is GPS alone sufficient for IR?

[chemgeek]

Yeah, but. Push the wrong button and it leads to having to push a whole lot more buttons to unf*** what pushing the wrong button ef’d up. There have been some accidents where there is no doubt in my mind that buttonology is what killed the pilot.

Or you can get an ATC directive that requires the dance of the seven veils (hurried, frantic unf***ing) to get re-configured with only a few minutes to get sorted. While this is less likely to happen while in real IMC, it happens frequently in training. On an IPC, I was sitting fat, dumb, and happy being vectored to final for an RNAV approach (the controller assured me this would be vectors to final) when I get a last minute clearance to an intersection that is not an IAF or intermediate waypoint on the approach, but an waypoint that has a transition to one of the IAFs. And it is minutes away. Talk about fumbling with buttons...it got sorted, but I was thinking how much simpler the ILS would have been to fly. I don't do VTF anymore, no matter how high the stack of Bibles ATC swears on that this will be vectors-to-final.

No doubt GPS approaches are sooooo much simpler to fly and monitor, but you have to be up to snuff on your buttonology. Last minute changes can be the devil to sort out, and there are lots of gotchas in Garmin-GPS-land, such as HILPTs you have to delete when on a NoPT TAA arrival, and remembering to not follow any advisory vertical guidance past the DA on an LNAV approach. These are not things you have to do on an ILS or LOC approach.

My CFII swore up and down that a Garmin 430 should know not to include the HILPT if approaching on a TAA NoPT heading. Nope. The autopilot will take you around the HILPT, no matter what, unless you manually delete it. My home drome has this issue, and I discovered it the first time during an IPC. Glad that was sorted before doing it in IMC on a return trip home. The advisory vertical guidance issue cropped up at a nearby airport. Following advisory vertical guidance at night beyond the DA will take you through a cumulogranite hill. (I like flying the stepdowns anyway--give you a better chance of breaking out early if possible, and there should be no cumulogranite in the way if you are flying the approach as published.)

 

[MauleSkinner]

I meant the list of tasks is not system-specific. Neither is the difference between DA and MDA.
But sure, the methods used to do various tasks and some of the verbiage vary by system. Two which immediately come to me are, "green needles vs pink" needles means nothing to a pilot with an Aspen PFD. OBS mode operates differently in Avidyne and Garmin boxes (and from John's list, "course to fix" is not an Avidyne term although it does it).

again, I agree. But I find that pilots can be so poorly potty-trained that I can’t use the term “activate the final approach course” to explain the process, because they have no clue what that means. They don’t have enough of a handle on the difference between DA and MDA For me to be able to use those terms to explain the automation.

“Green needles vs pink” is a useless discussion until they understand that just because there’s a line on the moving map doesn’t mean that’s where the navigator will take them.

 

[midlifeflyer]

again, I agree. But I find that pilots can be so poorly potty-trained that I can’t use the term “activate the final approach course” to explain the process, because they have no clue what that means. They don’t have enough of a handle on the difference between DA and MDA For me to be able to use those terms to explain the automation.

“Green needles vs pink” is a useless discussion until they understand that just because there’s a line on the moving map doesn’t mean that’s where the navigator will take them.

The one that got me scratching my head was this. I do one where I announce “vectors to [the IF]” when the GPS automatically loaded the hold-in-lieu. I vector them into a position where my final instruction is, “direct to [the IF], maintain Y,000 until established on the final approach course, cleared straight in…” I was shocked when they didn’t clear or bypass the hold on the navigator and (three pilots in a row, including a CFII) the airplane turned outbound for the hold.

 

[midlifeflyer]

when I get a last minute clearance to an intersection that is not an IAF or intermediate waypoint on the approach

Another of my standard tasks because it is not only common already but becoming more so because it actually saves both pilot and controller workload. Doing it correctly takes about 6 seconds, even if one loaded VTF on a box which removes them.

 

[Kritchlow]

Well, I’m not going to respond to individual posts, but I will say I have done extensive IFR flying using VOR/ADF type equipment as well as today’s GPS.

No contest imo, today’s equipment is vastly easier. Almost mindless by comparison. YMMV.

 

[RussR]

Well, I’m not going to respond to individual posts, but I will say I have done extensive IFR flying using VOR/ADF type equipment as well as today’s GPS.

No contest imo, today’s equipment is vastly easier. Almost mindless by comparison. YMMV.

Often it will depend on the definition of "easier". Figuring out where you are in space and time is definitely harder with VOR/ILS/ADF. But knowing the intricacies of a GPS or FMS (i.e. the buttonology and capabilities) is definitely harder than "programming" a VOR/ILS/ADF receiver.

As I've read this thread, something occurred to me which I wonder if it's a factor. For someone like you, who flies for a living, and is therefore very comfortable with the operation of the FMS, the FMS becomes pretty much a non-issue. I'm the same way at work. I know the FMS really well, and it's not an impediment in any way. This is, of course, how it should be. We should all strive to be so at ease with the operation of our avionics. It makes things so much easier.

But for the typical light GA pilot, who either doesn't fly much IFR, or only uses the most basic of the GPS functions like Direct-to and loading an approach, the actual programming of the GPS becomes a major factor when asked to do something that's out of their ordinary procedures. I see this just like @midlifeflyer does - they "drop the plane" to fly the box. In that respect it's harder. I have definitely had clients who would rather fly the ILS versus the RNAV just so they didn't have to deal with the box. Granted those pilots have generally been older, and learned to fly IFR before GPS, but it shows that at least they think the GPS is harder than the NAV radio. And then they put in a new GPS and have to learn everything all over again, whereas that VOR/ILS receiver still works exactly the same way it did 50 years ago.

There's a reason that there are tons and tons of courses on how to master your avionics suites. Any of the big training suppliers have a bewildering assortment of training manuals, videos, interactive online simulators and such for any modern GPS. But you don't see the same for a VOR/ILS receiver.

 

[MountainDude]

Often it will depend on the definition of "easier". Figuring out where you are in space and time is definitely harder with VOR/ILS/ADF. But knowing the intricacies of a GPS or FMS (i.e. the buttonology and capabilities) is definitely harder than "programming" a VOR/ILS/ADF receiver.

As I've read this thread, something occurred to me which I wonder if it's a factor. For someone like you, who flies for a living, and is therefore very comfortable with the operation of the FMS, the FMS becomes pretty much a non-issue. I'm the same way at work. I know the FMS really well, and it's not an impediment in any way. This is, of course, how it should be. We should all strive to be so at ease with the operation of our avionics. It makes things so much easier.

But for the typical light GA pilot, who either doesn't fly much IFR, or only uses the most basic of the GPS functions like Direct-to and loading an approach, the actual programming of the GPS becomes a major factor when asked to do something that's out of their ordinary procedures. I see this just like @midlifeflyer does - they "drop the plane" to fly the box. In that respect it's harder. I have definitely had clients who would rather fly the ILS versus the RNAV just so they didn't have to deal with the box. Granted those pilots have generally been older, and learned to fly IFR before GPS, but it shows that at least they think the GPS is harder than the NAV radio. And then they put in a new GPS and have to learn everything all over again, whereas that VOR/ILS receiver still works exactly the same way it did 50 years ago.

There's a reason that there are tons and tons of courses on how to master your avionics suites. Any of the big training suppliers have a bewildering assortment of training manuals, videos, interactive online simulators and such for any modern GPS. But you don't see the same for a VOR/ILS receiver.

That's a very good point.
I am personally more comfortable learning all the options on my GPS, including those that would normally be covered by VOR/DME (for example, join a radial at XX DME), then do that AND keep proficiency with VOR/DME/ILS/LOC.

 

[Kritchlow]

Often it will depend on the definition of "easier". Figuring out where you are in space and time is definitely harder with VOR/ILS/ADF. But knowing the intricacies of a GPS or FMS (i.e. the buttonology and capabilities) is definitely harder than "programming" a VOR/ILS/ADF receiver.

As I've read this thread, something occurred to me which I wonder if it's a factor. For someone like you, who flies for a living, and is therefore very comfortable with the operation of the FMS, the FMS becomes pretty much a non-issue. I'm the same way at work. I know the FMS really well, and it's not an impediment in any way. This is, of course, how it should be. We should all strive to be so at ease with the operation of our avionics. It makes things so much easier.

But for the typical light GA pilot, who either doesn't fly much IFR, or only uses the most basic of the GPS functions like Direct-to and loading an approach, the actual programming of the GPS becomes a major factor when asked to do something that's out of their ordinary procedures. I see this just like @midlifeflyer does - they "drop the plane" to fly the box. In that respect it's harder. I have definitely had clients who would rather fly the ILS versus the RNAV just so they didn't have to deal with the box. Granted those pilots have generally been older, and learned to fly IFR before GPS, but it shows that at least they think the GPS is harder than the NAV radio. And then they put in a new GPS and have to learn everything all over again, whereas that VOR/ILS receiver still works exactly the same way it did 50 years ago.

There's a reason that there are tons and tons of courses on how to master your avionics suites. Any of the big training suppliers have a bewildering assortment of training manuals, videos, interactive online simulators and such for any modern GPS. But you don't see the same for a VOR/ILS receiver.

I do not disagree, but not imagine the same guy trying to figure out entries, bearings, winds, and adjust timing which can take a few turns to get reasonably close. The “box” is a one step process once you get it entered.

 

[Ryan F.]

I do not disagree, but not imagine the same guy trying to figure out entries, bearings, winds, and adjust timing which can take a few turns to get reasonably close. The “box” is a one step process once you get it entered.

I do not disagree that there is/was value in thoroughly immersing modern learners in NDB/VOR navigation techniques, equipment, etc. However, as they have throughout aviation's short technological arc, the challenges have simply shifted. The equipment has become more advanced. The errors have evolved into the realm of human factors and automation (mode confusion). We rely on the training industry to invest baseline training into our next generation of airmen regardless of the tech available on board the aircraft.

I flew single VOR-receiver intersection holds and "raw data" (heh) NDB approaches on my CFII ride 23 years ago. That demonstrated a level of manual skill and SA which would be great to inject into today's training regimen for that particular add-on instructor rating. But as a focal point in today's airman certification environment, it would have minimal value at best. The technology of the day will always carry its own, ever-evolving challenges. I consider the management of the modern flight deck (GA or otherwise) to require no less and no more skill than those of 30+ years ago... the skills required for success are simply different. And therefore, we should appropriately adapt our focus in airman certification.

Much like parents and their opinion of their kids' music, every generation of pilots will tend to look down their nose a bit at their successors.

 

[hindsight2020]

What I take exception to is the implied supporting argument to that approach, which boils down to:
"well, the positional wonderboxes, in 2024, statistically, just never. go. dark. If they do ATC will vector us back to a runway".
Solid plan that one, count me out of it.

We get a lot of pushback these days in my command (training) whenever we bring up old skillsets. Get smeared as dinosaurs for suggesting more seriousness be devoted to the notion of EW/EMCON degrade and ground-nav proficiency, and we're losing the fight to the higher imperative for production/capacity expediency (a specific problem to the DOD). Perhaps civil aviation can absorb that deficit with little ill effect. I contend combat aviation cannot, unless you're doctrinally Russian and lives are extra cheap.

BL, I've heard that expediency argument of "modern challenges requires modern focus" before. It just reeks of slippery slopes.

 

[Kritchlow]

I do not disagree that there is/was value in thoroughly immersing modern learners in NDB/VOR navigation techniques, equipment, etc. However, as they have throughout aviation's short technological arc, the challenges have simply shifted. The equipment has become more advanced. The errors have evolved into the realm of human factors and automation (mode confusion). We rely on the training industry to invest baseline training into our next generation of airmen regardless of the tech available on board the aircraft.

I flew single VOR-receiver intersection holds and "raw data" (heh) NDB approaches on my CFII ride 23 years ago. That demonstrated a level of manual skill and SA which would be great to inject into today's training regimen for that particular add-on instructor rating. But as a focal point in today's airman certification environment, it would have minimal value at best. The technology of the day will always carry its own, ever-evolving challenges. I consider the management of the modern flight deck (GA or otherwise) to require no less and no more skill than those of 30+ years ago... the skills required for success are simply different. And therefore, we should appropriately adapt our focus in airman certification.

Much like parents and their opinion of their kids' music, every generation of pilots will tend to look down their nose a bit at their successors.

Not so much like your parent / kid music scenario, I find it more like we no longer need engineers & navigators in our airplanes.
Things have indeed become more automated and thoughtless.

I don’t care how you spin it, doing a true NDB approach with the beacon off the field, in a crosswind, was harder than hitting the “execute” button.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Not so much like your parent / kid music scenario, I find it more like we no longer need engineers & navigators in our airplanes.
Things have indeed become more automated and thoughtless.

I don’t care how you spin it, doing a true NDB approach with the beacon off the field, in a crosswind, was harder than hitting the “execute” button.

True, but if you fly the wrong track using either NDB or GPS, the consequences are very similar.

 

[Ryan F.]

Not so much like your parent / kid music scenario, I find it more like we no longer need engineers & navigators in our airplanes.
Things have indeed become more automated and thoughtless.

I don’t care how you spin it, doing a true NDB approach with the beacon off the field, in a crosswind, was harder than hitting the “execute” button.

Don't think anyone is arguing that the manual work, cross-checks, and division of attention required to successfully fly an NDB approach is "harder." Or that we should omit real-world training using ground-based navaids, when they are available.

My point is merely that it's industry's responsibility to train those skills into the final product, the airmen themselves. We should (and do) check to the standards of the day using the equipment of the day. There’s no other practical road to travel on this - technology marches on. I’m sure the 4-course crowd was grousing when their time came, too.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I’m sure the 4-course crowd was grousing when their time came, too.

There's no doubt they were saying those NDB babes weren't "real" pilots.

 

[bbchien]

I do not disagree that there is/was value in thoroughly immersing modern learners in NDB/VOR navigation techniques, equipment, etc. However, as they have throughout aviation's short technological arc, the challenges have simply shifted. The equipment has become more advanced. The errors have evolved into the realm of human factors and automation (mode confusion). We rely on the training industry to invest baseline training into our next generation of airmen regardless of the tech available on board the aircraft.

I flew single VOR-receiver intersection holds and "raw data" (heh) NDB approaches on my CFII ride 23 years ago. That demonstrated a level of manual skill and SA which would be great to inject into today's training regimen for that particular add-on instructor rating. But as a focal point in today's airman certification environment, it would have minimal value at best. The technology of the day will always carry its own, ever-evolving challenges. I consider the management of the modern flight deck (GA or otherwise) to require no less and no more skill than those of 30+ years ago... the skills required for success are simply different. And therefore, we should appropriately adapt our focus in airman certification.

Much like parents and their opinion of their kids' music, every generation of pilots will tend to look down their nose a bit at their successors.

heck. -. -. -. .-
....only the truly senior guys know what that means.

 

[Kritchlow]

Don't think anyone is arguing that the manual work, cross-checks, and division of attention required to successfully fly an NDB approach is "harder." Or that we should omit real-world training using ground-based navaids, when they are available.

My point is merely that it's industry's responsibility to train those skills into the final product, the airmen themselves. We should (and do) check to the standards of the day using the equipment of the day. There’s no other practical road to travel on this - technology marches on. I’m sure the 4-course crowd was grousing when their time came, too.

Sure… you must train & check by today’s standards. But my whole point is that it just be a bit easier today with the tecnology.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Sure… you must train & check by today’s standards. But my whole point is that it just be a bit easier today with the tecnology.

The results, definitely. A technology that can fly a STAR into an approach, into the published missed hold in a 172 with the pilot doing nothing more than controlling the throttle and pressing a TOGA button is much easier than hand flying them.

And there’s no question that automation can have a negative impact on certain skills (current IFR mag has my article on it). But unless you have been involved in training pilots in those technologies, you may not understand how difficult it is for many to reach the level of proficiency needed to tell the boxes to do all that properly.

I think I mentioned before that I always include a fully coupled ILS to missed for recurrent training and IPCs. No hand-flying permitted if the tech is capable. There’s a reason. I rarely saw a rated pilot screw up a ILS hand flying with nothing but a VLOC receiver and CDI or HSI but repeatedly see pilots screw them up the fully coupled ones. One year it was 4 pilots in a row, one a CFII. And no, I don’t do anything tricky. I make a point of only doing things that are realistic.

 

[Ryan F.]

The results, definitely. A technology that can fly a STAR into an approach, into the published missed hold in a 172 with the doing nothing more than controlling the throttle and pressing a TOGA button is much easier than hand flying them.

And there’s no question that automation can have a negative impact on certain skills (current IFR mag has my article on it). But unless you have been involved in training pilots in those technologies, you may not understand how difficult it is for many to reach the level of proficiency needed to tell the boxes to do all that properly.

I think I mentioned before that I always include a fully coupled ILS to missed for recurrent training and IPCs. No hand-flying permitted if the tech is capable. There’s a reason. I rarely saw a rated pilot screw up a ILS hand flying with nothing but a VLOC receiver and CDI or HSI repeatedly see pilots screw them up the fully coupled ones. One year it was 4 pilots in a row, one a CFII. And no, I don’t do anything tricky. I make a point of only doing things that are realistic.

Well said. I really haven't moved from my initial perspective stated on this thread. I said it before, and I'll say it again - the challenges have simply shifted over time. It's quite a bit more involved than pressing a button and watching the box go to work, and the consequences of getting it wrong are just as severe as they were in previous eras.

 

[TCABM]

…
And there’s no question that automation can have a negative impact on certain skills (current IFR mag has my article on it). But unless you have been involved in training pilots in those technologies, you may not understand how difficult it is for many to reach the level of proficiency needed to tell the boxes to do all that properly...

The 182 I finally got access to is a perfect case in point. 430W+STEC50 an Aspen PFD and a GMX200.

The switchology is so far out of my habit pattern (GTN650 & Dynons) that I won’t fly it IFR yet. I think a few more hours behind the boxes will get me to a proficiency level with to boxes to change that, but man I hate the 430/530 interface, even though I understand it. Big knob/small knob twist is just tedious.

 

[midlifeflyer]

The 182 I finally got access to is a perfect case in point. 430W+STEC50 an Aspen PFD and a GMX200.

The switchology is so far out of my habit pattern (GTN650 & Dynons) that I won’t fly it IFR yet. I think a few more hours behind the boxes will get me to a proficiency level with to boxes to change that, but man I hate the 430/530 interface, even though I understand it. Big knob/small knob twist is just tedious.

In your case, the Dynon > Aspen picture is very different and the 430/530 a big step backwards in functionality. On the flip side, I have a friend who is in the process of moving from a 430 and analog gauges to a 650 and G5s. That 430 > 650 "should" not be that difficult. The logic is identical. But while he adapted quickly to the G5s, the 650 is throwing him.

 

[TCABM]

In your case, the Dynon > Aspen picture is very different and the 430/530 a big step backwards in functionality. On the flip side, I have a friend who is in the process of moving from a 430 and analog gauges to a 650 and G5s. That 430 > 650 "should" not be that difficult. The logic is identical. But while he adapted quickly to the G5s, the 650 is throwing him.

I went from a 530 to the 650 and it did take a bit to learn the new logic, but the trainer really was helpful in that aspect. I also spent a lot of time with Garmin’s 610 page Pilot’s Guide to build trainer exercises with approaches I was already familiar with just to watch it sequence through things as the flight plan was executed.

There was as much learning doing that as there was mashing soft keys.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I went from a 530 to the 650 and it did take a bit to learn the new logic,

The real point here is that we are all very different in our reactions to technology. It can take a lot of time for Pilot One to acclimate to what Pilot Two thinks is "intuitive."

Some years back I had a conversation with the owner of a flight school. I mentioned that the 430/530 wasn't all that different than the Garmin GPSMap handhelds. He looked at me like I had two heads. He just didn't see it. But it definitely affected the way I do avionics training.

 

[Steamflyer]

Well, I’m not going to respond to individual posts, but I will say I have done extensive IFR flying using VOR/ADF type equipment as well as today’s GPS.

No contest imo, today’s equipment is vastly easier. Almost mindless by comparison. YMMV.

Likewise - paper charts and NDB/VOR navigation was much harder than today's magic. Add in the fact that most aircraft back then had no or crappy unreliable autopilots. So you couldn't push a button for a breather. We thought that getting a DME solved all of our problems forever.

Today's navigators are incredibly easy to use, particularly if you RTFM. Of course, if you haven't trained to know what you are reading, then concepts like VTF may seem hard. That too is trivial.

And if you consider than the standard today is the Garmin GTN650 and later Garmin navigators, the learnings of one box transport easily to any of the others. The 430/530 (and the G1000 to a degree) however appear to have been designed by programmers not pilots and are really unpleasant to use compared to the newer units.

 

[Ryan F.]

Likewise - paper charts and NDB/VOR navigation was much harder than today's magic. Add in the fact that most aircraft back then had no or crappy unreliable autopilots. So you couldn't push a button for a breather. We thought that getting a DME solved all of our problems forever.

Today's navigators are incredibly easy to use, particularly if you RTFM. Of course, if you haven't trained to know what you are reading, then concepts like VTF may seem hard. That too is trivial.

And if you consider than the standard today is the Garmin GTN650 and later Garmin navigators, the learnings of one box transport easily to any of the others. The 430/530 (and the G1000 to a degree) however appear to have been designed by programmers not pilots and are really unpleasant to use compared to the newer units.

I taught and checked the GNS430 for so many years that it's still second nature to me personally. But to your point, yes, the "next generation" is a huge leap forward in terms of intuitive operation. Wouldn't want to go backwards.

 

[Will Kumley]

Just to be sure we're talking apples and apples the 61.65 cross country has different wording than the ACS, and both the purposes and standards can be different.

For the 61.65 required cross country (which you are asking about), the FAA is very clear that

To fulfill the regulatory requirements, an applicant only needs to conduct three different kinds of approaches regardless of the navigation system utilized. Different approaches can be defined by the various lines of minima found on an approach plate. For example, localizer (LOC) minima are one kind of approach operation and instrument landing system (ILS) minima are another kind of approach operation. The same could be true of Area Navigation (RNAV) GPS-titled approach plates, a localizer performance with vertical guidance (LPV) approach is one kind of approach operation and a Localizer Performance (LP) to a circling MDA is another kind of approach operation.”​

FAA Order 8900.1, ¶5-434​

See my "These Three Approaches" article in IFR Magazine (no paywall on this one) discussing the changes.

I have not heard of a DPE not following this official guidance, If they aren't I'd suggest they check with their boss.

I see you referenced FFA Order 8900.1, 5-534 however I cannot seem to find this paragraph in FAA Order 8900.1 or 8900.1A which replaced it. Can you direct me to where you found this paragraph? My airplane currently has a WAAS GPS only for navigation and I'm using it for IFR training. While I intend to install a nav radio in the future I'd like to knock out my 250 mile cross country before I make any big changes to the panel in my airplane but there is some debate from my flight instructor what qualifies as different kins of approaches with a WASS GPS only setup. We understand LPV counts as a precision approach and I can shoot an LNAV but that only counts as two approaches. My thoughts are that an LNAV/VNAV or Circling would meet the wicket of another kind of approach and your paragraph implies my thoughts are correct but we also don't want to think we've completed the requirement if its not easily verifiable when the DPE does my checkride. We've asked the DPE for his opinion but if you can point me in the direction of the paragraph it would make the conversation easier.

Edit to add, I found it. Had to pull up the entire 8900.1a in DRS, its in chapter 2, section 9.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I see you referenced FFA Order 8900.1, 5-534 however I cannot seem to find this paragraph in FAA Order 8900.1 or 8900.1A which replaced it. Can you direct me to where you found this paragraph? My airplane currently has a WAAS GPS only for navigation and I'm using it for IFR training. While I intend to install a nav radio in the future I'd like to knock out my 250 mile cross country before I make any big changes to the panel in my airplane but there is some debate from my flight instructor what qualifies as different kins of approaches with a WASS GPS only setup. We understand LPV counts as a precision approach and I can shoot an LNAV but that only counts as two approaches. My thoughts are that an LNAV/VNAV or Circling would meet the wicket of another kind of approach and your paragraph implies my thoughts are correct but we also don't want to think we've completed the requirement if its not easily verifiable when the DPE does my checkride. We've asked the DPE for his opinion but if you can point me in the direction of the paragraph it would make the conversation easier.

Edit to add, I found it. Had to pull up the entire 8900.1a in DRS, its in chapter 2, section 9.

Yeah, all that stuff and more has been moved to DRS.

 

[John Collins]

I see you referenced FFA Order 8900.1, 5-534 however I cannot seem to find this paragraph in FAA Order 8900.1 or 8900.1A which replaced it. Can you direct me to where you found this paragraph? My airplane currently has a WAAS GPS only for navigation and I'm using it for IFR training. While I intend to install a nav radio in the future I'd like to knock out my 250 mile cross country before I make any big changes to the panel in my airplane but there is some debate from my flight instructor what qualifies as different kins of approaches with a WASS GPS only setup. We understand LPV counts as a precision approach and I can shoot an LNAV but that only counts as two approaches. My thoughts are that an LNAV/VNAV or Circling would meet the wicket of another kind of approach and your paragraph implies my thoughts are correct but we also don't want to think we've completed the requirement if its not easily verifiable when the DPE does my checkride. We've asked the DPE for his opinion but if you can point me in the direction of the paragraph it would make the conversation easier.

Edit to add, I found it. Had to pull up the entire 8900.1a in DRS, its in chapter 2, section 9.

Glad you found the guidance. One thing to remember, you will be only logging RNAV (GPS) approaches, which in electronic filing systems such as ForeFlight will all look the same unless you add the line of minima that you used in the comments. The line of minima is what makes the approaches different in the current guidance. So including in the comment, LNAV, LNAV CTL, or LPV would satisfy the current 61.65 and ACS requirements.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Glad you found the guidance. One thing to remember, you will be only logging RNAV (GPS) approaches, which in electronic filing systems such as ForeFlight will all look the same unless you add the line of minima that you used in the comments. The line of minima is what makes the approaches different in the current guidance. So including in the comment, LNAV, LNAV CTL, or LPV would satisfy the current 61.65 and ACS requirements.

Definitely. Do the same with recording approaches for IPCs to show compliance with the requirements.