A new panel with only GPS navigation for IFR flying

RussR said:
You've stated this several times so I guess you're pretty sure of it. If that's the case, why get an IFR rating at all? Seems like a lot of time and expense for someone who knows he's almost never going to use it.
Click to expand...
The other piece of this is, what is the plan to maintain proficiency?
 
RussR said:
You've stated this several times so I guess you're pretty sure of it. If that's the case, why get an IFR rating at all? Seems like a lot of time and expense for someone who knows he's almost never going to use it. Would probably be easier to just plan around that one trip a year.

I typically do recommend pilots get their IFR rating even if they don't plan on using it much, because I think that it makes you a better pilot and gives a lot more options, and (at least to some) is extremely interesting to learn. You don't seem interested in it, and don't plan to use it, so why bother?

Also, you seem to be treating VOR proficiency like you're in a unique situation. Believe me, you're not. Almost NO light GA pilot maintains any actual VOR proficiency. Most have probably gone years since tuning anything in on the VOR. BUT, it's there as a backup if needed, and when prompted to use it, most pilots eventually muddle through it somehow. It's not rocket science, and is a good tool to have in the back of your brain somewhere.
Click to expand...
The reason to get IR is for the few instances of low ceilings. In the PNW, this happens quite often, and we either have to cancel a trip, wait for 1-4 hrs for it to clear, or fly to an inland airport (like Salem) instead of a coast airport where we want to be.
We have been doing that for years, and can continue to do so, but if I can get and maintain IR with GPS only, it will give us more options.
 
midlifeflyer said:
The other piece of this is, what is the plan to maintain proficiency?
Click to expand...
The usual, like everyone else. I would just focus on one system (GPS), instead of multiple (GPS plus VOR/LOC/ILS).
 
I have had multiple occasions where the GPS lost its mind in the soup. So glad I had a VOR in the plane.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
crash7 said:
I have had multiple occasions where the GPS lost its mind in the soup. So glad I had a VOR in the plane.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Interesting.
Is that because of your GPS receiver crapped out, or the signal was gone?
How did you switch from GPS navigation to VOR?
 
MountainDude said:
Interesting.
Is that because of your GPS receiver crapped out, or the signal was gone?
How did you switch from GPS navigation to VOR?
Click to expand...

The school I was teaching at had a couple planes that had shielding issues of some sort I was told.

How did I switch from gps to VOR? Uhhh, I simply did. Told approach what happened, said I was climbing on the last heading and asked to be vectored around for a VOR approach. Dialed the frequency in the Nav box and shot the approach. Easy peasy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
MountainDude said:
How did you switch from GPS navigation to VOR?
Click to expand...
Look at a chart. Load and identify a frequency. Twist a course needle. Push a button. That's pretty much the totality of the additional work maintaining VLOC proficiency.

While what you want to do could work, I don't think "it's too hard/too much trouble to maintain proficiency in two systems" is a particularly good reason. The VOR knowledge test questions you will have to answer to get to your checkride are far more difficult than flying with the equipment. So far, at least, I have never woken up in an airplane from a nap with no idea where I was coming from or going to and with nothing but unmovable VOR display in front of me to figure out where I was. If an applicant asks for my help, I usually have to spend an hour alone trying to figure out how to do them.

Plus, @Kritchlow notwithstanding, that little GPS175 you may be thinking of, is probably far more complex than you are thinking - way more complicated than tune-identify-twist-fly. And you do not fly the magenta line on a map, which has the same legal "situational awareness only" status as an EFB. You fly the exact same CDI as you do with GPS. Plus, there is some good knowledge and skill transfer between them. There are even tasks which are much easier to do with a VOR.
 
midlifeflyer said:
There are even tasks which are much easier to do with a VOR.
Click to expand...
My best example of this is from a recent flight where shortly after takeoff, I received the following instructions from ATC: "intercept the Will Rogers 265 radial to 39 DME, then direct XXX."

Now there are numerous ways to do this with any GPS, but none of them are super quick. But what was very quick was switching to the VOR, spinning in 265 and flying it to 39 DME. Then pressing "direct to" on the GPS and switching back.
 
RussR said:
My best example of this is from a recent flight where shortly after takeoff, I received the following instructions from ATC: "intercept the Will Rogers 265 radial to 39 DME, then direct XXX."

Now there are numerous ways to do this with any GPS, but none of them are super quick. But what was very quick was switching to the VOR, spinning in 265 and flying it to 39 DME. Then pressing "direct to" on the GPS and switching back.
Click to expand...
Thank you for sharing.
I don't quite understand "to 39 DME"? Is it "intercept at 39 DME"?
 
RussR said:
My best example of this is from a recent flight where shortly after takeoff, I received the following instructions from ATC: "intercept the Will Rogers 265 radial to 39 DME, then direct XXX."

Now there are numerous ways to do this with any GPS, but none of them are super quick. But what was very quick was switching to the VOR, spinning in 265 and flying it to 39 DME. Then pressing "direct to" on the GPS and switching back.
Click to expand...
You still have a DME installed?
 
MountainDude said:
Thank you for sharing.
I don't quite understand "to 39 DME"? Is it "intercept at 39 DME"?
Click to expand...
No, they wanted me to track outbound on the IRW R-265 to the 39 DME fix, then from there, go direct to the next fix on my clearance.

A pretty basic IFR instruction, and one that is a whole ton easier to do with a VOR than with GPS.
 
Salty said:
You still have a DME installed?
Click to expand...
No, but this was a G1000-equipped airplane, so I just tracked along the R-265 until the (GPS-derived) distance said "39", which on the G1000 is always shown when you're navigating using VOR.

Had it not been a G1000 airplane, once I was tracking out on the radial, then I would have set the GPS to display the distance to the VOR and done the same. Probably just have brought up the "Nearest" page for VORs.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Look at a chart. Load and identify a frequency. Twist a course needle. Push a button. That's pretty much the totality of the additional work maintaining VLOC proficiency.

While what you want to do could work, I don't think "it's too hard/too much trouble to maintain proficiency in two systems" is a particularly good reason. The VOR knowledge test questions you will have to answer to get to your checkride are far more difficult than flying with the equipment. So far, at least, I have never woken up in an airplane from a nap with no idea where I was coming from or going to and with nothing but unmovable VOR display in front of me to figure out where I was. If an applicant asks for my help, I usually have to spend an hour alone trying to figure out how to do them.

Plus, @Kritchlow notwithstanding, that little GPS175 you may be thinking of, is probably far more complex than you are thinking - way more complicated than tune-identify-twist-fly. And you do not fly the magenta line on a map, which has the same legal "situational awareness only" status as an EFB. You fly the exact same CDI as you do with GPS. Plus, there is some good knowledge and skill transfer between them. There are even tasks which are much easier to do with a VOR.
Click to expand...
Not sure about specific models of GPS units.
I have used several throughout the last many years. I can list avionics “suites” that were installed in the airplanes, but perhaps that is not what you are wondering about.
Point is I have used several platforms to do gps approaches and holding. Nothing has been more complicated than verifying the radial, direction of turn, and time/distance. The system figured out the entry, timing, etc. There is truly no thought process.
 
Kritchlow said:
Not sure about specific models of GPS units.
I have used several throughout the last many years. I can list avionics “suites” that were installed in the airplanes, but perhaps that is not what you are wondering about.
Point is I have used several platforms to do gps approaches and holding. Nothing has been more complicated than verifying the radial, direction of turn, and time/distance. The system figured out the entry, timing, etc. There is truly no thought process.
Click to expand...
Yeah, if I look only at myself, I’d probably say the same. But I don’t. I’m just relating what I see in IPCs and recurrent training, Repeatedly.

And yes, you are right. Once everything is set up properly, the system flies itself. But that’s the catch.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Yeah, if I look only at myself, I’d probably say the same. But I don’t. I’m just relating what I see in IPCs and recurrent training, Repeatedly.

And yes, you are right. Once everything is set up properly, the system flies itself. But that’s the catch.
Click to expand...
My explanation, which may include a confirmation bias, is that IR pilots have too many systems to think about/maintain, so they lose proficiency in all systems. This is precisely why I want to focus on one system (GPS) and be super proficient in it, without distractions from VOR/DME/LOC/ILS.
 
MountainDude said:
My explanation, which may include a confirmation bias, is that IR pilots have too many systems to think about/maintain, so they lose proficiency in all systems. This is precisely why I want to focus on one system (GPS) and be super proficient in it, without distractions from VOR/DME/LOC/ILS.
Click to expand...
I see the same issues that @midlifeflyer does, and I see absolutely no reason to believe that they’d change if the pilots weren’t expected to maintain proficiency in ILS and VOR approaches. It’s more about the pilot putting in adequate effort to learn and understand the systems.
 
MountainDude said:
My explanation, which may include a confirmation bias, is that IR pilots have too many systems to think about/maintain, so they lose proficiency in all systems. This is precisely why I want to focus on one system (GPS) and be super proficient in it, without distractions from VOR/DME/LOC/ILS.
Click to expand...
Not really how it works, the part you're focused on is TINY and in practice, mostly identical, follow line.
slight complication in how you get the line. There are complicated approaches, gps and nav but they all boil down to following a list of simple instructions.

read an approach plate, doesn't matter which, vor/gps/ils left to right, top to bottom, it's just a list of instructions on how to find a runway.

IFR training is all about knowing what's happening now, what you should be doing next and an idea of what's after that, once you know these and can fly the plane, the differences in nav systems is more or less lost in noise. You'll become proficient in gps simply due to rnav being more convenient but, my opinion, it would be a mistake to ignore everything else.
 
Last edited:
He’s pretty much made up his mind that he doesn’t want to learn VOR/ILS Nav and instead become proficient with just his GPS.

I’m not sure -what- GPS navigator he has. Gonna assume Garmin. Heaven help him though when he hops into a different airplane that has some Dynon or Avidyne or whatever system. Not quite so proficient anymore.

Once you know how to use VOR/ILS (and it’s really not that hard) you can get into pretty much any airplane that has a Nav radio and do IFR stuff.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
crash7 said:
He’s pretty much made up his mind that he doesn’t want to learn VOR/ILS Nav and instead become proficient with just his GPS.

I’m not sure -what- GPS navigator he has. Gonna assume Garmin. Heaven help him though when he hops into a different airplane that has some Dynon or Avidyne or whatever system. Not quite so proficient anymore.

Once you know how to use VOR/ILS (and it’s really not that hard) you can get into pretty much any airplane that has a Nav radio and do IFR stuff.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Several assumptions in your and other replies, so let me explain:
- I don't want to get into any other airplane. With the limited time I have, I want to focus on one system (GPS), one device, and one plane, and be confident in my skills.
- If the GPS set up does not work for a flight, I will simply not fly. I have done that several times as a VFR pilot, and no big deal.
- As long as I know the limitations of my GPS-only proficiency and equipment, I will only use it for what I can use it.

This is a very simple concept that can be applied to any activity: know your capabilities and use them well; also know the limitations avoid them.

I understand that most of you have used the old systems for a long time, have the time to maintain proficiency, and get into situations where the old systems are helpful. None of that applies to me.

Also, I dont have an IFR panel yet; that was the point of this thread, but everyone has focused on the other topic (should I do it).
 
MountainDude said:
My understanding is that GPS outages are rare, and they are NOTAMed. If I am going to fly 1-4 hrs in IMC per year (yes, per year), what are the odds I will run into an unannounced GPS outage?

Yes, if I limit myself to GPS only, I will plan accordingly.
Click to expand...
What's the plan if your GPS box stops working? I've had that happen in flight--failed GPS vertical guidance board, which was a "partial" failure that was difficult to fully diagnose, especially in flight. I still had ILS/LOC/VOR approaches in my pocket, so it was a non-event to get down.
 
Your desire to fly GPS only and outfit your panel accordingly is fine as long as you understand the consequences and limitations of your decisions. However as you aren’t rated your rationale for doing so, as described, is flawed as you have made some incorrect assumptions as many of the posts have indicated. I suggest just sticking to asking what’s a good IFR GPS for a panel upgrade or similar and leave it at that.
 
MountainDude said:
My explanation, which may include a confirmation bias, is that IR pilots have too many systems to think about/maintain, so they lose proficiency in all systems. This is precisely why I want to focus on one system (GPS) and be super proficient in it, without distractions from VOR/DME/LOC/ILS.
Click to expand...
I think it is wishful thinking that not learning how to fly a VOR/LOC/ILS approach is going to significantly reduce the overhead of IR training and periodic currency/proficiency. It sounds more like an artificial, self-imposed limitation that unnecessarily reduces capability. Talk to an IFR rated pilot you trust and see if they think this is a good idea. (You have heard from a bunch of us here who vary from instructors, professional pilots, and occasional IFR flib-flyers who are pretty much on the same page about having nav redundancy and options.) The thing about IFR is that you can't always control the conditions you find yourself in, and the worst thing that can happen IFR is to run out of options.
 
MountainDude said:
Several assumptions in your and other replies, so let me explain:
- I don't want to get into any other airplane. With the limited time I have, I want to focus on one system (GPS), one device, and one plane, and be confident in my skills.
- If the GPS set up does not work for a flight, I will simply not fly. I have done that several times as a VFR pilot, and no big deal.
- As long as I know the limitations of my GPS-only proficiency and equipment, I will only use it for what I can use it.

This is a very simple concept that can be applied to any activity: know your capabilities and use them well; also know the limitations avoid them.

I understand that most of you have used the old systems for a long time, have the time to maintain proficiency, and get into situations where the old systems are helpful. None of that applies to me.

Also, I dont have an IFR panel yet; that was the point of this thread, but everyone has focused on the other topic (should I do it).
Click to expand...
The fact that you have an airplane with VORs and haven’t learned how to properly use them says way more than you seem to understand.
 
chemgeek said:
What's the plan if your GPS box stops working? I've had that happen in flight--failed GPS vertical guidance board, which was a "partial" failure that was difficult to fully diagnose, especially in flight. I still had ILS/LOC/VOR approaches in my pocket, so it was a non-event to get down.
Click to expand...
That's a good question. I don't know the answer, but will ask the CFII. I suspect the best answer is to have a fully redundant GPS receiver/antenna combo, but will see.
 
tsts4 said:
Your desire to fly GPS only and outfit your panel accordingly is fine as long as you understand the consequences and limitations of your decisions. However as you aren’t rated your rationale for doing so, as described, is flawed as you have made some incorrect assumptions as many of the posts have indicated. I suggest just sticking to asking what’s a good IFR GPS for a panel upgrade or similar and leave it at that.
Click to expand...
Would like to know which rationale is flawed please (which of my assumptions are incorrect)?
Also, I did ask for the GPS-based panel in this thread, but here we are.
 
chemgeek said:
I think it is wishful thinking that not learning how to fly a VOR/LOC/ILS approach is going to significantly reduce the overhead of IR training and periodic currency/proficiency. It sounds more like an artificial, self-imposed limitation that unnecessarily reduces capability. Talk to an IFR rated pilot you trust and see if they think this is a good idea. (You have heard from a bunch of us here who vary from instructors, professional pilots, and occasional IFR flib-flyers who are pretty much on the same page about having nav redundancy and options.) The thing about IFR is that you can't always control the conditions you find yourself in, and the worst thing that can happen IFR is to run out of options.
Click to expand...
I am appreciative of yall's input, and will also talk to both IFR-rated pilots and CFIIs (and a DPE) before I make the final decision.
I understand that you cannot control everything, but there is a calculated risk we all take even flying VFR. My current thought is that my risk is higher if I try to maintain proficiency in multiple nav systems, then it is to be very proficient in one. It does come with drawbacks, but life is full of trade-offs.
 
MauleSkinner said:
The fact that you have an airplane with VORs and haven’t learned how to properly use them says way more than you seem to understand.
Click to expand...
I do know how to use VORs, so your statement is a false assumption. Not helpful.
 
MauleSkinner said:
If you’re concerned about learning/staying proficient in their use, you obviously don’t.
Click to expand...
Wrong again. There is a huge difference in using VORs for SA in VMC and using them for approaches in IMC. That is exactly the difference I keep bringing up.
 
MountainDude said:
Would like to know which rationale is flawed please (which of my assumptions are incorrect)?
Also, I did ask for the GPS-based panel in this thread, but here we are.
Click to expand...
A. That by installing only one type of Nav system maintaining IFR proficiency will somehow be easier -- it won't and if you were rated you'd understand this
B. That unannounced GPS outages won't occur enroute-- they happen as do equipment failure in the aircraft.
C. That there's some sort of huge difference on how you navigate IFR with VOR vs GPS -- there's really not. There are some differences of course but fundamentally the way you interpret and react to the CDI is the same as are the basic approach concepts.

Also you don't seem to understand the level of procedural knowledge IFR requires. Attitude flying is really the easy part of IFR. Knowing the rules, procedures and how to properly apply this to instrument flight is the hard part. Once you have all of that down, which you'll have to in order to obtain the rating, the rest is gravy especially since you already know how to use a VOR.

My worthless advice is don't do anything with your panel until after you get your rating. At least then you'll be making the decision from a position of knowledge and experience.
 
Last edited:
TLDR, but when the weather is bad, and you wanna get down, the trusty ILS is your huckleberry.
 
MountainDude said:
Wrong again. There is a huge difference in using VORs for SA in VMC and using them for approaches in IMC. That is exactly the difference I keep bringing up.
Click to expand...
Huge? Not really. Or at least far less than you apparently think. My VFR VOR use made that part of my instrument training incredibly easy (stupid knowledge test questions notwithstanding). You need to Tune-Identify-Twist for VFR use, right? That's is quite literally the only difference between a VOR or ILS approach and an RNAV approach. And I can probably leave out Twist since that's also an important RNAV skill.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top