Can you get IR without VOR/ILS receivers?

[MountainDude]

I am not IR, but thinking of getting IR and upgrading my panel, so this is an important topic.

This article is interpreted differently by different people:
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media...al-approach-to-instrument-rating-requirements

If your plane does not have a VOR/ILS capability, but has a WAAS GPS, can you take/pass the IR checkride? For example: dual G5s and a Garmin GNC 355, with no NAV/ILS equipment in your plane.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Do you have two different types of navigational aids, per the ACS?

 

[Mongoose Aviator]

What would your plan be to demonstrate the precision approach?

EDIT: I missed Appendix 7 of the Instrument Rating ACS that states "... an LPV minima approach can be flown to demonstrate precision approach proficiency if the LPV DA is equal to or less than 300 feet HAT."

 

[MauleSkinner]

What would your plan be to demonstrate the precision approach?

An LPV approach to a DH of less than 300 feet can be used for that.

 

[Rgbeard]

can you use your ADF?

 

[Mongoose Aviator]

Do you have two different types of navigational aids, per the ACS?

I looked but couldn’t find that requirement in the ACS.

Appendix 7. Which I had missed reading at first.

"Task A. Nonprecision Approach"
[clip]
"The choices must use at least two different types of navigational aids."

 

[MountainDude]

can you use your ADF?

No

 

[Rgbeard]

No

party pooper!

 

[midlifeflyer]

Appendix 7. Which I had missed reading at first.

"Task A. Nonprecision Approach"
[clip]
"The choices must use at least two different types of navigational aids."

There's the "No" until the ACS changes (if it does).

 

[midlifeflyer]

can you use your ADF?

No

Is that,

1. No, I don't have ADF.
2. No, there are no NDB approaches near me.
3. No, my ADF is only for listening to football or baseball.
4. No, I wouldn't know how to use the damn thing if my life depended on it!

 

[Jim_R]

Yes

 

[tsts4]

Yes

How are you getting past the ACS requirement to have at least two different types of navigational aids with only an IFR GPS per the OP's original post?

 

[Jim_R]

I was just making a smartass reply to midlifeflyer.

 

[Clip4]

I am not IR, but thinking of getting IR and upgrading my panel, so this is an important topic.

This article is interpreted differently by different people:
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media...al-approach-to-instrument-rating-requirements

If your plane does not have a VOR/ILS capability, but has a WAAS GPS, can you take/pass the IR checkride? For example: dual G5s and a Garmin GNC 355, with no NAV/ILS equipment in your plane.

I realize you are not instrument rated, but your plane needs an ILS/VOR receiver to operate safely in the instrument environment.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I was just making a smartass reply to midlifeflyer.

LOL! That's why it's helpful to quote what you are replying to

 

[midlifeflyer]

I realize you are not instrument rated, but your plane needs an ILS/VOR receiver to operate safely in the instrument environment.

"Safely"? Maybe. Part depends where but I would definitely want one in case of a GPS outage. OTOH, it's probably more accurate to say your plane needs an approach-capable GPS more than an ILS/VOR in order to operate in the IFR environment..

 

[tsts4]

"Safely"? Maybe. Part depends where but I would definitely want one in case of a GPS outage. OTOH, it's probably more accurate to say your plane needs an approach-capable GPS more than an ILS/VOR in order to operate in the IFR environment..

There's safe, in the vein of having options is a good thing, then there's practical. I'm an advocate of maintaining a VOR/LOC capability even in the face of VOR and ILS decommissioning's simply because I like having options and having a single IFR nav source can be problematic in the face of issue like GPS outages, NOTAM'd or otherwise. Having said that not having an IFR GPS today can be a significant hinderance in efficiently utilizing the NAS.

 

[midlifeflyer]

There's safe, in the vein of having options is a good thing, then there's practical. I'm an advocate of maintaining a VOR/LOC capability even in the face of VOC and ILS decommissioning's simply because I like having options and having a single IFR nav source can be problematic in the face of issue like GPS outages, NOTAM'd or otherwise. Having said that not having an IFR GPS today can be a significant hinderance in efficiently utilizing the NAS.

Agree completely.

 

[Clip4]

"Safely"? Maybe. Part depends where but I would definitely want one in case of a GPS outage. OTOH, it's probably more accurate to say your plane needs an approach-capable GPS more than an ILS/VOR in order to operate in the IFR environment..

How do you propose filing alternates in an aircraft without ILS/VOR? The system assumes you are not just flying with GPS.

 

[tsts4]

How do you propose filing alternates in an aircraft without ILS/VOR? The system assumes you are not just flying with GPS.

Not sure I agree with this at all. I see nothing in part 91 or the AIM that backs up your assertion. Furthermore, listening to the controllers on the Opposing Bases podcast cast leads me to believe that there's no assumption as to what nav gear you're navigating with regardless of what slant you filed under. Care to elaborate?

 

[midlifeflyer]

How do you propose filing alternates in an aircraft without ILS/VOR? The system assumes you are not just flying with GPS.

It does?

That was mostly true before WAAS. Without WAAS, a GPS-only destination required a ground-based Navaid alternate. But with WAAS, the only alternate limitation is that you are stuck with the 800-2 alternate minimums (which I think is likely to change to 600-2 for LPV eventually).

 

[midlifeflyer]

Not sure I agree with this at all. I see nothing in part 91 or the AIM that backs up your assertion. Furthermore, listening to the controllers on the Opposing Bases podcast cast leads me to believe that there's no assumption as to what nav gear you're navigating with regardless of what slant you filed under. Care to elaborate?

Don't use Opposing Bases as the source for that. They talk as controllers about what they will clear you for, not what the rules require us to do for flight planning and filing. Heck, controllers don't even see our filed alternate.

Here we are talking about the requirement to plan and file an IFR alternate when one is required, not what you are allowed to fly when you get there.

Before WAAS, the AIM was very specific that

For flight planning purposes, TSO-C129() and TSO-C196()-equipped users (GPS users) whose navigation systems have fault detection and exclusion (FDE) capability, who perform a preflight RAIM prediction for the approach integrity at the airport where the RNAV (GPS) approach will be flown, and have proper knowledge and any required training and/or approval to conduct a GPS-based IAP, may file based on a GPS-based IAP at either the destination or the alternate airport, but not at both locations. AIM 1-1-7.b.5.(c)​

With WAAS:

Unlike TSO-C129 [non-WAAS] avionics, which were certified as a supplement to other means of navigation, WAAS avionics are evaluated without reliance on other navigation systems. As such, installation of WAAS avionics does not require the aircraft to have other equipment appropriate to the route to be flown. (See paragraph 1-1-17d for more information on equipment requirements.)

(a) Pilots with WAAS receivers may flight plan to use any instrument approach procedure authorized for use with their WAAS avionics as the planned approach at a required alternate, with the following restrictions. When using WAAS at an alternate airport, flight planning must be based on flying the RNAV (GPS) LNAV or circling minima line, or minima on a GPS approach procedure, or conventional approach procedure with "or GPS" in the title. AIM 1-1-18.c.9.(a)​

Neither govern what you do when you get there (or even require you to go there)

​

 

[Martin Pauly]

@midlifeflyer is right. With WAAS GPS (which is pretty much standard equipment in IFR-operated airplanes these days), the regulations no longer require ground-based navigation for alternate planning.

And this only matters for fuel planning and flight plan filing. The controllers don't care what alternate we filed or if we have the legally required navigation equipment onboard.

- Martin

 

[tsts4]

Don't use Opposing Bases as the source for that.

I'm not, I mentioned it simply as anecdotal evidence as to "the system assumes" argument.

Here we are talking about the requirement to plan and file an IFR alternate when one is required, not what you are allowed to fly when you get there.

Before WAAS, the AIM was very specific that

For flight planning purposes, TSO-C129() and TSO-C196()-equipped users (GPS users) whose navigation systems have fault detection and exclusion (FDE) capability, who perform a preflight RAIM prediction for the approach integrity at the airport where the RNAV (GPS) approach will be flown, and have proper knowledge and any required training and/or approval to conduct a GPS-based IAP, may file based on a GPS-based IAP at either the destination or the alternate airport, but not at both locations. AIM 1-1-7.b.5.(c)​

With WAAS:

Unlike TSO-C129 [non-WAAS] avionics, which were certified as a supplement to other means of navigation, WAAS avionics are evaluated without reliance on other navigation systems. As such, installation of WAAS avionics does not require the aircraft to have other equipment appropriate to the route to be flown. (See paragraph 1-1-17d for more information on equipment requirements.)

(a) Pilots with WAAS receivers may flight plan to use any instrument approach procedure authorized for use with their WAAS avionics as the planned approach at a required alternate, with the following restrictions. When using WAAS at an alternate airport, flight planning must be based on flying the RNAV (GPS) LNAV or circling minima line, or minima on a GPS approach procedure, or conventional approach procedure with "or GPS" in the title. AIM 1-1-18.c.9.(a)​

Neither govern what you do when you get there (or even require you to go there)

​

I get all of that, but my post was relating this all back to the OP's original post and his stated equipment. I should have added that to my last post I guess to avoid the ambiguity that ensued.

 

[ateamer]

I realize you are not instrument rated, but your plane needs an ILS/VOR receiver to operate safely in the instrument environment.

I was asking one of my airline pilot neighbors (legacy carrier, international, 30+ years experience) about approaches. He can’t remember how many years it’s been since he did anything but a GPS approach.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I get all of that, but my post was relating this all back to the OP's original post and his stated equipment. I should have added that to my last post I guess to avoid the ambiguity that ensued.

Oh. OK.

I thought that part was pretty much resolved by the ACS requirement for two nonprecision approaches which "use at least two different types of navigational aids" mentioned back in Posts 2 and 6 and we were in "thread creep" tertiary.

 

[Martin Pauly]

I was asking one of my airline pilot neighbors (legacy carrier, international, 30+ years experience) about approaches. He can’t remember how many years it’s been since he did anything but a GPS approach.

Interesting. Listening to liveatc.net at any of the big airports in the US, I still hear "cleared ILS approach" or "join the localizer, cleared visual approach" most of the time. I agree RNAV and RNP approaches are increasingly used in the airline world (more so in some places in the world, less in others), but I find it hard to believe that an airline pilot hasn't flown an ILS approach in years. I'd be curious to hear where this pilot is based and what route he or she flies.

- Martin

 

[geezer]

Alternately, could that airline pilot's company's computers preload his nav with GPS routing and approaches?

The GA world has many IR pilots with both GPS and ILS in their planes who default to ILS, as they are confident in their proficiency with the old standby. Many more have planes without GPS who find that flying with the old technology still gets them there safely. Flying one more ILS after hundreds previously, is no stress. Flying the GPS based approach after training and a few solo VFR 'trials", is not easy choice.

 

[tsts4]

Alternately, could that airline pilot's company's computers preload his nav with GPS routing and approaches?

The GA world has many IR pilots with both GPS and ILS in their planes who default to ILS, as they are confident in their proficiency with the old standby. Many more have planes without GPS who find that flying with the old technology still gets them there safely. Flying one more ILS after hundreds previously, is no stress. Flying the GPS based approach after training and a few solo VFR 'trials", is not easy choice.

I dunno. Flying an LPV is really not much different than flying an ILS. I think the last time I flew an ILS for real was like 2015.

 

[Clip4]

Not sure I agree with this at all. I see nothing in part 91 or the AIM that backs up your assertion. Furthermore, listening to the controllers on the Opposing Bases podcast cast leads me to believe that there's no assumption as to what nav gear you're navigating with regardless of what slant you filed under. Care to elaborate?

As I said, the system is based on you having ILS/VOR. Me, I have at least a ground based approach at the alternate.

AIM 1-1-3 f. The VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON). As flight procedures and route structure based on VORs are gradually being replaced with Performance-Based Navigation (PBN) procedures, the FAA is removing selected VORs from service. PBN procedures are primarily enabled by GPS and its augmentation systems, collectively referred to as Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS). Aircraft that carry DME/DME equipment can also use RNAV which provides a backup to continue flying PBN during a GNSS disruption. For those aircraft that do not carry DME/DME, the FAA is retaining a limited network of VORs, called the VOR MON, to provide a basic conventional navigation service for operators to use if GNSS becomes unavailable. During a GNSS disruption, the MON will enable aircraft to navigate through the affected area or to a safe landing at a MON airport without reliance on GNSS. Navigation using the MON will not be as efficient as the new PBN route structure, but use of the MON will provide nearly continuous VOR signal coverage at 5,000 feet AGL across the NAS, outside of the Western U.S. Mountainous Area (WUSMA).

 

[tsts4]

As I said, the system is based on you having ILS/VOR. Me, I have at least a ground based approach at the alternate.

AIM 1-1-3 f. The VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON). As flight procedures and route structure based on VORs are gradually being replaced with Performance-Based Navigation (PBN) procedures, the FAA is removing selected VORs from service. PBN procedures are primarily enabled by GPS and its augmentation systems, collectively referred to as Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS). Aircraft that carry DME/DME equipment can also use RNAV which provides a backup to continue flying PBN during a GNSS disruption. For those aircraft that do not carry DME/DME, the FAA is retaining a limited network of VORs, called the VOR MON, to provide a basic conventional navigation service for operators to use if GNSS becomes unavailable. During a GNSS disruption, the MON will enable aircraft to navigate through the affected area or to a safe landing at a MON airport without reliance on GNSS. Navigation using the MON will not be as efficient as the new PBN route structure, but use of the MON will provide nearly continuous VOR signal coverage at 5,000 feet AGL across the NAS, outside of the Western U.S. Mountainous Area (WUSMA).

I understand that, but I still disagree that the “system” assumes you are going to default using VORs. The MON is there to provide a minimum capability but nowhere does the AIM or FARs say you must use it.

 

[ateamer]

Interesting. Listening to liveatc.net at any of the big airports in the US, I still hear "cleared ILS approach" or "join the localizer, cleared visual approach" most of the time. I agree RNAV and RNP approaches are increasingly used in the airline world (more so in some places in the world, less in others), but I find it hard to believe that an airline pilot hasn't flown an ILS approach in years. I'd be curious to hear where this pilot is based and what route he or she flies.

- Martin

Neward, flies European trips but used to be domestic.

 

[sarangan]

Do you have two different types of navigational aids, per the ACS?

Does a surveillance approach count for the two different types?

 

[MauleSkinner]

Does a surveillance approach count for the two different types?

No.

 

[Mongoose Aviator]

Does a surveillance approach count for the two different types?

No.

FAA Memo 2-28-22. Subject: Reconsideration of Legal Interpretations (Glaser-2008 and Pratte-2012)
[This is the memo which the OP was referring to initially.]

"The FAA finds that PAR should be considered an acceptable navigation system under 3 § 61.65(d)(2)(ii)(C) because § 1.1 defines a precision approach procedure, which is a type of instrument approach, as including the use of PAR. As a result, the FAA is rescinding both the Glaser and Pratte interpretations. Furthermore, because the regulations do not define "navigation systems," Flight Standards Service (AFS) is in the best position to issue policy and guidance on what "navigation systems" mean and which ones may be used under § 61.65(d)(2)(ii)(C). Therefore, AFS should determine whether ASR should be part of a nonprecision instrument approach under § 1.1, and whether the use of ASR is considered a navigation system under§ 61.65(d)(2)(ii)(C).6 "

[Footnote]
"6. Part 97 considers an approach using ASR as an example of a nonprecision approach procedure. FAA Order 8260.3E, Chapter 1, Section 1, Paragraph 6(c), Types of Procedures "

 

[MauleSkinner]

FAA Memo 2-28-22. Subject: Reconsideration of Legal Interpretations (Glaser-2008 and Pratte-2012)
[This is the memo which the OP was referring to initially.]

"The FAA finds that PAR should be considered an acceptable navigation system under 3 § 61.65(d)(2)(ii)(C) because § 1.1 defines a precision approach procedure, which is a type of instrument approach, as including the use of PAR. As a result, the FAA is rescinding both the Glaser and Pratte interpretations. Furthermore, because the regulations do not define "navigation systems," Flight Standards Service (AFS) is in the best position to issue policy and guidance on what "navigation systems" mean and which ones may be used under § 61.65(d)(2)(ii)(C). Therefore, AFS should determine whether ASR should be part of a nonprecision instrument approach under § 1.1, and whether the use of ASR is considered a navigation system under§ 61.65(d)(2)(ii)(C).6 "

[Footnote]
"6. Part 97 considers an approach using ASR as an example of a nonprecision approach procedure. FAA Order 8260.3E, Chapter 1, Section 1, Paragraph 6(c), Types of Procedures "

The memo discusses 61.65(d)(2)(ii)(C), but not the ACS.

 

[Mongoose Aviator]

The ACS in Appendix 7 does not (appear?) to specifically list the allowable non-precision approaches. It uses the phrase: "Examples of acceptable nonprecision approaches include: ..."
Neither NDB nor ASR are listed but does that necessarily disqualify them from being an allowed non-precision approach for the ACS?

 

[Pinecone]

There's safe, in the vein of having options is a good thing, then there's practical. I'm an advocate of maintaining a VOR/LOC capability even in the face of VOC and ILS decommissioning's simply because I like having options and having a single IFR nav source can be problematic in the face of issue like GPS outages, NOTAM'd or otherwise. Having said that not having an IFR GPS today can be a significant hinderance in efficiently utilizing the NAS.

Then you still have an ADF?

 

[MauleSkinner]

The ACS in Appendix 7 does not (appear?) to specifically list the allowable non-precision approaches. It uses the phrase: "Examples of acceptable nonprecision approaches include: ..."
Neither NDB nor ASR are listed but does that necessarily disqualify them from being an allowed non-precision approach for the ACS?

Radar Approaches are not listed in the Navigation Aids section of the AIM, so I would exclude them from being Navigational Aids per the ACS.

 

[MountainDude]

Is that,

1. No, I don't have ADF.
2. No, there are no NDB approaches near me.
3. No, my ADF is only for listening to football or baseball.
4. No, I wouldn't know how to use the damn thing if my life depended on it!

My plane does not have ADF.