Can you get IR without VOR/ILS receivers?

[midlifeflyer]

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.

I suspect you are correct.

but you never know. Perhaps Flight Standards' realistic assessment of the IFR cross country will spill over to the ACS at some point. Ground-based nonprecision approaches lack a lot of realism.

 

[Mongoose Aviator]

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

If this thread is not just about what is legal for a checkride but also about a panel upgrade for future flying IFR (presumably in IMC at times) then from a practical and safety point of view, would it make sense for the upgrade to include NAV/VOR/ILS capabilities?

What would be the difference in cost between an upgrade that includes NAV/VOR/ILS vs the one you initially mentioned which does not?

 

[Martin Pauly]

If this thread is not just about what is legal for a checkride but also about a panel upgrade for future flying IFR (presumably in IMC at times) then from a practical and safety point of view, would it make sense for the upgrade to include NAV/VOR/ILS capabilities?

Yes, that absolutely makes sense for IFR flying. GPS availability is pretty good in North America, but it's not perfect. And who knows what it'll be like in five or ten years. I believe having at least one VOR/ILS receiver is essential for serious instrument flying.

- Martin

 

[Pinecone]

Yes, that absolutely makes sense for IFR flying. GPS availability is pretty good in North America, but it's not perfect. And who knows what it'll be like in five or ten years. I believe having at least one VOR/ILS receiver is essential for serious instrument flying.

- Martin

Agreed.

 

[John Collins]

I sent an inquiry to to AFS-800. This was the response:

The General Aviation and Commercial Division received your inquiry on August 4, 2022, in regards to choosing navigational aids to satisfy approach requirements for an instrument practical exam and instrument proficiency check.

Question #1:
“The FAA has recently rescinded its Glaser 2008 and Pratte 2012 with its Feb 28, 2022 Memorandum to Robert C. Carty, Acting Executive Director, Flight Standards Service,AFX-1, attached. Does this change the position of the FAA with respect to the question I had asked and you responded to?”

Answer:
The rescission of the Glaser and Pratte legal interpretations that you referenced was only focused on the specific aeronautical experience requirements found in § 61.65(d)(2)(ii)(C). This has no bearing on the practical test requirements found in the Instrument Rating – Airplane Airman Certification Standards (ACS).

Question #2:

“May an IPC be performed in an aircraft that does not have a conventional approach capability, but only has WAAS based GPS with LPV and or LNAV approach capability?”

Answer:

No, the practical test of § 61.65 and the instrument proficiency check (IPC) of § 61.57 require that an applicant be tested on precision and nonprecision approaches. Instrument practical tests and instrument proficiency checks (IPCs) are interconnected in that they both conduct an evaluation utilizing the same list of area of operations found in The Instrument Rating – Airplane Airman Certification Standards (ACS), June 2018, (FAA-S-ACS-8B) with Change 1, effective June 6, 2019. The maneuvers and procedures selected for the IPC must include at least those listed in the IPC (Proficiency Check) Table located in Appendix 5 of the ACS. Both the instrument practical test and IPC require all tasks be completed in Area of Operation VI. Instrument Approach Procedures. Operational requirements, limitations, and task information for that area of operation are found in Appendix 7 of the ACS. Therefore, the same nonprecision requirements are applicable to both

I also asked this follow up question on Feb 1, 2023 and got a response it would be answered within 30 days.

I also have an additional question regarding an IPC,

In the current Instrument ACS states on page A-12 “ As a minimum, the applicant must demonstrate the ability to perform the Tasks listed in the table below” and “Guidance on how to conduct an IPC is found in Advisory Circular 61-98, Currency Requirements and Guidance for the Flight Review and Instrument Proficiency Check.”

The table lists the Area of Operation VI (Instrument Approach Procedures) as “All” in the IPC columns. Does All mean that the guidance in Appendix 7, Operational Requirements, Limitations, & Task Information, Task A. Nonprecision Approach must be followed? IOW must at least two non-precision approaches and using two different types of navigational aids be accomplished IAW the guidance or does the guidance only apply to the practical test? I don’t see any regulatory requirement in 61.57(d) Instrument proficiency check and the guidance wording in the ACS uses terminology of “the evaluator” and “the applicant” and whereas with an IPC the pilot is not an applicant as they are already rated, just possibly not current with 61.57(c) and mostly the IPC is performed by an authorized instructor, and not an examiner.

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.

Examples of acceptable nonprecision approaches include: VOR, VOR/DME, LOC procedures on an ILS, LDA, RNAV (RNP) or RNAV (GPS) to LNAV, LNAV/VNAV or LPV line of minima as long as the LPV DA is greater than 300 feet HAT. The equipment must be installed and the database must be current and qualified to fly GPS-based approaches.

The applicant must accomplish at least two nonprecision approaches in simulated or actual weather conditions.
• One must include a procedure turn or, in the case of a GPS-based approach, a Terminal Arrival Area (TAA) procedure.
• At least one must be flown without the use of autopilot and without the assistance of radar vectors. The yaw damper and flight director are not considered parts of the autopilot for purposes of this Task.
• One is expected to be flown with reference to backup or partial panel instrumentation or navigation display, depending on the aircraft’s instrument avionics configuration, representing the failure mode(s) most realistic for the equipment used.

The evaluator has discretion to have the applicant perform a landing or a missed approach at the completion of each non precision approach.

 

[MountainDude]

If this thread is not just about what is legal for a checkride but also about a panel upgrade for future flying IFR (presumably in IMC at times) then from a practical and safety point of view, would it make sense for the upgrade to include NAV/VOR/ILS capabilities?

What would be the difference in cost between an upgrade that includes NAV/VOR/ILS vs the one you initially mentioned which does not?

The checkride is only a part of it. I think flying with the GPS only is safer then with VOR/ILS for casual IFR users like I would be. Much easier to maintain proficiency and equipment.

For all who say you need ground-based navaids in case of a GPS outage, that is what radar is for. Just my two (amateur) cents.

 

[MountainDude]

Yes, that absolutely makes sense for IFR flying. GPS availability is pretty good in North America, but it's not perfect. And who knows what it'll be like in five or ten years. I believe having at least one VOR/ILS receiver is essential for serious instrument flying.

- Martin

Martin, I take your opinions seriously. Not sure what is the difference between serious and non-serious IFR? Why not just use GPS, and if that is out, then switch to a radar approach?

 

[tsts4]

Martin, I take your opinions seriously. Not sure what is the difference between serious and non-serious IFR? Why not just use GPS, and if that is out, then switch to a radar approach?

I think radar approaches are kinda rare. I would rather bank on a VOR/ILS/LOC approach being within range in the event of GPS failure than an ASR/PAR, but that’s me.

 

[asicer]

I think flying with the GPS only is safer then with VOR/ILS for casual IFR users like I would be. Much easier to maintain proficiency and equipment.

In my opinion, an ILS is usually easier to fly than a GPS LNAV and close to the same as a LPV. The difference is getting on to the final approach course. A VOR approach has much more setup involved than LNAV, but in real life is not orders of magnitude harder to fly.

 

[WDD]

My IR DPE required flying the VOR arc. So for him, yes, you'd need VOR capability.

If you're upgrading your own plane, I would get at least one Nav radio and a CDI.

 

[MauleSkinner]

My IR DPE required flying the VOR arc. So for him, yes, you'd need VOR capability.

Technically that’s a DME arc, which can be flown using GPS.

Bus as previously stated, the ACS appears to require something other than GPS capability. And it’s the ACS that’s controlling, not the DPE.

 

[WDD]

I used the GPS for distance, because DMEs are close to extinct LOL

Needed the VOR twisting and turning to do the arc, not sure how to use the GTN only to do that.

Each DPE is going to give a different check ride experience. Some require the arc, some don’t for example.

Back to the OP original question. Get your plane updated with at least one VOR and learn how to use it. Even if you find a DPE who would do the checkride without one.

 

[tsts4]

I used the GPS for distance, because DMEs are close to extinct LOL

Needed the VOR twisting and turning to do the arc, not sure how to use the GTN only to do that.

If the ARC isn't published and part of the database, IIRC, you place it into OBS mode and twist accordingly, just like it was a VOR.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Needed the VOR twisting and turning to do the arc, not sure how to use the GTN only to do that.

That part isn’t necessary.

Each DPE is going to give a different check ride experience. Some require the arc, some don’t for example.

they can’t require an arc if one isn’t available.

 

[WDD]

That part isn’t necessary.

they can’t require an arc if one isn’t available.

My IR DPE’s airport was indeed next to a VOR. Your DPE experience will vary.

 

[WDD]

If the ARC isn't published and part of the database, IIRC, you place it into OBS mode and twist accordingly, just like it was a VOR.

Didn’t know that was a thing a 650 could do

 

[MauleSkinner]

My IR DPE’s airport was indeed next to a VOR. Your DPE experience will vary.

Being near a VOR is irrelevant as well.

While the applicant is expected to be able to fly DME Arcs, they may be selected for testing only if they are charted and available.

 

[tsts4]

My IR DPE’s airport was indeed next to a VOR. Your DPE experience will vary.

Per the ACS
"While the applicant is expected to be able to fly DME Arcs, they may be selected for testing only if they are charted and available." IOW unless an ARC is published as part of an IAP, a DPE can't just have you fly an ARC on a whim.

 

[WDD]

Being near a VOR is irrelevant as well.

Hard for the DPE to ask you to do a VOR approach without a VOR.

I supposed be could ask for an arc turn around a fix using the GPS.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Hard for the DPE to ask you to do a VOR approach without a VOR.

I supposed be could ask for an arc turn around a fix using the GPS.

The relevant ACS section is quoted in the previous two posts.

 

[WDD]

Per the ACS
"While the applicant is expected to be able to fly DME Arcs, they may be selected for testing only if they are charted and available." IOW unless an ARC is published as part of an IAP, a DPE can't just have you fly an ARC on a whim.

I guess my DPE shimmed. He required it for me and everyone else I talked to who used him. And none of the approaches required an arc

 

[MauleSkinner]

I guess my DPE shimmed. He required it for me and everyone else I talked to who used him. And none of the approaches required an arc

Apparently he knows most applicants aren’t familiar enough with the ACS.

 

[Hang 4]

Hard for the DPE to ask you to do a VOR approach without a VOR.

I supposed be could ask for an arc turn around a fix using the GPS.

Plenty of arcs into an ILS.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Plenty of arcs into an ILS.

But a VOR is required in order to publish an arc…according to the Instrument Procedures Handbook,

A DME arc cannot be based on an ILS or LOC DME source because omnidirectional course information is not provided.

 

[Hang 4]

But a VOR is required in order to publish an arc…according to the Instrument Procedures Handbook,

Look at DAB - ILS with an Arc, but no VOR. The arc uses the OMN VOR, but there is no VOR approach into DAB

 

[MauleSkinner]

Look at DAB - ILS with an Arc, but no VOR. The arc uses the OMN VOR, but there is no VOR approach into DAB

Exactly…the arc is based on radials and distance from the VOR, not the Localizer.

 

[Hang 4]

Exactly…the arc is based on radials and distance from the VOR, not the Localizer.

My only point was you can have an arc into an ILS with no VOR APPROACH. There is no VOR approach into DAB and no ARC into KOMN where the VOR is located. EDIT - and actually no VOR approach into KOMN either

 

[MauleSkinner]

My only point was you can have an arc into an ILS with no VOR APPROACH. There is no VOR approach into DAB and no ARC into KOMN where the VOR is located. EDIT - and actually no VOR approach into KOMN either

And my only point was that you can’t have an arc onto a localizer without a VOR.

 

[Hang 4]

Hard for the DPE to ask you to do a VOR approach without a VOR.

@MauleSkinner I was responding to this point. Think we can both be right on this one. My only point was the DPE could ask you to do an arc into an ILS. If you used the GPS to establish the arc you are technically not using the VOR. Having said that, you're not going to be able to do an ILS if you don't have a nav receiver, so it's a pedantic nit, for which we are famous.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Think we can both be right on this one

Exactly

 

[MountainDude]

Here are the votes as of this moment. How can something so simple be made so confusing by the FAA?

 

[MauleSkinner]

View attachment 115051
Here are the votes as of this moment. How can something so simple be made so confusing by the FAA?

People believe what they want to believe, regardless of what the FAA says.

 

[WDD]

People believe what they want to believe, regardless of what the FAA says.

What do you believe?

 

[MauleSkinner]

What do you believe?

What I put in my posts.

 

[WDD]

What I put in my posts.

Thank you Senator

 

[MauleSkinner]

Thank you Senator

No.

Better?

 

[WDD]

Succinct

 

[Steamflyer]

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

You can operate with just a WAAS GPS. Any airways and VORs are known to it and can shoot precision approaches. Alt mins if required, however, have to be 800-2.

 

[tsts4]

You can operate with just a WAAS GPS. Any airways and VORs are known to it and can shoot precision approaches. Alt mins if required, however, have to be 800-2.

You can, as has already been mentioned (see post 17). However some, myself included, might not see that as the option with least risk therefore would not limit themselves to having a single means for IFR navigation. I would also not advocate having just an VOR/ILS capability in this day and age as that would severely limit the practical use of the NAS.

 

[Clip4]

You can operate with just a WAAS GPS. Any airways and VORs are known to it and can shoot precision approaches. Alt mins if required, however, have to be 800-2.

Until the military turns off the satellites because they suspect an attack or your equipment fails.