IFR checkride changes?

[rookie1255]

With the new changes below does this mean that one can do GPS only apporaches for a checkride? Before my understanding was that a GPS only plane like something with just a GNC355 would not be acceptable for a checkride since a VOR/ILS/LOC approach couldn't be completed.

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media...al-approach-to-instrument-rating-requirements
https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/faa-rescinds-legal-rulings-on-obsolete-ifr-training-requirement/

 

[asicer]

With the new changes below does this mean that one can do GPS only apporaches for a checkride? Before my understanding was that a GPS only plane like something with just a GNC355 would not be acceptable for a checkride since a VOR/ILS/LOC approach couldn't be completed.

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media...al-approach-to-instrument-rating-requirements
https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/faa-rescinds-legal-rulings-on-obsolete-ifr-training-requirement/

If I read those articles correctly, it only affects FAR 61.65 (d)(2)(ii)(C). Your checkride is spelled out by the ACS, which is a separate document from FAR 61.65.

 

[MauleSkinner]

If I read those articles correctly, it only affects FAR 61.65 (d)(2)(ii)(C). Your checkride is spelled out by the ACS, which is a separate document from FAR 61.65.

Correct…this is an interpretation of a specific training requirement that has no effect on checkrides.

 

[rookie1255]

How does this help anyone by reducing the requirement for the long XC? Someone would still have to be trained in an additional type of navigation system and be able to use it for the checkride, might as well do it for the long XC too at that point?

 

[Randomskylane]

So, vor localizer
GPS lpv
GPS circling

is acceptable?

 

[midlifeflyer]

How does this help anyone by reducing the requirement for the long XC? Someone would still have to be trained in an additional type of navigation system and be able to use it for the checkride, might as well do it for the long XC too at that point?

So, vor localizer
GPS lpv
GPS circling

is acceptable?

There's more coming. Flight Standards knows there are still questions about what qualifies. More specific guidance about what combinations can be used is already in the queue.

 

[flyingron]

So, vor localizer
GPS lpv
GPS circling

is acceptable?

By the first I assume you mean VOR or localizer. A localizer and a VOR other than being interleaved in frequency space are completely different technologies.

But yes, that would be acceptable. All this decision means is that three different approaches mean three different approaches not three different communications technologies.

You need one from column A and two from column B (sort of like the special at an old Chinese restaurant):

Column A
ILS
GPS with vertical guidance

Column B
LOC
GPS without vertical guidance
VOR
NDB

I suppose you could throw in a few of the wierdos like SDF, LDA, GBAS, ASR, PAR, DME (Martin or Wallops) if you wanted into the appropriate columns.

 

[jayhawk74]

How does this help anyone by reducing the requirement for the long XC? Someone would still have to be trained in an additional type of navigation system and be able to use it for the checkride, might as well do it for the long XC too at that point?

Because VOR Approaches are becoming harder to find, and NDB Approaches are nearly impossible, you can easily find GPS and ILS approaches. In some areas of the country you may have to do a 400-500 mile XC to do 3 approaches using 3 different navigation systems.

 

[flyingron]

That and ADFs are getting as hard to find as their appraoches.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Because VOR Approaches are becoming harder to find, and NDB Approaches are nearly impossible, you can easily find GPS and ILS approaches. In some areas of the country you may have to do a 400-500 mile XC to do 3 approaches using 3 different navigation systems.

And pilots are like pidgeons … you have to throw rocks at them to make them want to fly.

 

[noahfong]

How does this help anyone by reducing the requirement for the long XC? Someone would still have to be trained in an additional type of navigation system and be able to use it for the checkride, might as well do it for the long XC too at that point?

First, it is not a relaxing of requirements per se. The requirement has long been "3 different kinds of approaches with the use of navigation systems". It has long been interpreted as, for example, an ILS with VOR, ADF or LOC. Or RNAV. Then someone wrote to the FAA recently for clarification and got the answer that it really means 3 different kinds of navigation systems, which means VOR/LOC, RNAV, ADF, or whatever else exists; and not too many airplanes have 3 types of navigation systems not to mention that interpretation just does not make any sense. It was challenged and the FAA reversed it's interpretation to the former long-standing one.

Second, no - no one absolutely needs to use a different navigation systems for a checkride. ILS, LOC, VOR can do it.

 

[Clip4]

First, it is not a relaxing of requirements per se. The requirement has long been "3 different kinds of approaches with the use of navigation systems". It has long been interpreted as, for example, an ILS with VOR, ADF or LOC. Or RNAV. Then someone wrote to the FAA recently for clarification and got the answer that it really means 3 different kinds of navigation systems, which means VOR/LOC, RNAV, ADF, or whatever else exists; and not too many airplanes have 3 types of navigation systems not to mention that interpretation just does not make any sense. It was challenged and the FAA reversed it's interpretation to the former long-standing one.

Second, no - no one absolutely needs to use a different navigation systems for a checkride. ILS, LOC, VOR can do it.

I suppose you are correct if I train pilots to fly 20 years ago instead of the next decade.

If you can’t demonstrate proficiency using a modern RNAV, ILS\LOC, and VOR you should not be flying in todays IFR system.

 

[noahfong]

I suppose you are correct if I train pilots to fly 20 years ago instead of the next decade.

If you can’t demonstrate proficiency using a modern RNAV, ILS\LOC, and VOR you should not be flying in todays IFR system.

All those things existed 20 years ago. And pilots were trained in them.

 

[flyingron]

The issue isn't so much the pilot training but finding aircraft that are so equipped.

 

[elvisAteMySandwich]

As someone looking to get their plane IFR capable for training and beyond, I'm a bit confused here. What navigation systems/instruments would I need in my plane to train and fly IFR? Definitely expect a WAAS GPS to do RNAV approaches. But beyond that?

 

[nrm2430]

As someone looking to get their plane IFR capable for training and beyond, I'm a bit confused here. What navigation systems/instruments would I need in my plane to train and fly IFR? Definitely expect a WAAS GPS to do RNAV approaches. But beyond that?

FAR 91.205 sums up everything. You can shoot RNAV(GPS) approaches without WAAS but WAAS is needed to go to down to LPV or LNAV/VNAV minimums. More importantly you have to keep up with required inspections of instruments and systems to keep plane legal to fly IFR

 

[flyingron]

You do not need WAAS if you have a glide slope receiver in the plane. Having WAAS gives you the ability to substitute an LPV for the precision approach on the ride.

 

[Rich Holt]

My FAA IR check ride consisted of 3 RNAV approaches. 2 LPV and 1 non-precision. Then I bought an airplane that had no GPS at all, cause, why not?

To be fair, my first instrument check (in the military) did not allow me to even look at the IFR-rated GPS installed on the panel. So I feel really comfortable in the VOR/ILS IFR world.

 

[asicer]

As someone looking to get their plane IFR capable for training and beyond, I'm a bit confused here. What navigation systems/instruments would I need in my plane to train and fly IFR? Definitely expect a WAAS GPS to do RNAV approaches. But beyond that?

It would be helpful to know what is currently in your plane and where you intend to train as well as where you intend to take your check ride.

 

[flyingron]

I had (well have) a GNS480. I was assigned an non-GS RNAV (GPS) approach as my partial panel approach. Amusingly about half way through the approach the DPE asked if my autopilot worked without the vacuum. I told him it did, as well as the HSI he covered up. He asked why I didn't use the AP then. I did. After a bit watching the thing bounce around in the gusts, he said I could probably do a better job handflying, so I went back.

My home field had LPV approaches with low DAs to both ends of the runway. It was easy peasy.

 

[elvisAteMySandwich]

It would be helpful to know what is currently in your plane and where you intend to train as well as where you intend to take your check ride.

I have a Dynon D10A as PFD. Analog airspeed, altimeter, vsi and turn coordinator. A Garmin 200B COM only radio (no nav). A panel mounted Aera 760, but I'm told it can't legally be used for approaches. Garmin 345 transponder.

Haven't started IFR training yet so these approach types are alphabet soup to me. I'm in the northern virginia area and the local airports have ILS, LOC and RNAV approaches. I see VOR approaches at couple further away airports.

 

[asicer]

For an IFR airplane, you'll need (in addition to VFR equipment):

• Generator or alternator
• Radio (COM/NAV) appropriate to the flight
• Attitude indicator
• Ball (inclinometer)
• Clock
• Altimeter (pressure sensitive)
• Rate of turn indicator
• Directional gyro

I have a Dynon D10A as PFD. Analog airspeed, altimeter, vsi and turn coordinator. A Garmin 200B COM only radio (no nav).

With that kind of equipment, I assume you have an alternator. The GTR200B satisfies the COM portion of needing a radio and the GTX345 the transponder portion. A second COM would be nice, but that radio has monitor mode so that gets you partway there. We'll get to the NAV portion down below. My Dynon history is a bit rusty, but I seem to recall that the STC says it can be primary for AI, clock and altimeter. I also assume that your TC has a ball as well. So the only question is whether you have a DG or if the D10A STC says it can be one (again, rusty on my Dynon history).

A panel mounted Aera 760, but I'm told it can't legally be used for approaches.

Very true. NAV equipment needs permission to be used as primary for IFR. The Aera isn't so blessed. Its manual explicitly says no.

I'm in the northern virginia area and the local airports have ILS, LOC and RNAV approaches. I see VOR approaches at couple further away airports.

The ACS spells out which approaches you'll need. You'll need one precision approach, which means an ILS and this is accomplished by a NAV radio with a glidescope. However, many LPV approaches (a subset of RNAV approaches) can be substituted even though it's technically not considered a precision approach. This is accomplished by an approach certified GPS with WAAS (sometimes called SBAS) capability.

You'll also need to execute a nonprecision approach, which in your list means LOC, VOR or LNAV (another subset of RNAV approaches). For VOR or LOC, you can use the same NAV radio as you used for the ILS. For LNAV, you use a GPS but it does not have to have WAAS.

So in sum, you'll need to add at minimum one NAV radio. However, 2 would be nice because you'll likely have to identify waypoints using intersections. Like your GTR200B, some have a monitor mode so you might be able to use that to identify intersections. But if you want to fly IFR in the real world rather than stop at getting the rating then you'll want a GPS, preferably with WAAS.

EDIT: Forgot to mention that a certified GPS (Aera does not count) may be used as a substitute for identifying intersections.

 

[elvisAteMySandwich]

@asicer : Thank you for the rundown! It's slowly starting to make sense to me.

Let me see if I understand this. To get lateral/vertical on ILS or lateral on LOC or VOR, I'd need a NAV capable radio. To do any of LPV, LNAV/VNAV, LP or LNAV all I would need is a WAAS GPS. This assumes I have something in the plane to show course deviation and glideslope - maybe the D10A, maybe I need something else. Don't know yet.

If that's the case, why would I want to buy a NAV/COM radio? Why wouldn't I just buy a WAAS GPS and do everything via satellite based navigation?

@Rich Holt sounds like your checkride was all RNAV based. Was that plane equipped to do a NAV radio based approach and could the examiner have asked you to do one if the plane was not equipped for it?

 

[Rgbeard]

@asicer :.

If that's the case, why would I want to buy a NAV/COM radio? Why wouldn't I just buy a WAAS GPS and do everything via satellite based navigation?

If you put all your eggs in one basket, let’s hope the basket stays together.

Heard of GPS outages? They’re real.

 

[elvisAteMySandwich]

Heard of GPS outages? They’re real.

Haven't heard much about them, but then I'm still a fairly new pilot and just starting to think about IFR. Are these outages more frequent in certain parts of the country or times of the year? Is it some military training interference or solar flares? What's causing these outages?

 

[asicer]

Are these outages more frequent in certain parts of the country or times of the year?

Yes.

Is it some military training interference or solar flares? What's causing these outages?

Good guys, bad guys, Mother Nature... GPS is pretty fragile.

 

[elvisAteMySandwich]

Wait a sec, so if GPS is fragile then it doesn't really matter if you can do the IFR 250nm XC or the checkride using only WAAS GPS ... you really need a Nav radio for real world IFR. That's a new perspective to me.

Thing I don't get is the manufacturers. Garmin currently offers five GPS navigators but only the two most expensive ones have a nav radio. Of the three radios they offer, only one (again most expensive) includes nav. Why the heck are nav radios so expensive? The tech has been around a while.

 

[Rgbeard]

Wait a sec, so if GPS is fragile then it doesn't really matter if you can do the IFR 250nm XC or the checkride using only WAAS GPS ... you really need a Nav radio for real world IFR. That's a new perspective to me.

Thing I don't get is the manufacturers. Garmin currently offers five GPS navigators but only the two most expensive ones have a nav radio. Of the three radios they offer, only one (again most expensive) includes nav. Why the heck are nav radios so expensive? The tech has been around a while.

welcome to the awareness.

 

[elvisAteMySandwich]

I wanted to get more hard data about how/when/where these GPS outages were happening. Here are some resources I found:

• GPS Historical Outage by satellite - Notice Advisory to Navstar Users (NANU) is the (old?) military designation for GPS
• Realtime WAAS GPS LPV status - Can also see realtime view of satellite positions
• Airport WAAS GPS LPV historical outages - 2019 was a tough year, so was 2017. But the last couple have been better except for occasional issues in SE Arizona.

My quick take from these resources and others. Yes, there are GPS outages. They can last from seconds to many hours. The system of satellites is/was aging and the Air Force had a plan to replace satellites. That plan fell behind. But based on the improved outage information perhaps it has picked up again. The satellite system has improved precision to the point that LPV approaches can match ILS minimums. So when it works, it works well. The outages have affected some areas of the country more than others. Southeast Arizona and parts of Alabama, Georgia and Florida seem to more often see outages than the rest of the US. There are large parts of the US that have over 99% availability of GPS and rarely, if ever, see an outage. Some articles i read also pointed out that some people have seen an outage on their panel, but their portable Sentry or other handheld GPS receiver still worked since it spoke to multiple satellite systems.

One piece of data I don't have is how often people have seen GPS outages mid-flight, away from the terminals.

 

[Rgbeard]

I’ve been there, done that, was glad that I was flying an airway that was VOR trackable and not getting as excited as others on freq.

 

[Pinecone]

Last instrument practice flight I did, I started an LPV approach and lost enough GPS signal to lose the vertical guidance. So changed to LNAV approach. Later ILS had no such issues.

 

[asicer]

Garmin currently offers five GPS navigators but only the two most expensive ones have a nav radio.

There's really 2 different product lines: the GTN series and the 2" series. The GTN series is the all-in-one and more or less intended for those that wanted one of the older GNS430 or GNS530. The 2" series (GPS175, GNC355, GNX375) are intended for those with really old GPS (e.g. GX55, GNC300XL, KLN89) that no longer have database support, need to upgrade to WAAS and/or (in the case of the GNX) need ADS-B. If you are adding GPS where no GPS previously existed, then you have the choice between the two series.

Of the three radios they offer, only one (again most expensive) includes nav.

The GTR200 is experimental non-TSO, although they have a PMA version that part 91'ers have been installing via a sign-off. The GTR225 and GNC255 are TSO, with the former being COM-only and the latter NAV/COM.

 

[Rich Holt]

@Rich Holt sounds like your checkride was all RNAV based. Was that plane equipped to do a NAV radio based approach and could the examiner have asked you to do one if the plane was not equipped for it?

Yes, it had a Garmin 650. He could have but didn't need to. I demonstrated both precision and non-precision approaches with the RNAV's.

 

[WDD]

Same - I had to to non precision with the 650 by ignoring the vertical. But the DPE was based at an airport with had a working VOR near by, so VOR arc twisting and turning, and VOR approach for circle to land. He did like VOR's. Showing competency at VOR navigation for backup to the GPS system - can't really argue with that.

 

[sonopoa]

So NDB ,NDB DME and VOR with NDB part of the missed approach procedure are now fine. Good.

 

[Gerry C]

If I read those articles correctly, it only affects FAR 61.65 (d)(2)(ii)(C). Your checkride is spelled out by the ACS, which is a separate document from FAR 61.65.

Yes