IFR training without GPS? (VOR, DME, glideslope only)

[pj500]

What are your thoughts on starting your instrument training and taking your checkride in equipment that only has DME, VOR/glideslope, ADF? Notable, there's no GPS/RNAV. There is only one ILS approach within 200 miles.

Is not learning GPS and other later technologies doing a disservice, or can you easily add it later if you ever decide to fly a plane with a 430 or similar?

Please excuse any errors in the above, I obviously do not know anything about instrument flying (yet).

 

[Henning]

What are your thoughts on starting your instrument training and taking your checkride in equipment that only has DME, VOR/glideslope, ADF? Notable, there's no GPS/RNAV. There is only one ILS approach within 200 miles.

Is not learning GPS and other later technologies doing a disservice, or can you easily add it later if you ever decide to fly a plane with a 430 or similar?

Please excuse any errors in the above, I obviously do not know anything about instrument flying (yet).

Why not? All I had was a single KX-170B and an ADF. The reality is, GPS has little effect on instrument flying, just the navigation. In fact, if you have a 430W or similar you actually have a whole extra skill set you have to learn in programming the radio on the fly. Programming in a revised Victor airway clearance that has a dozen waypoints while flying on instruments is an interesting exercise.

 

[Cpt_Kirk]

There's nothing wrong with it. I think you will learn the right way and when you do get to use a GPS, you will use it as a resource and not as a crutch.

 

[Baron2PG]

I think you will be just fine. There are more than a few pilots (me included) who flew for years IFR prior to having GPS. Some of us even had a Loran!

I think you will be a better IFR pilot if you learn "the old fashion" way. Having to use a CDI and To/From to figure out your location relative to a VOR is much more "fun" without a moving map.

 

[Henning]

GPS is not available as a crutch for instrument flying, Autopilot is available as a crutch for instrument flying. GPS is only a navigational tool, and can be a complication in instrument flying as you have to learn how to use the whole box, not just the Direct To button.

 

[poadeleted20]

No problem -- I've trained quite a few folks for IR that way (many with just two nav/comms -- no GPS, ADF, DME, or autopilot). In fact, if that's the plane you're going to flying once you get the rating, I strongly recommend it. There's no problem learning other systems later on if you get into a plane with a system on which you've not been trained.

 

[CT Arrow]

Delete

 

[poadeleted20]

Can you learn instrument flying with what you have on board, absolutely! Would having GPS on board make it that much better, absolutely! Let's face it, the Fed's are not installing ILS or LOC equipment and have chosen GPS as a replacement. GPS is here to stay! Why not learn it and utilize the GPS benefits it has to offer.

The reason "why not?" is that the plane you have for training and/or intend to fly later doesn't have one. Not much point going through the effort and expense to include that in your IR rating training if there isn't a GPS in your immediate post-IR-checkride future. You can always get that training later if you will be flying a plane that has it -- same for ADF, DME, and an autopilot.

 

[PPC1052]

What are your thoughts on starting your instrument training and taking your checkride in equipment that only has DME, VOR/glideslope, ADF? Notable, there's no GPS/RNAV. There is only one ILS approach within 200 miles.

Is not learning GPS and other later technologies doing a disservice, or can you easily add it later if you ever decide to fly a plane with a 430 or similar?

Please excuse any errors in the above, I obviously do not know anything about instrument flying (yet).

This is what I am doing, minus the DME. However, I have been using the Red Bird AATM for my last several training sessions, so I am getting exposure to using a GPS, at least under simulated conditions. I figure that I can learn the basics the old school way, do the check ride, and then when we finally upgrade the avionics, I will hire a CFII to teach me how to use the avionics that we install. Having flown a few RNAV approaches in the Red Bird, there is really nothing to them. Learning the skills necessary to control the plane (altitude, speed, and course), the instruments scan, partial panel, etc. is going to carry through no matter how your plane is equiped. You can learn the user interface of the specifc GPS system and autopilot (if any) you intend to use later. Gratuitous shot at Garmin: the user interface in the 530/430 series is crap. Very capable units, but really not user friendly. As a result, getting familiar with that system takes a little longer than it really should if the system were well designed. But it's still not that hard to train yourself to do the "Direct-Enter-Enter" dance.

 

[CT Arrow]

Delete

 

[MyassisDragon]

I would say without hesitation Yes.
My IR training happened to flip flop between a complex plane with dual VOR and a fixed gear/prop plane with 430W and nice autopilot.

So I got the all the fun tracking/timing/holding/fix identifying with the two VORs (the ILS is the same Regardless) and comparison to flying RNAV approaches.

On the checkride you need to demonstrate (2) non precision and (1) precision. So on my check ride I flew the plane with GPS and had (1) VOR and (1) ILS approach then did only (1) RNAV for a non precision (but it was LPV with VG so no step down?? still not considered a precision?? huh? BUT I did ask (before passing the IAF) if he wanted a stepdown to LNAV MDA for demonstration and he said if I have LPV it doesnt matter) .

During debrief the the examiner complimented me for starting a timer on the VOR even though I could use the GPS for DME to identify the missed. It was just something I was used to from flying the needles, and a good backup check. But it earned me brownies

Also, I had another friend pass the IR exam with same examiner and dual VOR. After talking to him about it I think it may have been easier to just stick with the radio navigation. But easier is not always better, I guess, ,,Maybe.

 

[poadeleted20]

This is what I am doing, minus the DME. However, I have been using the Red Bird AATM for my last several training sessions, so I am getting exposure to using a GPS, at least under simulated conditions. I figure that I can learn the basics the old school way, do the check ride, and then when we finally upgrade the avionics, I will hire a CFII to teach me how to use the avionics that we install.

Good plan, if you want to at least see what a GPS approach looks like. Other than that, don't waste your resources on GPS until you will have one, and then train on the one you have.

 

[poadeleted20]

I get that Ron, but what the OP is asking is it a disservice not to learn GPS?

The answer to that is no. If you don't have one, there's no point learning it. If we were talking ADF, we wouldn't think twice about saying "don't bother." The situation is the same -- if you don't have it, don't go out of your way to learn it.

He indicated his airplane did not have the equipment. Should he learn about GPS and maybe even fly with someone who uses GPS, yes! He should have somewhat of an understanding of how GPS works. Or let's keep him in the dark about 15 old technology that is used everday and is the main stay for current and future instrument approaches

Why? There's just no point learning about GPS until you have one. Spending time and money on that during IR training is counterproductive unless you have one in your IR training aircraft -- makes IR training longer and more expensive, and if it's not the same GPS later obtained, it's likely to be resources wasted.

 

[poadeleted20]

I would say without hesitation Yes.
My IR training happened to flip flop between a complex plane with dual VOR and a fixed gear/prop plane with 430W and nice autopilot.

Why did you do it that way? Were you planning to be flying both later? If so, good choice. If not, you wasted time, effort, and money.

On the checkride you need to demonstrate (2) non precision and (1) precision. So on my check ride I flew the plane with GPS and had (1) VOR and (1) ILS approach then did only (1) RNAV for a non precision (but it was LPV with VG so no step down?? still not considered a precision?? huh?

If the DH is above 300 feet, an LPV is still considered nonprecision for this IR PTS purpose. If the DH is less than 300 feet, an LPV is considered a precision approach for IR PTS purposes.

BUT I did ask (before passing the IAF) if he wanted a stepdown to LNAV MDA for demonstration and he said if I have LPV it doesnt matter) .

That is operationally correct, but if it's being done to fill the second nonprecision approach square, many DPE's will tell you to pretend there's no GS and fly it as though it were an LNAV (doing "drop and drive" including the step-down). So be prepared to fly it either way, and make sure you and the DPE are on the same page about what the DPE wants to see.

 

[Scott@KTYR]

I took my IFR check ride with no GPS and the same equipment you listed. Go for it.

 

[MyassisDragon]

Why did you do it that way? Were you planning to be flying both later? If so, good choice. If not, you wasted time, effort, and money.

I fly both planes on a regular basis. Also one is my friends so when we both required hood time we would split it without without having to change planes.

If the DH is above 300 feet, an LPV is still considered nonprecision for this IR PTS purpose. If the DH is less than 300 feet, an LPV is considered a precision approach for IR PTS purposes.

That is operationally correct, but if it's being done to fill the second nonprecision approach square, many DPE's will tell you to pretend there's no GS and fly it as though it were an LNAV (doing "drop and drive" including the step-down). So be prepared to fly it either way, and make sure you and the DPE are on the same page about what the DPE wants to see.

Thats good to know, Thanks. This is why I asked for clarification from my DPE before I started the approach. Wouldn't be a problem either way, just didnt want to assume and get busted for something so simple.

 

[CT Arrow]

Delete

 

[GeorgeC]

I'm planning to do my IR /A.

 

[jchang10]

Could i do the IFR checkride with just a single SL-30 i wonder? No DME, ADF, or GPS.

Precision approach would be ILS.
2 non-precision approaches would be what though?

 

[PPC1052]

Could i do the IFR checkride with just a single SL-30 i wonder? No DME, ADF, or GPS.

Precision approach would be ILS.
2 non-precision approaches would be what though?

Loc and VOR.

 

[tehmightypirate]

As someone learning IFR using a G1000 definitely go without the GPS. You don't need it and it will make you a better pilot. I want to learn it and am planning to use the G1000 post IFR so for me it made sense, it definitely sounds like it doesn't for you.

For example, if you're learning carpentry there's no point learning how to use a nail gun and compressor if you only own a hammer. Yes, it's a great tool to have a nail gun and lots of "pros" wont do work without one, but everyone has to learn how to swing a hammer so you might as well get all the basics down, make it easier for yourself, and spend the extra time learning the GPS only when you actually own a GPS (as an added bonus you'll know what model to train for then).

I'd say about the only thing you'll miss out on is some situational awareness that the GPS gives you but any ipad or cellphone with a GPS and a moving map app will give you this as well for very little cost.

 

[frfly172]

Took my ATP ride without a GPS,even though my own twin was equipped with one. Learn the equipment in the plane you are going to fly all the time.

 

[poadeleted20]

Could i do the IFR checkride with just a single SL-30 i wonder? No DME, ADF, or GPS.

Yes, you can. I've trained a couple like that. Just make sure you get an instructor who can teach you good single-radio techniques for things like entering and holding at an intersection hold.

Precision approach would be ILS.
2 non-precision approaches would be what though?

As noted above, one VOR, and one LOC (probably on the same one as the ILS).

 

[Mike5250]

I'm planning on doing a good part of my instrument rating with single nav/com and VOR. A rental with more equipment cost 3x as much to operate.

 

[jchang10]

Yes, you can. I've trained a couple like that. Just make sure you get an instructor who can teach you good single-radio techniques for things like entering and holding at an intersection hold.
As noted above, one VOR, and one LOC (probably on the same one as the ILS).

Can you point me to airports with just a VOR or LOC approach? The ones i have seen require DME and thus are VOR/DME or LOC/DME?

IE, how would i determine the various decision points without GPS or DME?

EG these are 2 nearby airports with ILS and thurs LOC approaches.
http://airnav.com/airport/KLVK
http://airnav.com/airport/KSNS

Would i just use FAF to MAP time chart? Thus, by time?

Ugh, this stuff makes my head spin while sitting in my chair!

 

[PPC1052]

Can you point me to airports with just a VOR or LOC approach? The ones i have seen require DME and thus are VOR/DME or LOC/DME?

ILS or LOC RWY 10R KMRY

http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1401/00271IL10R.PDF


ILS or LOC RWY 12R KSJC

http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1401/00693IL12R.PDF


Yes. You start your timer at the FAF, and go missed based on the elapsed time. Assuming you are flying a standard trainer, try to fly the approach at 90 knots so you don't have to convert the time.

 

[tehmightypirate]

You'll also have a lot of approaches that will give "DME or RADAR required". But, yes, you are correct that not having DME limits a lot of the things you can do in IFR.

For example: ILS or LOC runway 15 into KBGR

http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1401/00039IL15.PDF

Note that IKEXE and UMAIN list "RADAR" underneath the DME distance from I-JVH, also note that the missed approach point also lists "RADAR".

Another example is the VOR runway 29 into KMLT:

http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1401/00261V29.PDF

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe DME is not required for this approach (at the very least it's not stated as a VOR/DME approach.)

 

[poadeleted20]

Can you point me to airports with just a VOR or LOC approach? The ones i have seen require DME and thus are VOR/DME or LOC/DME?
IE, how would i determine the various decision points without GPS or DME?

Navaid passage, passing a cross-radial, or timing on the final segment. Don't worry about those details now -- this will be covered as part of your IR training.

EG these are 2 nearby airports with ILS and thurs LOC approaches.
http://airnav.com/airport/KLVK
http://airnav.com/airport/KSNS

Would i just use FAF to MAP time chart? Thus, by time?

On approaches which can be flown with only one VOR, you use timing, cross-radials, or station passage. However, after a bit of looking, it appears you need more than one VOR to fly any approach into SNS -- at the very least, you need a DME, too (or a GPS to sub for the DME). For LVK, you need either an ADF or a GPS to fly the ILS 25R. So, if you're going to be flying IFR into those airports regularly, you might want to think about investing in some more avionics right now and training with them.

I must say, you're in a lousy place to be trying to fly IFR with only one VOR. I can find only two approaches in your area you can fly with only a single VOR/LOC/GS nav radio (KSJC -- ILS or LOC 12R, VOR 12R). As I said above, where you are, some investment in additional avionics (DME or GPS would be best) is going to be necessary to fly IFR regularly.

 

[poadeleted20]

Another example is the VOR runway 29 into KMLT:

http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1401/00261V29.PDF

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe DME is not required for this approach (at the very least it's not stated as a VOR/DME approach.)

No correction needed. The only thing is that without DME (or GPS as a legal substitute), your straight-in MDA is 1060 and you can't take advantage of the lower ULOGE fix minimums to descend to 880.

 

[Sac Arrow]

I agree with Captain Ron that there is no point in learning "GPS" until you have one. They are so equipment specific that "learning" them means learning their specific procedures, not the basics of instrument flight. I got my IR with no GPS, and I found learning to use one later in IFR to be a no brainer.

 

[murphey]

I get that Ron, but what the OP is asking is it a disservice not to learn GPS? He indicated his airplane did not have the equipment. Should he learn about GPS and maybe even fly with someone who uses GPS, yes! He should have somewhat of an understanding of how GPS works. Or let's keep him in the dark about 15 old technology that is used everday and is the main stay for current and future instrument approaches

I have to agree with Ron on this one....I've restarted my IFR (again) and have a similar setup - VOR/ILS/ADF/DME. Would I like to learn GPS? Sure - find me someone to hand me the $8000 to have one installed. Or provide a GPS-equipped airplane for the same $85/hr (my "estimated" hourly rate on the cherokee)? And the 5 hours or so to get familiar with both the airplane and the GPS?

Let's be pragmatic here - Doesn't matter what the FAA claims right now or in the very near future (3-5 years), it's the same as the private pilot concept - learn the basics first then learning the goodies is easier because you understand the context. And cheaper. The basics are much more than just GPS navigation. Being in the system, flying an approach (doesn't matter what kind - speed and descent management are the same), departures, flight plans, partial panel, etc.

And let's not forget location. I live on the east side of the Rockies. IMC in a small airplane is NOT a good idea unless the route is n/e/s. Anything else is an invitation to CAP to find the wreckage.

 

[Henning]

I have to agree with Ron on this one....I've restarted my IFR (again) and have a similar setup - VOR/ILS/ADF/DME. Would I like to learn GPS? Sure - find me someone to hand me the $8000 to have one installed. Or provide a GPS-equipped airplane for the same $85/hr (my "estimated" hourly rate on the cherokee)? And the 5 hours or so to get familiar with both the airplane and the GPS?

Let's be pragmatic here - Doesn't matter what the FAA claims right now or in the very near future (3-5 years), it's the same as the private pilot concept - learn the basics first then learning the goodies is easier because you understand the context. And cheaper. The basics are much more than just GPS navigation. Being in the system, flying an approach (doesn't matter what kind - speed and descent management are the same), departures, flight plans, partial panel, etc.

And let's not forget location. I live on the east side of the Rockies. IMC in a small airplane is NOT a good idea unless the route is n/e/s. Anything else is an invitation to CAP to find the wreckage.

You won't get familiar with a 430/530 to IFR capabilities in 5 hrs if you haven't had one before, that's for sure. Switching between planes isn't much issue, switching between GPSs for IFR use is more daunting.

 

[CT Arrow]

I agree with Captain Ron that there is no point in learning "GPS" until you have one. They are so equipment specific that "learning" them means learning their specific procedures, not the basics of instrument flight. I got my IR with no GPS, and I found learning to use one later in IFR to be a no brainer.

I never said learn a specific unit. I said learn about GPS. Fly with someone to gain some exposure and see how the approaches are different from what he will be learning from /U. Simple and easy! Let's stop trying to make this into something that is isn't.

So many Dicheads in the world!

 

[poadeleted20]

I never said learn a specific unit. I said learn about GPS. Fly with someone to gain some exposure and see how the approaches are different from what he will be learning from /U. Simple and easy!

That's a great idea -- once you have the IR in your pocket. Until then, it's just a distraction and a diversion of resources, and I know first-hand what happens when IR trainees are distracted from the task at hand.

 

[jordane93]

There is nothing wrong with doing your instrument training with a six pack plane. I did my instrument in a 172 with 2 430W's but I like to switch off with /G and /U when I file IFR. I like to be proficient in IFR with both

 

[Henning]

I never said learn a specific unit. I said learn about GPS. Fly with someone to gain some exposure and see how the approaches are different from what he will be learning from /U. Simple and easy! Let's stop trying to make this into something that is isn't.

There is no difference in flying until you move into SVT. You are still doing the same instrument interpretation (even with non SVT PFDs, it just comes in a different format) and navigating on a CDI head. If you have a GPS with a large MFD unit, you get a moving map for navigational situational awareness, but the flying an approach is the same. The main difference is learning to program the box to do what you need it to do.

 

[PPC1052]

There is no difference in flying until you move into SVT.

With SVT, does the display give 3D depiction of your flight path? Sort of like the translucent gates floating in the air in the training missions in Microsoft's Flight Sim X? I could see how that would really improve one's ability to follow the flight plan.

 

[poadeleted20]

With SVT, does the display give 3D depiction of your flight path? Sort of like the translucent gates floating in the air in the training missions in Microsoft's Flight Sim X? I could see how that would really improve one's ability to follow the flight plan.

Some do, some don't.

 

[Henning]

With SVT, does the display give 3D depiction of your flight path? Sort of like the translucent gates floating in the air in the training missions in Microsoft's Flight Sim X? I could see how that would really improve one's ability to follow the flight plan.

That feature is known as HITS, Highway in the Sky, some systems do, some don't. I'm not particularly fond of it myself.

 

[tehmightypirate]

That feature is known as HITS, Highway in the Sky, some systems do, some don't. I'm not particularly fond of it myself.

Completely agreed with that, it's even worse than a magenta line as far as getting you into trouble. At least the magenta line gives you an idea of where you are and where you're headed. HITS only give you an idea where the computer thinks you should be.

I'd love to see a system that gives airspace visualization and a visual glideslope though.