I'm Confused. Why So Many Navigation Types?

[jbrinker]

One thing I wish that existed that would have made my IR training much easier was just a simple list of all the types of approaches and what they generally mean, in summary format.. I felt like this was only haphazardly covered in Kings, and the FAA publications, and they kind of just expect you to figure out by studying a myriad of approach plates and doing the research

Knowing the ins and outs of all of these up front to study off as flashcards or something would have really helped. Especially knowing the reasons for the differences and how they impact DA/DH/MDA, etc.

LNAV
LNAV+V
LNAV/VNAV, baro VNAV
LPV
LP
Stand-Alone GPS
PAR
ASR
VOR
ILS
LOC
NDB
Circling
Visual
..oh, and an explanation of why the additional letters at the end. Like why is Gillespie (SEE) localizer approach called a LOC-D. I later learned why this was, but I can almost guarantee that most people walkout out of the testing room after passing the FAA written would not be able to break all that stuff down above that well

I ended up figuring all of this out and learning it, but it takes a lot of sleuthing. Try Googleing "list of approach types" and you get a lot of basic beginner type stuff, or stuff that doesn't help answer the questions at all

Also, I find some irony that a type of navaid designed back in the 5th century BC (or, BCE for the secular people here) is still being used today to guide airliners
View attachment 61203

Please, if you had time to figure this out share it with us... As a new PPL who is considering starting my IFR training sometime in the next year, I have read through a number of the FAA "handbooks" and such a list would be a wonderful resource. Maybe even worthy of "sticky" status here on POA...

 

[ARFlyer]

Please read this article on how to correctly use VORs once you get to that point in your training: http://www.sarangan.org/aviation/articles/vor-article.pdf

Very few CFIs teach the correct method and keep the myth of Reverse Sensing alive. Reverse Sensing ONLY exists in one place and that's in LOC BC courses.

In the airline world I'd rather shoot ILS then GPS approaches. It's easier to set the plane up and it's less work flying an ILS. GPS approaches are actually a pain in the butt because of how my airline chooses to fly them.

ILS all I have to do is dial in the freq and hit APP. Then at 200' I click the autopilot off and land the plane.

GPS I have to load the FMS correctly, make sure I anchor the approach correctly in the FMS once cleared, and select NAV. Once on the approach, I select V/S at 1500' FPM .2 NM before every fix and dial in each new altitude once it captures. Rinse and repeat for every fix till the MAP. Once at the final altitude I dial in the MAP altitude and wait till I hit the PDP. If I see the asphalt click the autopilot off and land.

 

[DR750S]

I didn't read all of the posts so this may have been said but, I think another reason there are so many different kinds navaids is because there are a lot of planes out there that still rely on a lot of the old systems. For example, we have an airplane that does not have GPS. If the government shut down VOR's and NDB's, we would have no IFR navigation. And as much as I'd like to have GPS capability, I don't have an extra $20,000 lying around.

Interesting point - especially when VORs and NDBs are being phased out. Aspen Avionics is pledging to reduce the cost of Glass cockpits and make them more affordable: https://aspenavionics.com/products/general-aviation/. Avidyne is probably going to be a little more expensive than Aspen in most installations.

I sort of like the "look & feel" of Aspen's EFIS for smaller GA airplanes:

 

[DR750S]

If I had a failure of one or both, I'd grab the paper sectional out of the map box. Keep those pilotage skills sharp!

Funny. I just watched a Single Pilot "CRM" video where someone who flew a Lear 65 talked about how he never flew without having close access to "paper" based VFR Charts. Apparently, you think like he does.

 

[DR750S]

I just updated the panel in my airplane. Navigation-wise, I can no longer use NDBs (removed the ADF receiver and eRMI indicator). I still have dual VOR receivers, one hooked to an HSI and one to a standard CDI. My old GPS and a separate three-color moving map unit are gone, replaced with a new GPS with a much larger screen with a full-color moving map. And so, time and technology marches on.

Thanks! That provides some real insight into what real GA owner/pilots are really doing with their own aircraft. And, it shows what your beliefs are going forward about Navaids and their continuance in the airspace system. You kept the VORs! That says a lot, too.

Someday I'm gonna tell my grandkids how my evil CFII made me do a whole flight navigating solely by NDB for both en route and approaches... But I'm never gonna touch it again.

Very interesting, indeed. Kind of makes me wonder about the Training Requirements these days. I guess like others have commented here, as GNSS/WAAS based Approaches continue to spread, maybe there won't be a need to include non-GPS based Navaid training requires in future versions of the ACS. Don't know if that's true or not - just thinking aloud.

 

[DR750S]

When you first start flight planning, VFR, you won't be using defined waypoints or navaids at all most likely. Draw a line on a chart, use cities, rivers, power lines, railroads, etc. to navigate visually.

Sorry. I was referring to after the dead reckoning phase.

You should know how to use VORs, and if there's one installed on your airplane, GPS. But you'll pretty much be flying airport-to-airport flight plans, with an occasional diversion to another airport thrown in. When you're working on your private pilot certificate, you don't need to worry about approaches (that's for the instrument rating) or complex flight plans because when you're VFR, you don't have to have a clearance at all, and navigation is solely up to you.

This was backed-up by a phone conversation I had last night with a CFI. Thanks. You pretty much just echoed what She said last night.

Now... To answer your questions, even though you won't need to worry about most of this stuff until you're doing your instrument rating:

This is really why I made this and all other treads. I'm deliberately trying to develop a bigger picture of what lies ahead based on the experiences of other experienced pilots.

Waypoints are on the charts, and can be used in different ways. An actual NDB or VOR station can be received with that equipment, or punched into a GPS. There are many other waypoints that are defined by VOR and DME, or intersections between two VOR radials, but they can also be accessed from the GPS database. Finally, there are a lot of GPS-only waypoints that are just a defined latitude and longitude. There is no navaid present at the VOR/DME, intersection, or GPS waypoints.

I see. Very clear. Thanks!

You can plan flights using radio navaids along airways, but most navigation these days is done by GPS, and is usually direct for most of the flight, if you're not on the east coast. Having a GPS on board makes navigation and flight planning quite simple.

You are very adept at explaining things. You have a knack for it.

You don't need to worry about ATC sending you to something you can't receive - Your flight plan includes equipment designations so that they know what your capabilities are. If they do mistakenly send you somewhere you can't navigate to, just say "unable" and tell them why you're unable.

You are quite the communicator. That statement you made about not worrying about ATC sending you something you can't receive, can only come from someone who really understands what a Student might be afraid of. You must have been a Teacher in a past life. You just mentioned two things I NEVER KNEW and always wanted to know. In one sentence, you cleared up a lot. Thank you!

Yes, TACAN is military, VOR/DME is the civilian equivalent. I wouldn't worry about "installing" VOR equipment, pretty much any airplane that has any sort of navigation capability has VOR capabilities already for the most part.

Very well, then.

It's not just GA - It's aviation in general. The problem with having a nice cleaned-up system is that when you get rid of an old navaid type, you also force people to upgrade their airplanes, which is expensive and unpopular. It's pretty easy to say "NDBs are ancient and archaic, let's just turn them all off" but then you discover that there are airports where the only instrument approach is an NDB, and suddenly it's not so easy. So that's how we got here! Luckily, the FAA has made a concerted effort over the past 15 years or so to develop lots and lots of GPS approaches so that this isn't such a big issue as it used to be.

You should be a Flight Instructor. You'd make a damn good one! All I have to do is read your words and I understand exactly what you're saying. That does not happen by accident. You have a knack. A talent for communication which a LOT of people simply do not have or understand the importance of having while giving "advice" and/or "opinion."

Thank you! That was very refreshing, indeed. Very smooth and easy to understand prose with intuitive input that clearly understands how a new guy thinks. That's what I call, bridging the communications gap. Well done. I have no further questions on the OP. Impressive.

 

[DR750S]

Don't worry about it - You won't even need to start thinking about navaids until you've got the basics of how to properly handle the aircraft down. Generally, training goes something like this:

Training for Private Pilot - Airplane Single Engine Land
- Basic flight maneuvers: Climbs, descents, and turns
- More complex flight maneuvers: Steep turns, ground reference maneuvers, stalls
- Emergency procedures: Electrical failures, engine failures, fire in flight, etc and how to deal with them.
- Landings. Lots and lots of landings at your home field, and some basic training in short/soft field landing techniques as well.
- Solo. Generally your first solo will be three trips around the traffic pattern, and then you'll have the ability to go out on your own and practice the maneuvers you've learned so far, remaining within 25nm of your home base.
- "Cross country" training. This is where you start learning about navigation. You'll learn pilotage (aka looking out the window), dead reckoning (aka compass and stopwatch), and radio (VOR and GPS) navigation. You won't get super in-depth and you won't have to worry about approaches. It's just about how to get from point A to point B, looking out the window and using other tools available to you.
- Solo cross country flights, night training
- Checkride prep: Making sure you're still up to speed with all the maneuvers, all types of landings, emergency procedures, and navigation.
- Checkride.

Then, you'll move on to the instrument rating, which goes something like this:
- Controlling the airplane solely by reference to instruments: Climbs, descents, turns
- Intercepting and tracking courses (usually from a VOR)
- Approaches and holds
- En route navigation and flight planning, cross country flights
- Checkride prep
- Checkride

So, things should be introduced to you only as you're ready for them. You shouldn't have to worry about navaids when you're learning how to land, for example. If you feel overwhelmed, speak up! (And you may need a new instructor, unless they're trying to overwhelm you on purpose to see how you'll handle it - But that should be well after you're done with learning how to fly the plane.)

Thank you again and very much appreciated.

 

[DR750S]

Ok, this post was delicious!

You would be correct! I only know of one person who thought instrument was easier than private.

I'd like to be just like that person. That would take a load off for sure.

It does, but I think you're probably getting WAY ahead of yourself. For ground stuff, study the things you'll need to know for the Private first. Maybe even take the written.

I've done Jeppesen, King and Gleim. Took those computer based mock written tests until I could pass at 100%. I'm probably good to go on the ground stuff by now, but its been while, so I'll do one or two more reviews before testing out in the real.

Now, that doesn't mean you can't do anything instrument-wise until you're done with your private, far from it. I got my first experience in the clouds and flew my first instrument approach as I was ticking over 10 hours total time, before I had soloed; the last flight I did in the clouds (actual Instrument Meteorological Conditions, we call it) prior to my private pilot checkride, my instructor turned to me and said, "Congratulations, you now have more actual IMC time than I did when I got my instrument rating." You'll definitely want to interview potential instructors and ensure they're willing to do that sort of thing, though.

You speak my language. That's been hard for me to find on these forums. I understand everything you write. In a strange way, it sounds like I wrote it for you and you typed it.

There's nothing wrong with starting the instrument right away, but I would suggest you also work on gaining some real experience at the same time.

Good. I did not know whether or not I should just consider Private and Instrument to be "one" rating in my "training mind." Something like a 'Prinstrument' in my mind. Basically, letting the DPE Private examiner out of the cockpit while my Instrument Instructor climbs in the cockpit at the exact same time for the first instrument lesson. I'm being factious on purpose, but that's how close I was thinking about running to two together. I'd be well into my instrument training while the Private Pilot License arrives in my mail box some time later. In fact, the running joke would be - let's see if I could pass the Instrument check ride before the government can send out a piece of mail. Funny. Anyway, I'm sure you get my point. A kind of 'Prinstrument' mindset. Treating it like one aggregate training phase.

If you can find a good instructor and you do your training full-time as you suggest, you should be able to do it in very close to 40 hours. I had 42.6 when I took my checkride, and I wasn't dedicating full time to it! I did it in a little under 3 months, and basically flew like mad every other weekend.

That makes sense. I've found one that looks really good, but decided to evaluate others just so I have something to compare him to. I just want to make sure he's the one. He's former airline, still loves to teach, is a solid communicator and is willing to do Part 61 instruction via a syllabus. That way, I'll know what comes next by way of roadmap and I'll also know that he's not winging it himself.

Also, you don't need to have your instrument rating to get the multi-engine rating - My primary instructor was airline-bound and knew he'd need lots of multi time (well, at least you did back then) and so he got his multi rating immediately after his Private, and then did his entire instrument rating in the Seneca so he could log it all as multi-engine PIC time. In your case, you'll be picking up more multi time that'll help you with obtaining insurance on the twin turboprop.

If you do it in this order, you will need to do your instrument checkride in a multiengine airplane, though, or your multi rating will be limited to VFR only until you remove that limitation by flying a couple of approaches in a twin with an examiner.

This was just confirmed by the Instructor I met and talked with last week. It was a matter of reading the regulations, but I never knew to look, given the normal pattern that people take (Private, Instrument, Commercial, Multi-Engine and ATP). Thanks for reconfirming! That was spot on right. This would indeed get me into the twin sooner and start building twin turbine experience sooner as well. Of course, my Instructor will need to be signed off in that twin turbine no doubt.

This would also make it more plausible to simply rent or lease (probably better to lease) a Single Engine for just the Private, now. Then have the twin turboprop flight-read and on standby, after I've spent some time developing real world Solo experience as you say. I think I like that approach and it would significantly lower my Training & Time Building cost before heading to the VLJ a couple years later.

With your $1mil budget for this, how many hours are you expecting to end up with, and will you be continuing to fly the twin turboprop afterwards?

The ultimate destination is owning/operating a VLJ (CJ4, Phenom 300 or PC-24). Given that I do not bring thousands of hours in background to this, I concluded that I should really spend a lot of time in a Twin Turboprop in preparation for the VLJ transition. So, I calculated Twin Turboprop TT at around 3,000 hours PIC. Hover, I am more than willing to remain Twin Turboprop bound for as long as it takes for me to become proficient enough and competent enough to handle Single Pilot RVSM VLJ missions without stress. Even after I transition into the VLJ, I plan to develop a VLJ Mentor Pilot Program exclusively for my receiving the Mentor's critique of my PIC skills. I had VLJ Mentor Pilot total time at between 50-100 hours. Again, however, I'll fly with a VLJ Mentor for as long as it takes to become VLJ competent and proficient. I'm also adding periodic VLJ Upset Recovery Training in there as well throughout my entire personal flying career. I'm not taking anything for granted.

Something like a Diamond DA42 TwinStar costs about a tenth of what a twin turboprop would cost to operate (~$150/hr vs ~$1500/hr) so if you're expecting to end up with 1000 hours of experience at the end of this, you won't get there doing it all in the twin turboprop. But, presumably you have some sort of end game in mind where you continue to fly the turboprop, or a jet, and you have more money to continue flying with?

I was looking at the Twin Turboprop as an investment in growing my skill, knowledge an expertise over the course of 2-3 years building quality IFR/IMC time in real cross-country missions to about 3,000 hours TT/PIC. So, I don't mind spending the money on a Twin Turboprop platform, because I'm going to be using it for a while (2-3 years or longer).

I was thinking Cessna 441 Conquest II, or some kind of King Air 90 Series. That can be done for $600k - $700k range with updated Glass based on what I've seen on the market right now. However, if I got the rental or lease route for the SEL during Private training and then move to the Twin Turboprop for Multi-Engine Rating and Instrument rating (remembering to get the VFR restriction removed), then I don't have to buy the SEL training platform. That would open a path to the King Air 100 Series, which is probably a better preparation platform for the eventual VLJ in 2-3 years.

I've been asked why I don't just get the Private and do the same thing with the VLJ, skipping the Twin Turboprop. The answer is that for me, I want a more graduated personal career experience moving between progressively more demanding aircraft performance levels. So, Bonanza or Malibu/Matrix (some SEL with that kind of climb performance, approach speed and retractable gear) to King Air 100 and then to EMB-505, just seems like a more progressive kind of approach.

- The Bonanza or Malibu/Matrix is operationally around 4,000lbs at roughly 200kt cruise and climbs at roughly 1,200 fpm. (4-6 months total time)
- The King Air 100 is operationally around 8,000lbs at roughly 260kt cruise and climbs at roughly 2,100 fpm (2-3 years total time)
- The CJ4/Phenom 300/PC-24 is operationally around 12,000lbs at roughly 430kts cruise and climbs at roughly 3,500 to 3,800 fpm (20-25 years total time)

So, I've tried to do my homework in order to put together a "package" of Training plus Time Building in platforms that lend themselves to being good transitions to the next level.

What do you think about this?

 

[DR750S]

Thanks for the post, Flying Packer!

That can be via vectors to final from ATC, via a leg marked on the chart (usually a base leg on a GPS approach), via a procedure turn or hold-in-lieu-of-procedure-turn, or via a DME arc. There are DME arcs that are part of several different types of approaches.

Thank you! Question: Given that there are many different methods for accomplishing the same thing, at what point will you know for sure which method of approach will be used to align you with Final? Do you know 100 miles out, 200 miles out, or not until 50 miles out or worse, 20 miles out from the airport?

I was watching a video having to do with certain types of Non-Precision Approaches. The author defined Non-Precision as an approach not having horizontal guidance. They then went on to list those types of approaches by name. They said, "you will have to decide which approach is best suited." Down below you said, "I chose the DME Arc, just out of preference." Question: Does ATC select the approach that will be flown or does the Pilot select it? I'm unsure.

I was coming from the east-northeast and the two options that made sense were to either fly to the DOSNY IAF (Initial Approach Fix) and fly the DME arc around, or to fly to the SNORE IAF, fly outbound on the localizer, do the procedure turn (where it says 076/256), and then fly back in.

Ah, yes. The Localizer Back Course. I'm going to ask a really dumb question now, so get ready. How do aircraft not constantly collide with each other while operating along the Back Course and performing Procedural Turns back in the same direction? Clearly, I don't yet understand this procedure and I'm sure it will make sense later in my training. But, I am highly curious right now. Just out of pure instinct, the ONLY way I can see this happening as a matter of routine airspace operations, is if the Rules prohibit more than one (1) aircraft on the course at one time. I hope that something like that is the case. What's the real scope. My inquiring mind wants to know!

I see there is also a Front Course as well on the opposite side of what appears to be the symbol of a Localizer(?). They also appear to be equidistant from the Localizer symbol, too. This Instrument stuff seems really interesting. A lot to learn, but I think I'm going to enjoy flying IFR in the final analysis.

Minor point of clarification: ITMOR isn't a VOR, it's a fix. That fix is defined either by the RDD (Redding) VOR, 044 radial at 12 DME (that's what the 12 inside the D-shaped box is just below ITMOR), or the intersection between the RDD 044 radial and the RBL 357 radial.

Thanks for the correction! That really helps.

Apparently, this is one of those examples you mentioned in another post where you have a Virtual Fix of some kind. It is not composed to actual physical locations on the ground, but comprised of two Relative References among differential radials combined with a known distance. Pretty cool. I can understand this concept. I designed a tool that functions in almost the exact same way in my business. I call them Transequential Vectors and they project a relative virtual fixed position known (real) projections. Very well, then.

So, looking at the plate in the video (and NOT the one just above), you'll see a line pointing from ITMOR to GARSA that says "6000 357º (6.4)". That indicates a feeder route, so if you look at the low enroute IFR chart, you'll find ITMOR is a fix in the low airway structure, on V25. In theory, if you were flying on airways, you would use that feeder route to get from the airway to the approach.

That's very cool, indeed. Is this similar in function to an Off Ramp on an elevated freeway that takes you to a known Street below. Sort of like a 3-dimensional Off Ramp in the air? If so, that's just too cool. Also, shall I think of Low En Route IFR Charts as "Streets" and En Route High Altitude IFR Charts as "Freeways?" Or, is that too much of an over simplification of the airway system. It would be pretty neat, if it were analogous to at least some degree. Off Ramps and On Ramps used to "join" Freeways. Feeder Routes used to "join" Airways. Sounds too good to be true, LOL! It can't be that easy.

Kind of. The CDI doesn't know which way the airplane is facing, so it's not left or right per se. The down arrow is important too... But rather than try to explain VOR navigation here, I'll point you to Dauntless Software which has an online VOR simulator that should be better than anything that can be typed: https://www.dauntless-soft.com/products/Freebies/navsim/

https://www.dauntless-soft.com/products/Freebies/navsim/

Beautiful and thanks again for the correction! That helps me learn. Much appreciated. Since I use FireFox 59.x, NPAPI support including Java has been removed. So, I've have to consider installing MSIE on my box, which is like installing a built-in corporate spy to your HDD. I run a fairly secure W7 box that Microsoft can't toy with remotely. Still, I very much appreciate the effort.

Exactly.

Good to know!

 

[DR750S]

The LR stands for "lead radial". That's where you would begin the turn inbound to final so that you don't overshoot the final approach course.

Ah! The plot thickens. That was easy. Thank you.

So the radial represents what direction you are from the VOR, and since we're flying the arc we're essentially flying tangents to the circle, with the VOR straight off your left wing. Start at the 028 radial flying 90 degrees to the left of that (288), twist 10, turn 10 repeatedly until you get to the lead radial and start your turn inbound.

I keep coming up 10 degrees off to the West when I do that calculation. Starting at 028 (NNE) and turning Left 90-degrees (N) puts me on a magnetic heading of 298-degrees (W) after my first Left turn towards FL-348.

The starting ones are fixes on the low enroute airway structure, so you have a way to get there without GPS. The "ending" ones are the lead radials where you should start the turn inbound to the final approach heading.

One things becomes really clear now and that's the need to be able to fly level altitudes, maintain constant rate turns and maintain constant speeds. I can't imagine doing this stuff while bouncing all over the sky because I lacked fundamental aircraft control. So, examining what it takes to be an IFR pilot, really drives home the point about becoming a good stick, first. You keep mentioning "Airway Structure." It is clear to me now that IFR flying is more 3-Dimensionally layered than I first realized. There's a lot of stuff going on up there in layers specifically. Its gonna be interesting discovering it all.

Like I said, you may never need it. There are cases where it is operational advantageous depending on the approach and where you're coming from and what other approaches might be available. For example, this is the only approach to runway 16 at Redding so if the winds are howling out of the south and the clouds/visibility are below circling minimums for the approaches to the other runways, your choice is to either fly the DME arc or land elsewhere. So, they're worth learning as long as they're around.
...
...
Are they on the ACS? It looks like the latest ACS doesn't specifically mention them, but if the examiner has you fly an approach that has one, it's fair game.

I'm going to take your advice and learn them cold. Question: Is there a quick reference database somewhere where I can look up every single type of approach for all airports in existence in the CONUS? In other words, this seems like a really important part of overall Flight Planning. If you are even a little fuzzy about what type of approaches are available to you before you take-off, I could see that as blossoming into a potential problem for you at the end of a long flight. Not sure if that happens to IFR pilots very much.

By the way, do I need to be an Instrument Rated Pilot in order to fly an Instrument Approach? I'm obviously going to earn my Instrument Rating. I'm asking from a curiosity standpoint and from the standpoint of possibly practicing some ILS approaches in VFR only conditions until I get the Instrument Rating officially endorsed.

It'd probably be a good exercise in sim, yes.

No doubt, now. I can see how this would definite be a sim practice item.

...check out the MTN VOR/DME 15 in which the entire approach is a DME arc or the WVI VOR-A where not only is the DME off field, you actually turn away from it at the end of the arc!

Will do!

Hope you're enjoying the conversation and the "armchair flying" so far.

This is the kind of conversation I was looking for. Yes, thank you!

It helps me see the bigger picture. Clearly, the Instrument Rating is going to be a really big deal for me personally. And, it is clearly an absolutely must have level of knowledge and skill. No doubt about that. I asked these questions because I needed to know whether I could go down the rabbit whole without any formal training and still be able to at least understand a few IFR concepts. It was never intended for me to become an IFR rating Pilot on a forum. So, thanks for understanding that fact and for taking me down this particular rabbit whole. I've got a feeling that IFR flying has a lot of these rabbit holes out there. In time, I'll get to them.

 

[DR750S]

You may not have heard it yet, but the Private Pilot certificate is known as a "license to learn." It really is just the very basics. There are so many possibilities in aviation that they leave it up to you to get additional training to suit the sort of flying you'll do.

For what you want to do - Both flying a lot at night in areas with significant terrain and flying into areas where clouds and rain are very frequent, you'll definitely want to get the instrument rating sooner rather than later. In most other countries, night VFR is prohibited. Here in the US, we only have to have 3 hours of night training to get the Private! But instrument procedures are designed to keep you out of rocks and obstacles you can't see, so they're very useful for night flying too, even VFR. I would suggest that you have your instructor cover some of that stuff with you even prior to your Private - Obstacle departure procedures and general IFR minimum altitude stuff, because it'll save your bacon at night, even VFR.

Also, I highly recommend that after you get your private, you take the mountain flying course from Mountain Canyon Flying Seminars in McCall, ID. You'll not only learn lots about high density altitude flying and aircraft performance (including lots of formulas that will tickle your engineer brain) as well as how to fly around the mountains, but you'll get to go out and land at some of the most beautiful backcountry landing strips in the nearby Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness Area. It's one of the best flying experiences I've ever had, and I've been lucky enough to have quite the variety of flying experiences. Here's one pic from there:

This post was pure Gold. Thank you!

 

[DR750S]

I think that is a very good analogy. And it is a good idea that you research your options and pick a solution that will last you a long time. But while you are still sitting on that solution in 10 or 20 years (or more) from now, several other generations of avionics technology will come and go and we will be right back to where we are now with a whole bunch of different acronyms to muddle through as we determine which new airplane to buy and which avionics to select.

Looks like GPS is here to stay. To uproot it with another technology will take something else on a global scale that most likely won't be dial-up or dial-in during my lifetime.

As for the G1000; talk to some people that bought one when it was whiz-bang new but now want to upgrade it to WAAS and make it ADS-B compatible. You could buy a perfectly flyable airplane for what that upgrade will cost.

I think the GDL-88 initially did that for current "Legacy" G1000 users. Now, I believe the GTX 345 and 335 do the same in an "all-in-one" package for G1000 and GTN650/GTN750. Going forward, I think what Garmin is doing with LRU modularity would seem to allow for improved core avionics unit plug-n-play over time as they move their products forward. I would think this move to use an EFIS hardware architecture that broadens the use of LRUs would lower future upgrade costs. But, yes - I guess those original G1000s can be considered "Legacy" at this stage. I've been looking into the engineering architecture of their Panel designs from a logic flow standpoint. Very interesting stuff, indeed. One thing I've noticed in the design about Garmin's AHARS is that it requires the aircraft to be stationary on the ground for a while after initial start-up of the unit in order to align itself. The Honeywell Primus Apex that will be used in the PC-24, requires no such stationary hold before its AHARS comes on line - AHARS aligns during taxi. The Phenom 300 will not come with Primus Apex Glass, nor will the CJ4. Probably a bit of technical minutia, but it is the kind of minutia I'm interested in.

LNAV+V, if I remember correctly, is a brand specific thing. Not FAA sanctioned. LNAV/VNAV is official and more common . Both are non precision VGs that may or may not(often not) get you lower than LNAV without VG(using stepped descent). I would trust them both, but WAAS changed the game and LPV is way better.

That's what I was getting at. Thanks!

 

[ktup-flyer]

t

 

[flyingcheesehead]

You speak my language. That's been hard for me to find on these forums. I understand everything you write. In a strange way, it sounds like I wrote it for you and you typed it.

Well, you said you're an engineer right? That is my language too. I always want to understand how everything works, pick it apart and make it better. That's probably what it says next to "engineer" in the dictionary.

The ultimate destination is owning/operating a VLJ (CJ4, Phenom 300 or PC-24).

I like your taste in airplanes! PC-24 is at the top of my "lottery list" because of its takeoff/landing performance, ability to get in and out of "unimproved" strips, and the pseudo-APU "Quiet Power Mode". The big door would be handy sometimes too.

Oh, and the prior occupant of the top of my list was the CJ4.

I was thinking Cessna 441 Conquest II, or some kind of King Air 90 Series. That can be done for $600k - $700k range with updated Glass based on what I've seen on the market right now. However, if I got the rental or lease route for the SEL during Private training and then move to the Twin Turboprop for Multi-Engine Rating and Instrument rating (remembering to get the VFR restriction removed), then I don't have to buy the SEL training platform. That would open a path to the King Air 100 Series, which is probably a better preparation platform for the eventual VLJ in 2-3 years.

You might want to chat with @Eggman, he has a Conquest (425). Is your $1 mil budget including the purchase price of the airplane? A $700K airplane leaves $300K for operating costs, and that's only going to give you about 200-300 hours worth of operating costs on a twin turboprop.

Another thing you might want to consider is buying the single and keeping it for a while. You can always own more than one airplane! Then you still have something to fly when the other one is down for maintenance, and you have one you can just mess around in for fun.

Any particular reason for interest in the King Air 100? They didn't make very many of them, and they're the only ones that don't use Pratts IIRC. Because of their relative rarity, there probably aren't as many people looking to buy them, so it might not sell as quickly as a 90 or 200 would when you get to that stage.

I've been asked why I don't just get the Private and do the same thing with the VLJ, skipping the Twin Turboprop. The answer is that for me, I want a more graduated personal career experience moving between progressively more demanding aircraft performance levels. So, Bonanza or Malibu/Matrix (some SEL with that kind of climb performance, approach speed and retractable gear) to King Air 100 and then to EMB-505, just seems like a more progressive kind of approach.

You may find that it's actually easier to fly the VLJ than it is to fly a King Air, as long as you can think as fast as they go. The VLJ will have more automated systems. Another person whose ear you should bend is @Abram who owns an Eclipse and flies some other jets as well. I'm trying to think of someone here who has flown both light twin turboprops and modern light jets but I'm drawing a blank at the moment.

 

[DR750S]

Sat this party out for a day or two, looks like some people already responded but I'll give my responses below too... especially since I was invited to a filet mignon steak dinner.. I assume the presence of scotch or whiskey was assumed? Either way, would be great! What's better than red meat and talking aviation?

Not much. In fact, that's exactly what I did this weekend. Flew with two instructors this weekend (finally). It was at the end of their day on Sat & Sun, so I them If they would not mind talking about my goals in general over food. They both said yes. Actually, I had coastal barbecue with one of them. Turns out we both like the same barbecue pit. I got some really good feedback on my goals and my approach to accomplishing them. Both Instructors agreed that it would probably be best to take a training approach that was tailored, focused and included Instrument Flying Concepts as early in the primary training phase as possible. Essentially, as soon as I demonstrated I could handle them. I told both Instructors that wherever and whenever possible, I wanted to integrate Instrument related principles into my VFR flying as a kind of working primer. They both said that not only was it possible, but that approaching my training that way from the start just makes sense. Both did say however, that introducing Instrument principles during primary training would be dependent on how prepared I was. So, they pretty much put the ball back into my court which I am perfectly comfortable with.

Not the complete list, or rather, depends how you slice it up. There are RNAV (RNP) type approaches, etc., but for the most part, that list was the gist of it. On the top right of the approach plate it will tell you the type of approach, the equipment required to fly it, and the name of the approach.

Yep. The anatomy of a SIDs and STARs is what I'm conceptually looking at right now. Question: How do you reconcile a published SID (which means its fixed in place and not subject to change) with receiving IFR Departure from Clearance Delivery? If you filed a flight plan, does that flight plan not include the SID itself? If so and if you have a SID chart with you, why does the actual IFR Departure sometimes look different. I guess another way to ask the question is: When do you ever just fly the SID all by itself without alteration from Clearance Delivery? And, why have a SID at all, since Clearance frequently changes things?

At the bottom it will tell you the various minimums for altitude and visibility depending on how you fly the approach.. if you have LPV equipment you'll have one set of minimums, vs non, vs if you are going to do a circle to land.. I HIGHLY HIGHLY recommend both the Digital Terminal Procedures Supplement and the Instrument Procedures Handbook.. it may be a little overkill if you are still working on getting our private, but if this stuff is interesting and perplexing to you it never hurts to learn early.. I got lost in studying the schematics for hours.
...
The documents above, plus the AIM, do spell a lot of this out, and the logic they used in coming up with those altitude minimums, etc. Obstacles may preclude certain types of approaches, leaving only a localizer or some other approach due to terrain, etc.

Really cool, thanks! All 26 volumes of it, too! Found the Instrument Procedures Handbook as well. Nice fun reading.

1.) despite the "realism" of it I never got the same feeling flying a simulator as I did flying a real plane.

2.) the cost of maintaining the computer to my own OCD standards felt like a lose:lose.

3.) more to your point directly about G1000, etc., I don't want to risk learning the wrong thing, or assume that the way the 430 in FSX works is 100% mirror of real life.. you can download proper, well working, sanctioned GPS simulators to practice loading them, etc., so I did that instead.

I've never been much of a Gamer. Never played a computer game, actually. I use computers for work and have been since I left High School many moons ago. I was more interested in whether or not a flight sim could help me with practicing IFR procedures. For example, learning how the VOR, DG and HSI work, practicing how the flight instruments should look when there is no visible horizon, learning how to use two (2) VORs at the same time and using live ATC with PilotEdge (https://www.pilotedge.net/) to practice real world ATC comms. Thanks for your input here!

...that you find by pulling up the correct approach plate in Foreflight.

I guess I had better get over to check out ForeFlight. Sounds like I'll miss something if I don't!

I have 4 "Bibles", they are the following
-physical FAR/AIM - fully of stickies and highlighter marks
-virtual Foreflight Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge
-virtual Foreflight Instrument Procedures Handbook
-virtual Foreflight Digital Terminal Procedures Supplement
**just about every question I have ever had can be sleuthed from those. I like the physical FAR/AIM because it is put together more like a dictionary, so I find that easier to flip through.. the others are virtual so using FIND or the index is easy there as well

Brilliant and, Amen!

In all seriousness, I have had flashbacks of when Luke Skywalker removes his targeting screen and you can hear Obi Wan saying "use the force Luke" .. the first few times I was under the hood and was figuring out how to intercept a certain radial I felt like I needed those kinds of mystical powers. But later I learned it and now it seems obvious and natural

I'm hoping to make it more "natural" at the outset by learning as much about the "concepts" as I can now. I know I'm not doing any real Instrument flying, yet. However, that day will come in the not so distant future and I want to be primed and ready when it does.

You've been really helpful, here. Thanks a bunch!

 

[labbadabba]

Very few CFIs teach the correct method and keep the myth of Reverse Sensing alive. Reverse Sensing ONLY exists in one place and that's in LOC BC courses.

Well, I happen to like flying TO radials.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Thank you! Question: Given that there are many different methods for accomplishing the same thing, at what point will you know for sure which method of approach will be used to align you with Final? Do you know 100 miles out, 200 miles out, or not until 50 miles out or worse, 20 miles out from the airport?

Ideally, before takeoff!

Okay, so you won't always know that early, but when you're planning the flight, you know what general direction you'll be coming from, you can get an idea of what the winds will be from the forecast, and you can look at the approaches for the runway(s) most favorable with the forecast winds. Choose the approach you'd like (usually based on the equipment in your airplane and the best available minimums), and figure out the best way to get onto the procedure given where you're coming from.

For example, I flew from KUES to KSPW the other day (if you have ForeFlight or another EFB, you can follow along here). Winds were forecast to be around 150 degrees for my arrival time, so I figured I would likely be landing on either runway 12 or 18. There are RNAV (GPS) approaches to both and an ILS to 12. Last time I went there, I flew the DME arc to the ILS from DOSNY, but now that I have the equipment to fly an RNAV approach to LPV minimums, the ILS offers me no advantage and flying the RNAV approach to 12 starting at KOMDE makes for a slightly shorter approach and avoids the (slight) complication of flying a DME arc. Finally, if winds turned out to favor runway 18, I would fly the RNAV(GPS) 18 starting at EJFIF... And I knew all of that before takeoff.

Now, things don't always work out as planned. Let's say the winds flipped around and I chose to land on runway 30 or 36 instead. In that case, I would say that 50 miles out is a good place to know what you're going to do, because by that point you should be able to pick up the weather on the radio and make a decision which of the remaining approaches would work well for the new situation. The earlier you can reasonably do something, though, the better, so that you can concentrate on executing the new plan. Trying to do too many things at once is a good way to get yourself overloaded and into an unsafe situation.

I was watching a video having to do with certain types of Non-Precision Approaches. The author defined Non-Precision as an approach not having horizontal guidance.

I hope he meant/said vertical guidance! All approaches have lateral guidance.

Strictly speaking, there's more to it than that - And until recently, RNAV LPV approaches were *not* considered precision approaches. I think RNAV LNAV/VNAV approaches still aren't. There's some definitions here, but they don't seem to include all of the specifics I've seen elsewhere: http://fsims.faa.gov/wdocs/8900.1/v04 ac equip & auth/chapter 02/04_002_005.htm

They said, "you will have to decide which approach is best suited." Down below you said, "I chose the DME Arc, just out of preference." Question: Does ATC select the approach that will be flown or does the Pilot select it? I'm unsure.

The pilot does... With a caveat.

At uncontrolled airports, it's completely up to you - The ATC facility responsible for approach control to that airport (often an ARTCC or "Center" and not an actual approach control facility) will generally ask you when you first call them up whether you have the weather at your destination and what approach you'd like.

The caveat is that at towered airports, they'll generally list the runways and approaches that are "in use". While you can request a different approach if you'd like, you may not get to fly it right away.

For example, I frequently fly into Madison (KMSN), a Class C airport with its own approach control. If they're landing to the north, they'll say "ILS 36 and RNAV 32 approaches in use" toward the end of the ATIS broadcast. If you want to fly the RNAV 36 or the VOR/DME 32, they'll probably let you do that right away since those approaches won't interfere at all with the ones that are in use. However, if you request to fly the ILS 21 instead, for example, you may not get to do that right away since runway 21 isn't in use. Depending on what the traffic situation is for the in-use approaches, what airplanes may be taking off soon, etc you may need to sit in a holding pattern for a little while until there's a lull in the traffic and they can get you in on the conflicting approach.

Generally, though, the runways in use will be the ones favored for the wind conditions and you won't be wanting to fly a conflicting approach anyway. The final decision is up to you, but there's likely to be operational disadvantages to flying an approach that isn't going to one of the active runways.

Ah, yes. The Localizer Back Course. I'm going to ask a really dumb question now, so get ready. How do aircraft not constantly collide with each other while operating along the Back Course and performing Procedural Turns back in the same direction? Clearly, I don't yet understand this procedure and I'm sure it will make sense later in my training. But, I am highly curious right now. Just out of pure instinct, the ONLY way I can see this happening as a matter of routine airspace operations, is if the Rules prohibit more than one (1) aircraft on the course at one time. I hope that something like that is the case. What's the real scope. My inquiring mind wants to know!

That's exactly how it is. When there's an aircraft doing a "full procedure" approach, they're the only ones on it. This is why, at busier airports, arrivals are generally vectored to an approach and nobody executes the procedure turn - It takes a lot of time and airspace.

I see there is also a Front Course as well on the opposite side of what appears to be the symbol of a Localizer(?). They also appear to be equidistant from the Localizer symbol, too. This Instrument stuff seems really interesting. A lot to learn, but I think I'm going to enjoy flying IFR in the final analysis.

So, the front course is the "normal" side of the localizer, and the back course is the opposite side. When you fly an ILS, you're on the front course of the localizer. It's easy to confuse those two at first, since you see in the diagram that the antenna array is opposite the runway from the front course. But, that's how it works - The antennae are at the other end of the runway.

The localizer back course approach is simply a useful side effect of the way the antenna arrays that broadcast the localizer signal work. There's nothing to stop the signal from propagating in the opposite direction. As long as the signal is there, might as well use it, right? It merely requires the FAA to develop the procedure by surveying terrain, obstacles, and nav reception on the other side and flight checking it. Poof, you have another approach, and didn't need to install or power any additional antennas.

That's very cool, indeed. Is this similar in function to an Off Ramp on an elevated freeway that takes you to a known Street below. Sort of like a 3-dimensional Off Ramp in the air? If so, that's just too cool.

Exactly! Our "highways" are called airways - Victor airways on the Low Enroute charts and Jet airways on the High Enroute charts. The transition routes are the off ramps, and the approaches are the city streets to the destination. Or something like that, I'm sure there are plenty of flaws in that analogy but it works for now.

There are also Standard Instrument Departures (SIDs) and Standard Terminal ARrivals (STARs) that are used as the on and off ramps, respectively, mostly for turboprops and jets going to the busiest areas, though I have flown some in my piston bird as well. They generally offer transition from the Jet airway structure (which starts at FL180, or a pressure altitude of 18,000 feet and go up to FL600/60,000) to approaches (STARs) or from airports (SIDs).

Also, shall I think of Low En Route IFR Charts as "Streets" and En Route High Altitude IFR Charts as "Freeways?" Or, is that too much of an over simplification of the airway system. It would be pretty neat, if it were analogous to at least some degree. Off Ramps and On Ramps used to "join" Freeways. Feeder Routes used to "join" Airways. Sounds too good to be true, LOL! It can't be that easy.

Well, the analogy does work pretty well!

Beautiful and thanks again for the correction! That helps me learn. Much appreciated. Since I use FireFox 59.x, NPAPI support including Java has been removed. So, I've have to consider installing MSIE on my box, which is like installing a built-in corporate spy to your HDD. I run a fairly secure W7 box that Microsoft can't toy with remotely. Still, I very much appreciate the effort.

Well, I found two other ones, but they both still required Flash! Maybe install Chrome in a VM or something?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I keep coming up 10 degrees off to the West when I do that calculation. Starting at 028 (NNE) and turning Left 90-degrees (N) puts me on a magnetic heading of 298-degrees (W) after my first Left turn towards FL-348.

Whoops... You are correct. 28-90+360=298. I really need to stop sniffing glue. *

One things becomes really clear now and that's the need to be able to fly level altitudes, maintain constant rate turns and maintain constant speeds. I can't imagine doing this stuff while bouncing all over the sky because I lacked fundamental aircraft control. So, examining what it takes to be an IFR pilot, really drives home the point about becoming a good stick, first.

Absolutely. That's why we eat an elephant one bite at a time, and why flight training progresses as I mentioned in a previous post. First, you learn to fly the plane by visual references, then you learn to navigate visually, then you learn to fly the plane on instruments, and then you learn how to navigate (strictly) on instruments.

You keep mentioning "Airway Structure." It is clear to me now that IFR flying is more 3-Dimensionally layered than I first realized. There's a lot of stuff going on up there in layers specifically. Its gonna be interesting discovering it all.

Yes! The national airspace system is quite interesting to study - All the different pieces and the history behind why we got to where we are. There are many different pieces all working together to allow many different types of aircraft with wildly different capabilities to all use the sky without conflicting with each other.

Question: Is there a quick reference database somewhere where I can look up every single type of approach for all airports in existence in the CONUS? In other words, this seems like a really important part of overall Flight Planning. If you are even a little fuzzy about what type of approaches are available to you before you take-off, I could see that as blossoming into a potential problem for you at the end of a long flight. Not sure if that happens to IFR pilots very much.

Well, the FAA is simplifying the system as well. Prior to the proliferation of GPS, there were a lot of different things that you needed to master that are now mostly going away. NDB, SDF, VOR/DME RNAV are all very close to completely dead. LOC BC and approaches with DME arcs are getting rarer. GPS really allows for a lot of flexibility in design while maintaining relatively low cost because it doesn't require any equipment (or maintenance thereof) at or near each airport, and allows for excellent accuracy too. It's no wonder the FAA has been working very hard to deprecate some of the now-obsolete approaches and replace them with GPS approaches.

By the way, do I need to be an Instrument Rated Pilot in order to fly an Instrument Approach? I'm obviously going to earn my Instrument Rating. I'm asking from a curiosity standpoint and from the standpoint of possibly practicing some ILS approaches in VFR only conditions until I get the Instrument Rating officially endorsed.

You can certainly fly the procedure while looking out the window (and maintaining VFR), and it's not a bad idea to do so just so that you can get an idea of where you really will be once you're flying them for real. It's also legal to fly an approach "under the hood" (with a view-limiting device on) with another pilot acting as your safety pilot (watching for traffic, obstacles, and terrain) and for neither one of you to be instrument rated, though I would suggest not doing this until you've got plenty of instrument training under your belt so that you don't develop any bad habits.

It helps me see the bigger picture. Clearly, the Instrument Rating is going to be a really big deal for me personally. And, it is clearly an absolutely must have level of knowledge and skill. No doubt about that.

Yep. There's no sense having a turboprop without an instrument rating - You have to operate under IFR at and above FL180 (pressure altitude of 18,000 feet), and turboprops are generally at their best in the low 20's. In addition, you'll likely be uninsurable in a twin turboprop until you have your instrument rating and some experience - This is another reason to keep your single around, at least for a while.

I asked these questions because I needed to know whether I could go down the rabbit whole without any formal training and still be able to at least understand a few IFR concepts. It was never intended for me to become an IFR rating Pilot on a forum. So, thanks for understanding that fact and for taking me down this particular rabbit whole. I've got a feeling that IFR flying has a lot of these rabbit holes out there. In time, I'll get to them.

Yes! Sometimes it's important to know what we don't know, and you don't get that by people shutting down your questions. Not to mention, now you know more than you did when we started!

One of the things I really enjoy about flying is that there is more to learn about aviation than any person can possibly know, so if you ever get bored with it, you just need to look around and you'll discover an entirely new aspect that you can learn about! I've been lucky enough to not only get ratings and endorsements (commercial, multi, instrument, high performance, complex, tailwheel) but to fly gliders, skiplanes, seaplanes, warbirds, do aerobatics, mountain and backcountry flying... And I've loved all of it and I'm still only scratching the surface of all the possibilities after 15 years and 2000+ hours. I hope you get similar fulfillment out of aviation!


* As a pilot, even though it may not be in the ACS, you should still understand all references to the movie Airplane! Good luck, we're all counting on you.

 

[Clark1961]

A short note to @flyingcheesehead: you can safely sniff Elmer's or Titebond if you wish to continue your glue habit. Either one must be reported on your next medical. HIMS will not be required but expect the staff to look at you a bit 'funny'.

 

[Tantalum]

Yep. The anatomy of a SIDs and STARs is what I'm conceptually looking at right now. Question: How do you reconcile a published SID (which means its fixed in place and not subject to change) with receiving IFR Departure from Clearance Delivery? If you filed a flight plan, does that flight plan not include the SID itself? If so and if you have a SID chart with you, why does the actual IFR Departure sometimes look different. I guess another way to ask the question is: When do you ever just fly the SID all by itself without alteration from Clearance Delivery? And, why have a SID at all, since Clearance frequently changes things?

A lot of this is well covered in the Kings IFR course, and they probably do a better job of explaining it than I, but, in a small nut shell arrival and departure procedures help ATC with traffic flow. For example, when I last flew into Oakland they instructed me to fly the PXN.5 arrival, that took some load off of ATC in giving me specific instructions on what to do as I approach the airport. Same thing with departures, you'll often get a departure procedure coming out of many LA area airports IFR, and again that helps ATC's load in busy airspace so they're not giving you turn by turn directions

When flying an arrival or departure procedure the pilot must be familiar with it though. In the case of departure procedures a pilot may turn one down, or just write on their flight plan "no DP" if they lack the correct charts or proficiency to adequately fly one. There was a thread actually about someone who got all out of sorts flying a DP

As a pilot, even though it may not be in the ACS, you should still understand all references to the movie Airplane! Good luck, we're all counting on you.

..this is an absolute must

Speaking of, have you ever spent time in a Turkish prison?

 

[DR750S]

Please read this article on how to correctly use VORs once you get to that point in your training: http://www.sarangan.org/aviation/articles/vor-article.pdf

http://www.sarangan.org/aviation/articles/vor-article.pdf

Outstanding! Thank you!

Very few CFIs teach the correct method and keep the myth of Reverse Sensing alive. Reverse Sensing ONLY exists in one place and that's in LOC BC courses.

Wow! That's the very first time I've heard this statement. This probably deserves its own topic, bit would elaborate a little on what you mean? I've always heard that Reverse Sensing applied to VORs. Based on your post I went hunting for more information and found this: https://simfliteminnesota.blogspot.com/2010/02/reverse-sensing-no-such-thing.html.

In the airline world I'd rather shoot ILS then GPS approaches.

Is this the proverbial 'Smoking Gun Indictment' of GPS Approaches - the fact that an airline pilot prefers ILS to GPS on approach? Or, am I the one smoking something? Just kidding. I don't smoke, drink or do drugs - happily and thankfully. Your post is why I asked another Pilots of America member in this thread, whether they "trusted" certain types of GPS based approaches that did not officially offer both Vertical and Horizontal guidance. That person said they trusted them both, but obviously preferred to have the most robust guidance available which makes all the sense in the world to me.

It's easier to set the plane up and it's less work flying an ILS. GPS approaches are actually a pain in the butt because of how my airline chooses to fly them. ILS all I have to do is dial in the freq and hit APP. Then at 200' I click the autopilot off and land the plane. GPS I have to load the FMS correctly, make sure I anchor the approach correctly in the FMS once cleared, and select NAV.

Once on the approach, I select V/S at 1500' FPM .2 NM before every fix and dial in each new altitude once it captures. Rinse and repeat for every fix till the MAP. Once at the final altitude I dial in the MAP altitude and wait till I hit the PDP. If I see the asphalt click the autopilot off and land.

Hell. I want to fly like that. You make it seem like a piece of birthday cake. Why does everyone in the airspace system not fly like this (not including aircraft that don't have proper equipment and/or VFR only pilots, of course)? That was a pretty straightforward ILS approach. I'm assuming that you always have BOTH Vertical and Horizontal guidance on these approaches? I can't imagine that you don't.

Hey, thanks for the reply and the insight into YOUR world (Airline Flying). Just sounds a whole hell of a lot more efficient to me, but what the heck do I know at this point. I'm just scratching the surface of the learning curve (mixed my metaphors a little there).

 

[bflynn]

The more they overthink the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain.

From memory, on the boat (submarine) we had about 6 or 7 different means of navigation, none of which ever agreed, even when we were stationary in port. Take the word "precision" with a grain of salt.

 

[DR750S]

Please, if you had time to figure this out share it with us... As a new PPL who is considering starting my IFR training sometime in the next year, I have read through a number of the FAA "handbooks" and such a list would be a wonderful resource. Maybe even worthy of "sticky" status here on POA...

Though there is a lot of consolidated information out there about IFR flying, as I'm doing my own personal research, I get the distinct impression sometimes that the FAA provides you with breakfast and lunch, but they want you to hunt down your own dinner. Sometimes, I find information scattered about or just too difficult to find or when you find it, it requires deciphering or maybe even consulting with the author of the information.

 

[Tantalum]

Please, if you had time to figure this out share it with us... As a new PPL who is considering starting my IFR training sometime in the next year, I have read through a number of the FAA "handbooks" and such a list would be a wonderful resource. Maybe even worthy of "sticky" status here on POA...

Elevated to sticky status would be cool, and no doubt a list like that could be useful for many here, I know it would have been useful for me! But... I also see value in:

but they want you to hunt down your own dinner. Sometimes, I find information scattered about or just too difficult to find or when you find it, it requires deciphering or maybe even consulting with the author of the information

Everyone's learning style is different, and I'm not sure you could necessarily, concretely, boil everything into one simple table and still expect the pilot to adequately learn the subject matter. Doing some of the learning and sleuthing on your own to understand why the approach is what it is carries a tremendous amount of value to it. There is a reason some airports don't have an ILS, that may be go beyond financial reasons, etc., terrain and other limitations may only create some circling RNAV or localizer approaches with high VDPs. The AIM, section 5-4-20, has some great detail on this

 

[DR750S]

I like your taste in airplanes! PC-24 is at the top of my "lottery list" because of its takeoff/landing performance, ability to get in and out of "unimproved" strips, and the pseudo-APU "Quiet Power Mode". The big door would be handy sometimes too.

It looked like a great airplane from the start. They still have another 83 PC-24s to deliver by 2020. The orderbook would by necessity need to re-open before 2020, however. That gives me about 2 years plus actual delivery time which I doubt would be less than 12 months given the flood of second round orders they are likely to receive. Right now, I just feel like the timing will be all wrong for the PC-24. However, I will keep my hopes inline with their actually proven delivery history.

The Beechcraft Premier I, was also on the list as well. Once Beechcraft announce "The Second Coming," felt good about the Premier II concept. Then that whole thing melted into thing air and now we have no more P-II to look forward to. That put CJ4 back on top of Embraer's Phenom 300. The reason is that back then, Embraer was having some design issues with the flaps 4 detent (Full Flaps) coupled to the potential of spoiler float particularly during a hydraulic pump failure. This was noted during certification and Embraer, decided to continue with the program and limit the aircraft to the Flaps 3 detent only and then address the Flaps 4 issue later. When you combine the flaps 3 angle limitation with high density altitude approaches, Phenom 300 pilots were reporting building up too much airspeed during the approach. Personally, that would not allow me to put the Phenom 300 at the top, though I wanted to back then. Today, the Phenom 300 is back on top and its performance record has been stellar since they worked out the biggest of the initial bugs.

The venerable CJ4 however, with its latest structural improvements does not appear to be anything that I would be unhappy with ultimately. Its design may be a little long in the tooth, but that's part of the appeal to me. It has stood the test of time, longer than the Phenom 300 and has certainly been around proving itself longer than the PC-24. So, it reliability, consistency, safety record and pilot reports about how well it flies and handles, are all things that make it a very strong competitor in my mind.

I'd be happen with either of the three contenders and I'm keeping my options fully open until after I do final factory tours, test flights and meet & greets in-person.

You might want to chat with @Eggman, he has a Conquest (425). Is your $1 mil budget including the purchase price of the airplane? A $700K airplane leaves $300K for operating costs, and that's only going to give you about 200-300 hours worth of operating costs on a twin turboprop.

The $1m is just airplane acquisition cost set-aside. That's based on the VLJ being around the $10m mark. I figure, I'm willing to spend 10% additionally for what I need, because my needs are different than someone who already has 5,000 hours TT with 60% twin turboprop. Or, a guy with 20+ years of flying experience behind him looking to finally move up to the VLJ from the TBM 850 he's been flying for the past 7 years. I just won't have that level of accomplishment to rely upon. So, I'll need a different (more intentional and focused) path to get ready for the VLJ after about 2-3 years total. So, that would be the role of the Conquest 441, or King Air 90. As essentially, a specific preparation platform in which I'll spend about 2-3 years of my life in special preparation. Therefore, I'm ok with spending an additional 10% for the aircraft.

The operational costs I've held as separate. If I can get about 1,000+ (emphasis on plus) under my belt each year, then I'd feel on course. That's 19.2 hours per week. Assuming at 4 week vacation per year, that's about 21 hours per week (48 weeks per year). That comes to about 4.3 hours per day on a five day a week work schedule. There's no way I'm going to get 4.3 hours in every single day consistently for 48 weeks. However, there will be some days and weekend where I do extra flying depending on the logistics of the time building missions flown that week. So, hopefully, I can get close to 1,000 hours per year - but I won't cry over spilled milk, if I come in at 750 on year. Over time, I plan to extend the range of each training mission until I reach New York, which for me is a cost-to-coast mission.

Calculating fuel stops on both the outbound and return home legs, those types of missions near the end of my time building phase will provide for the bulk of the TT and put me over the 1,000+ per year mark on average. So, I'm confident things will balance out near the end of the 2-3 year mark. California to Florida, California to New York and California to Maine and back - those types of cross-country legs will really start to add up in some good quality TT with IMC, no doubt. The goal is to get prepared and not rush off the deep end. Whatever it takes, that's what I need to be willing to do. I want the transition into the VLJ to be as smooth as I can make it. That means, I don't want to be extremely shocked by the new speeds and the shorter decision windows of the VLJ. There will be some transition, sure. I just don't want it to be jolting - as it would be if I tried to jump from a Bonanza to a CJ4. I'm looking for a more graduated increase in speed and performance coupled to a more gradual decrease in Decision Windows due to the new speeds.

Thanks for the lead on @Eggman!

Another thing you might want to consider is buying the single and keeping it for a while. You can always own more than one airplane! Then you still have something to fly when the other one is down for maintenance, and you have one you can just mess around in for fun.

There will be multiple aircraft in the hanger, no doubt. I'm in love with this stuff. Aviation is where I'm living the entirety of the second half of my life. I will be getting into aerobatics and I'd like to own an Edge 540 someday when I'm capable. But, that won't be good for carrying 3-4 passengers. The more I look at this the more there is an increasing probability that the Time Builder becomes the standby, as you say. Besides, we have family in locations relative to us that are too long for a drive and to close for a jet. So, there are these odd lot distances we'll be traveling infrequently where nothing other than a smaller aircraft makes much sense. I'm thinking a nicely restored Conquest 441 II, would fill that gap and still have enough range to be the standby platform during TBO or unscheduled maintenance requirements on the VLJ. That's my current thinking thus far and its subject to change until final decision. Another option for odd lot ranges and VLJ TBO/Maintenance downtime 'gap' is a Rotor.

There is no doubt that I'd also like to get a Helicopter Pilots License and Instrument Rating. This would bring the H135 into perspective. However, it lacks range at only 235nm. So, it gets us to various family locations close by, but it does not fill the TBO/Maintenance downtime gap at all and would require multiple fuel stops. It is simply not a big cross-country platform with a theoretical 3.5 fuel stops just to reach Colorado (quick math). All this makes the 441 or an F90 seem just that much more appealing after good retrofit program.

Any particular reason for interest in the King Air 100? They didn't make very many of them, and they're the only ones that don't use Pratts IIRC. Because of their relative rarity, there probably aren't as many people looking to buy them, so it might not sell as quickly as a 90 or 200 would when you get to that stage.

Size, weight, complexity and speed. A significant step up from a SEL Trainer while still being a good transition platform into the VLJ. Found several for sale. But, you are right - not very much in abundance. Ranging from $270K to $750K from what I can see online. I'm sure there will be more not online through a reputable broker/buyers side. The F90 is also a candidate. Price anywhere from $200K to $400K higher than the 100. If things remain around the $1m range, I'm ok with it - especially, if I'm going to keep it as the get out of jail card when/if the VLJ is not available to fly.

You may find that it's actually easier to fly the VLJ than it is to fly a King Air, as long as you can think as fast as they go. The VLJ will have more automated systems. Another person whose ear you should bend is @Abram who owns an Eclipse and flies some other jets as well. I'm trying to think of someone here who has flown both light twin turboprops and modern light jets but I'm drawing a blank at the moment.

Thanks for the referral @Abram!

The King Air does appear to be a bit more complex than the 441, which is why I appreciated the Conquest II option a bit more than the King Air option. Though it does not have the same size, weight, complexity and speed, it is not too far behind in those areas, it fits the "Gap Requirement" and it sits far enough below $1m that some nice new avionics upgrades, interior work and structural rehab could be done, if the purchase price is right. This was the original reason why I selected the Conquest II as a candidate - it meets a number of different needs nice AFTER it gets rehabilitated (avionics, seating, cabin trim, structural issues - hopefully none exist that need taking care of).

Once again, great post and thanks!

 

[DR750S]

Okay, so you won't always know that early, but when you're planning the flight...

I guess this is where real pilots are saying, "duh! Of course, that's when you would know silly." Of course, my disclaimer is that I'm not a real pilot right now - nor do I play one on TV.

For example, I flew from KUES to KSPW the other day (if you have ForeFlight or another EFB, you can follow along here). Winds were forecast to be around 150 degrees for my arrival time, so I figured I would likely be landing on either runway 12 or 18. There are RNAV (GPS) approaches to both and an ILS to 12. Last time I went there, I flew the DME arc to the ILS from DOSNY, but now that I have the equipment to fly an RNAV approach to LPV minimums, the ILS offers me no advantage and flying the RNAV approach to 12 starting at KOMDE makes for a slightly shorter approach and avoids the (slight) complication of flying a DME arc. Finally, if winds turned out to favor runway 18, I would fly the RNAV(GPS) 18 starting at EJFIF... And I knew all of that before takeoff.

Hmmm. So, you mean to tell me that Flying will also afford me the opportunity to engage in some creative strategic and tactical thinking as well. This is too good to be true. I thought that you guys just fly from point 'A' to point 'B' and then land when doing this IFR stuff. But, here, you are engaging in some creativity. It is like a Spy Novel. You are hinged on what the Wind will do just before you get to the destination airport and you have a limited set of weapons at your disposal to deal with that evil villain. As the chilling Wind makes its final move, you have to select the correct set of weapons available to you (Instrument Approach Type, Runway Heading) and sleigh the evil villain with your training, skill, knowledge and on-board equipment. You are the Hero, who lands across from the setting sun to the playing of John Williams' "Throne Room." Roll credits.

Ok, so using the above Plate - you flew east to west for a bit over 300nm and then descending into Spencer from the northwest through the RNAV approach to 12 with entry at IAF KOMDE. You hit KOMDE at or above 4,000ft and turned 211 on the heading which put you 90-degrees left of runway centerline. KOMDE was NOpT and you flew 211 for 5nm. You then turned left 90 to 121 on the heading at IF YAYDU, where you began a descent to 3500ft. You flew 121 for 6.8nm until you hit FAF HEPON at or above 3,500ft. You flew 4.6nm down to CISOS at or above 2,000ft which put you on a 1.9nm final into 12. However, CISOS is (correct me if I'm wrong) only 0.7nm from the various different kinds of Approach Type Minimums such as your LPV DA of 200ft. At that LPV DA you were then 1.2nm from runway 12's threshold. You then flew down to 200ft, declared "runway in sight" and continued your final approach into 12. Your Missed Approach Procedure was to immediately climb 4,000 direct to Missed Approach Fix ONUWA then fly a 4nm Hold from heading 121 to 301.

How'd I do? I'm guessing this is close to being right.

...In that case, I would say that 50 miles out is a good place to know what you're going to do,...

So, from about 50nm out you tuned into:

I hope he meant/said vertical guidance! All approaches have lateral guidance.

yes, I did catch that. Thanks!

 

[DR750S]

Strictly speaking, there's more to it than that - And until recently, RNAV LPV approaches were *not* considered precision approaches. I think RNAV LNAV/VNAV approaches still aren't. There's some definitions here, but they don't seem to include all of the specifics I've seen elsewhere: http://fsims.faa.gov/wdocs/8900.1/v04 ac equip & auth/chapter 02/04_002_005.htm

http://fsims.faa.gov/wdocs/8900.1/v04 ac equip & auth/chapter 02/04_002_005.htm

As I read that link, I start to wonder of the FAA really wants anybody to be fully versed in all aspects of air operations in the US. Thanks for the FSIMS. I found the EMB-505 MMEL most current update for 2018, which had an item on it that I was always curious about, AHRS. I found on the Navigation page that two (2) are installed. However, if one goes down, RVSM operations are not permitted and the AP goes inop. In a practical scenario, if one (1) AHRS went down on the EMB-505, the AP becomes inoperative and you must descend below FL290 to remain legal (technically).

How the heck was I ever going to learn that without FSIMS! I'm guessing that Embraer would train to that during EMB-505 transition and/or type rating training. If not, where is the EMB-505 single pilot supposed to learn this? Essentially, I just stumbled upon it doing random reading of your FSIMS link.

... However, if you request to fly the ILS 21 instead, for example, you may not get to do that right away since runway 21 isn't in use. Depending on what the traffic situation is for the in-use approaches, what airplanes may be taking off soon, etc you may need to sit in a holding pattern for a little while until there's a lull in the traffic and they can get you in on the conflicting approach.

So, that's how its done. That's very interesting.

Generally, though, the runways in use will be the ones favored for the wind conditions and you won't be wanting to fly a conflicting approach anyway. The final decision is up to you, but there's likely to be operational disadvantages to flying an approach that isn't going to one of the active runways.

Very good to know that they are mostly inactive for reasons that would be disadvantageous to using them.

When you fly an ILS, you're on the front course of the localizer. It's easy to confuse those two at first, since you see in the diagram that the antenna array is opposite the runway from the front course. But, that's how it works - The antennae are at the other end of the runway.
...
The localizer back course approach is simply a useful side effect of the way the antenna arrays that broadcast the localizer signal work. There's nothing to stop the signal from propagating in the opposite direction. As long as the signal is there, might as well use it, right? It merely requires the FAA to develop the procedure by surveying terrain, obstacles, and nav reception on the other side and flight checking it. Poof, you have another approach, and didn't need to install or power any additional antennas.
[/qoute]

So, taking the same signal source, applying a differing set of usage protocols and then using a naming scheme with directional shift to differentiate the two. No problem. I do something similar in concept in my work.

Exactly! Our "highways" are called airways - Victor airways on the Low Enroute charts and Jet airways on the High Enroute charts.

Victor Low. Jet High (which starts at FL180, or a pressure altitude of 18,000 feet and go up to FL600/60,000). Interesting and easy to remember. Though, not quite sure why they used two different names for the exact same thing that shows up on two different chart types. But, no problem.

The transition routes are the off ramps, and the approaches are the city streets to the destination. Or something like that, I'm sure there are plenty of flaws in that analogy but it works for now.

Transition Off. Approach To. Not a problem. Love it.

There are also Standard Instrument Departures (SIDs) and Standard Terminal ARrivals (STARs) that are used as the on and off ramps, respectively, mostly for turboprops and jets going to the busiest areas, though I have flown some in my piston bird as well. They generally offer transition from the Jet airway structure (which starts at FL180, or a pressure altitude of 18,000 feet and go up to FL600/60,000) to approaches (STARs) or from airports (SIDs).

SID On. STAR Off. I'm starting to see a trend, here.

Maybe install Chrome in a VM or something?

ESXi is used other purposes only. However, I'll grab another laptop and install Creepy... I'm sorry, I mean Chrome. Google, should win the "Man In The Middle Hack" award of the century, given the way it implements Chrome to capture user data. Google, is a very creepy company in this regard. Almost as bad as Microsoft when it comes to probing its user base.

Thanks for all the help here.

 

[tsts4]

This document is Europe focused but contains some really good info and you might find it informative:

https://www.pplir.org/component/joomdoc/Public Files/PBN_Manual_e2.0.v13.pdf/download

 

[flyingcheesehead]

There will be multiple aircraft in the hanger, no doubt. I'm in love with this stuff. Aviation is where I'm living the entirety of the second half of my life. I will be getting into aerobatics and I'd like to own an Edge 540 someday when I'm capable. But, that won't be good for carrying 3-4 passengers.

Maybe you want to consider an Aerobatic Bonanza (F33C) as your single then? It'll give you a start with both flying in general and acro and make a decent standby for the turboprop phase.

 

[ARFlyer]

Wow! That's the very first time I've heard this statement. This probably deserves its own topic, bit would elaborate a little on what you mean? I've always heard that Reverse Sensing applied to VORs. Based on your post I went hunting for more information and found this: https://simfliteminnesota.blogspot.com/2010/02/reverse-sensing-no-such-thing.html.

"Reverse Sensing" exists on a LOC BC course because of how a LOC course works which vastly different than how a VOR works. LOC, and G/S, sends out two freqs that are 90Hz and 150Hz. One represents the LEFT side, 90, and the other the RIGHT side, 150, of the runway on the LOC. If you're on course, your NAV radio will hear both the 90 and 150Hz frequencies the same. A NAV radio only knows that 90 is LEFT and 150 is RIGHT.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrument_landing_system_localizer

A LOC Backcourse approach is one that is using the LOC front course of the opposite runway's LOC. So you're flying the course backward which means the 90 is now on YOUR right and the 150Hz is on the left. Your NAV radio doesn't know this and will display the course on your CDI as if you were flying the "correct" direction. So instead of "pushing" the needle back on course you "pull" the needle.

The big difference is a NAV CDI for LOC, LOC B/C and ILS systems functions as a command instrument. Which is an instrument that tells you where to go. E.g., go left, climb, turn. A VOR CDI is a navigation instrument. It tells you where you are located and how to get there but doesn't tell you how to do it. But historically we've taught the VOR as a command instrument to simplify the teaching to students. But if never gets taught the correct way when you become more experienced.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Hmmm. So, you mean to tell me that Flying will also afford me the opportunity to engage in some creative strategic and tactical thinking as well. This is too good to be true.

Yes! That's one of the reasons I enjoy flying so much - It engages my analytical engineer brain throughout.

It is like a Spy Novel. You are hinged on what the Wind will do just before you get to the destination airport and you have a limited set of weapons at your disposal to deal with that evil villain. As the chilling Wind makes its final move, you have to select the correct set of weapons available to you (Instrument Approach Type, Runway Heading) and sleigh the evil villain with your training, skill, knowledge and on-board equipment. You are the Hero, who lands across from the setting sun to the playing of John Williams' "Throne Room." Roll credits.

I like it.

Ok, so using the above Plate - you flew east to west for a bit over 300nm and then descending into Spencer from the northwest through the RNAV approach to 12 with entry at IAF KOMDE. You hit KOMDE at or above 4,000ft and turned 211 on the heading which put you 90-degrees left of runway centerline. KOMDE was NOpT and you flew 211 for 5nm. You then turned left 90 to 121 on the heading at IF YAYDU, where you began a descent to 3500ft. You flew 121 for 6.8nm until you hit FAF HEPON at or above 3,500ft. You flew 4.6nm down to CISOS at or above 2,000ft which put you on a 1.9nm final into 12. However, CISOS is (correct me if I'm wrong) only 0.7nm from the various different kinds of Approach Type Minimums such as your LPV DA of 200ft. At that LPV DA you were then 1.2nm from runway 12's threshold. You then flew down to 200ft, declared "runway in sight" and continued your final approach into 12. Your Missed Approach Procedure was to immediately climb 4,000 direct to Missed Approach Fix ONUWA then fly a 4nm Hold from heading 121 to 301.

How'd I do? I'm guessing this is close to being right.

Well, in reality I ended up seeing the airport about 20 miles out, canceled IFR and entered a left base to 18 and skipped all of that instrument approach stuff.

But, you've pretty much got it. You're right on, until the final approach fix (HEPON) with one very minor exception: From KOMDE through YAYDO to HEPON, you're flying GPS-guided courses, not headings, so your heading might be slightly different depending on winds.

At HEPON, assuming you're planning a straight-in approach, there are a few things that can happen depending on your equipment, the approach, and the level of GPS signal at the time. With my Garmin GTN 750, I should get one of the following annunciations prior to the FAF, and that determines what I'll do:

• LPV: (most likely when there are LPV minimums published on the approach plate) In this case, we'll be getting vertical guidance from the FAF all the way to the published minimums, and we don't need to worry about the fixes past the FAF - We just follow the glideslope down from the FAA to the LPV DA, and if we see the runway, we'll land. In this case, we should reach the DA (1539 MSL) at just a hair under 1/2 mile from the runway: See the lower left of the profile view - It says "GP 3.00º/TCH 53". That means the glidepath is 3º and the Threshold Crossing Height is 53 feet AGL. 200 AGL DH - 53 TCH = 147 feet, divide by the tangent of 3º, then divide by 6076.1 to convert feet to NM and you get about 0.46, *not* 1.2. More on the 1.2 under LNAV below.
• L/VNAV: Basically the same as LPV (vertical guidance from FAF to minimums, no need to worry about fixes past FAF, just follow the glideslope) except in this case you fly to the higher LNAV/VNAV minimums.
• LNAV+V: In this case, we'll get vertical guidance but it is advisory only and it's up to us to ensure we're above each of the listed altitudes at the listed fixes past the FAF, and we fly to LNAV minimums.
• LNAV: This is as "old school" as it gets on GPS approaches, and is what we used to do before WAAS (or today, for those aircraft not WAAS equipped). There is no vertical guidance at all, so after reaching the FAF we would descend to 2000 MSL until reaching CISOS, at which time we could descend to LNAV minimums (1740 MSL). The point that is marked with a bold V above it is a Visual Descent Point - At that point, if we can see the runway, we'll be able to make a normal descent and land in the touchdown zone. However, note that while the VDP on this plate is 1.2nm from the runway, the LNAV minimums only require 1/2 mile visibility. So, if you see the runway from 1740 MSL and only 1/2 mile from the runway, it is still legal to land, but you need to be aware that you and your aircraft will have to be capable of descending at a higher-than-normal angle and/or require much less runway than is available. With a 6,000 foot runway, this is no problem in a single-engine Cessna but might not work as well for a jet.

So, from about 50nm out you tuned into:

Yes, that's the frequency. I think I tuned it about 70nm out - 50nm out is generally about where you want to have your plan finalized, but sometimes it's hard to receive the weather frequency farther out than that. Another option is to use ADS-B datalinked weather to come up with your plan, if you can't get the most up-to-date weather on the radio. Weather that's an hour or less old is better than no weather at all.

 

[DR750S]

Whoops... You are correct. 28-90+360=298. I really need to stop sniffing glue. *

I appreciate the check.

Absolutely. That's why we eat an elephant one bite at a time, and why flight training progresses as I mentioned in a previous post. First, you learn to fly the plane by visual references, then you learn to navigate visually, then you learn to fly the plane on instruments, and then you learn how to navigate (strictly) on instruments.

Going through this little exercise really drives that point home.

Yes! The national airspace system is quite interesting to study - All the different pieces and the history behind why we got to where we are. There are many different pieces all working together to allow many different types of aircraft with wildly different capabilities to all use the sky without conflicting with each other.

Sadly, I think this will be lost on some who don't appreciate "history" and its connection to the present. The history of airspace in the US was of particular importance to me - again - being an empiricist I tend to care about such things because I know that nothing happens in a vacuum and Cause & Effect drive everything. You don't need to know the history in order to fly. However, I enjoy connecting the dots and understanding both the how and the why.

Well, the FAA is simplifying the system as well. Prior to the proliferation of GPS, there were a lot of different things that you needed to master that are now mostly going away. NDB, SDF, VOR/DME RNAV are all very close to completely dead. LOC BC and approaches with DME arcs are getting rarer. GPS really allows for a lot of flexibility in design while maintaining relatively low cost because it doesn't require any equipment (or maintenance thereof) at or near each airport, and allows for excellent accuracy too. It's no wonder the FAA has been working very hard to deprecate some of the now-obsolete approaches and replace them with GPS approaches.

Makes perfect sense on the surface. But, what about:

- Decentralized
- Scalable
- Redundant
- Failover
- Fault Tolerant
- Adaptive

You worked in BI. You know exactly what I'm talking about. If they are going to rely solely on GNSS/WAAS and its ground station network, what about the net effect the space weather will have on the satellite network itself? From coronal mass ejections, radio bursts and solar flares, to the changes in the earth's atmosphere at varying altitudes (particularly the ionosphere) caused by geomagnetic activity sourced at the sun, space weather can adversely impact satellites, their signals, WAAS transmissions and transmissions to and/from the aircraft. I can imagine that they (FAA) are relying heavily on "Failover" which will probably be primarily software/code driven (I'm guessing) though not entirely. I would think the failover algorithms would need to be fairly robust in architecture and defined as (no doubt) "mission critical."

Driven off the Presidential Policy Director 21, is APNT (Alternate Positioning Navigation and Timing) as the "back-up" to GNSS in the event of a national failure in the network - essentially, some kind of catastrophic event in GNSS. Where the FAA descries APNT, they don't use the words above (Decentralized, Scalable, Redundant, Failover, Fault Tolerant and Adaptive) for what is clearly Global Technology. If these principles apply to Enterprise Technology, then certainly the must also apply even more to a Global Technology Infrastructure.

My concern here is that Government Officials are driving the bus. I've done enough enterprise engagements with the federal government to know that often times the left hand does not even know that the right hand is attached to the same body, let alone what the right hand is actually doing. I've also witnessed over the years, officials (not technical professionals) getting in the way of completing enterprise projects accurately, on-time and on budget. If I've witness this once on government engagements then I've witnessed it a thousand times before. Not so much on private corporate enterprise wide engagements, unless someone was trying to protect turf, or protect their job, not fully understanding that their approach would sacrifice a well implemented solution. I just hope the FAA get this right. My experience engaging federal agencies on enterprise wide implementations over 15+ years in tech has been that they shoot themselves in the foot more times than not - getting wrong a hundred times before the get it right just once. Gawd help us all flying GPS Approaches in the future.

It would be interesting to me, if this forum had a thread that dealt with "Pilots Who Experienced GNSS/WAAS Issues During An Approach To Landing." The even more interesting thing about that thread would be tracking the incoming posts over time as the FAA continue to roll out WAAS and APNT. You don't really have to answer this one unless you want to comments. I'm really just thinking aloud on this one.

You can certainly fly the procedure while looking out the window (and maintaining VFR), and it's not a bad idea to do so just so that you can get an idea of where you really will be once you're flying them for real. It's also legal to fly an approach "under the hood" (with a view-limiting device on) with another pilot acting as your safety pilot (watching for traffic, obstacles, and terrain) and for neither one of you to be instrument rated, though I would suggest not doing this until you've got plenty of instrument training under your belt so that you don't develop any bad habits.

VFR (only) simulating IFR procedures. Wait to do the hood work. Very well. Thank you.

 

[DR750S]

In addition, you'll likely be uninsurable in a twin turboprop until you have your instrument rating and some experience - This is another reason to keep your single around, at least for a while.

Would it be possible to get the twin turboprop for the purpose of securing the multi-engine rating before having to worry about being insurable as a single pilot in the twin turboprop? In other words, can I use it as a Multi-Engine Trainer and for the Multi-Engine Rating before being insured as a single pilot operator of it? I don't mind extending the Mentor Pilot Phase down to the twin turboprop. In other words, get the twin after spending some time flying as a VFR only SEL pilot, get the multi-engine rating before the instrument rating, get the instrument rating and then arrange a Mentor Pilot at least until I'm insurable in the twin turboprop. Something like:

(1) Private Pilot License | Rented or Leased Bonanza/Malibu-Matrix | Complete Training then 300+hrs solo cross-country experience
(2) Multi-Engine Rating | Conquest II/King Air F90 | Complete Training then 300+hrs dual cross-country w/ Mentor Pilot
(3) Instrument Rating - Conquest II/King Air F90 | Complete Training then 300+hrs dual cross-country w/Mentor Pilot
(4) Time Building Phase 1 | Conquest II/King Air F90 | 2,100hrs - 3,000hrs PIC single pilot cross-country (IFR/IMC/Night/HDA/Mountains) | Slowly increasing XC range to 2,000nm trips over time
- Upset Recovery Training
- Mountain Training (HDA Airports)
- Periodic Mentor Pilot Critiques/Checks
(5) VLJ Transition

This is a different approach than the first plan, as it puts the ME rating ahead of the instrument. But, it also gets me going on twin turbines sooner rather than later and with a Mentor Pilot. This seems to be a safe way to increase turbine time, which as you imply will be an issue with insurance for a first time twin turbine owner/pilot. How does this look to you?

Yes! Sometimes it's important to know what we don't know, and you don't get that by people shutting down your questions. Not to mention, now you know more than you did when we started!

Thank you for understanding that. You come from a BI background, so its not hard to understand where a guy like me comes from on something like this. I don't need every single detail up front. But, I do need to get a comfortable feel for the landscape and the bigger concepts and challenges involved. I don't understand how anyone just nose dives into their future, if they have time to do the initial study and gather initial intelligence. That's all I'm doing here. In terms of "mentality," I would think a wise pilot would be someone who contemplates the bigger picture and then engages at the level of detail at the appropriate time.

Early in my research, I came across the Hazardous Attitudes Assessment | The Notorious Five.

- Anti-Authority
- Impulsivity
- Invulnerability
- Macho
- Resignation

In particular and relative to my research is Impulsivity. I've tried to avoid that like the plague and I've kept to my guns on doing Research First, then Flight Training, then Time Building, then buying the aircraft of my dreams. I thought that I was doing things the right way. But, like you say - others don't think so. I wonder if they've read The Notorious Five and if they understood what they read. I commit to doing this the right way and that's just going to take some time and hard work. There's no shortcut for me. There never has been.

Thanks for your help, again.

One of the things I really enjoy about flying is that there is more to learn about aviation than any person can possibly know, so if you ever get bored with it, you just need to look around and you'll discover an entirely new aspect that you can learn about!

You certain sound like you have the right attitude and approach to Aviation and your place in it. And, it is very nice to know that there is plenty of room for growth as an individual Pilot along the way. At 2,000 hours, it looks like you have a wealth of exposure to different kinds of flying, which is great! Have you ever considered Rotors? I'm hoping to engage and Edge 540 on a more serious basis some day, as well as an Airbus H135. I an easily see those three aircraft (including the VLJ) sitting in a big hanger somewhere.

* As a pilot, even though it may not be in the ACS, you should still understand all references to the movie Airplane! Good luck, we're all counting on you.

LOL! Thanks. I'm counting on learning a lot from the broader General Aviation Community out there. I met some truly wonderful and delightful people this past weekend and I hope that trend continues.

 

[DR750S]

A short note to @flyingcheesehead: you can safely sniff Elmer's or Titebond if you wish to continue your glue habit. Either one must be reported on your next medical. HIMS will not be required but expect the staff to look at you a bit 'funny'.

Or, you could simply position Lots between a market phase 3 transition and enter the swap cycle with a symmetrical swap buffer zone height of 6 pips. If the MP4 or MP2 Vector is under 50% with an Absolute Value of 150 pips, your target probability for 75 pips would be at or above 93.75% (as of today, 4 May 18 using version 3.12 build 7). Do that frequently enough and you won't have to sniff glue anymore, because you'll be too busy managing your global bank accounts. And, if you designed, engineered and built the technology that accomplished that, the banks will start to come to you 'eventually' (inevitably) for advice. No more glue habit.

Assumption is the mother of all shots in the foot.

 

[DR750S]

A lot of this is well covered in the Kings IFR course, and they probably do a better job of explaining it than I, but, in a small nut shell arrival and departure procedures help ATC with traffic flow. For example, when I last flew into Oakland they instructed me to fly the PXN.5 arrival, that took some load off of ATC in giving me specific instructions on what to do as I approach the airport. Same thing with departures, you'll often get a departure procedure coming out of many LA area airports IFR, and again that helps ATC's load in busy airspace so they're not giving you turn by turn directions

When flying an arrival or departure procedure the pilot must be familiar with it though. In the case of departure procedures a pilot may turn one down, or just write on their flight plan "no DP" if they lack the correct charts or proficiency to adequately fly one. There was a thread actually about someone who got all out of sorts flying a DP

Thank you! That was easily reduced and well understood in general terms. Much appreciated. It would seem as though there are basically two global options:

1) Flying the Procedure
2) Flying headings, altitudes and airspeeds that ATC gives you

Or, maybe three global options:

1) Flying the Procedure
2) Flying headings, altitudes and airspeeds that ATC gives you
3) Flying a hybrid: Part Procedure and part ATC headings, altitudes and airspeeds

I'm guessing in general that makes sense.

 

[DR750S]

This document is Europe focused but contains some really good info and you might find it informative:

https://www.pplir.org/component/joomdoc/Public Files/PBN_Manual_e2.0.v13.pdf/download

Golden. Thank you! There will be trips to the UK eventually. I've at least heard of everything in the Table of Contents except for PBN. I found this short primer on PBN as well for those unfamiliar with the concept like me: https://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/d...n/files/handbook-pbn-implement-2013-ed-3a.pdf.

Much appreciated.

 

[DR750S]

The more they overthink the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain.

From memory, on the boat (submarine) we had about 6 or 7 different means of navigation, none of which ever agreed, even when we were stationary in port. Take the word "precision" with a grain of salt.

That's very interesting - especially when trust and precision are both needed to fly down to minimums.

 

[Tantalum]

Flying a hybrid: Part Procedure and part ATC headings, altitudes and airspeeds

That's what seems to be the most common, you'll get a procedure with a slight tweak to it, typically a different altitude restriction.. I've also been on a procedure then vectored off prematurely. Either way, they're a tool to let ATC load shed someone.. "okay, I don't have to worry about 76V for a moment, he's on the arrival procedure" and they can manage other flow

 

[DR750S]

Elevated to sticky status would be cool, and no doubt a list like that could be useful for many here, I know it would have been useful for me! But... I also see value in:


Everyone's learning style is different, and I'm not sure you could necessarily, concretely, boil everything into one simple table and still expect the pilot to adequately learn the subject matter. Doing some of the learning and sleuthing on your own to understand why the approach is what it is carries a tremendous amount of value to it. There is a reason some airports don't have an ILS, that may be go beyond financial reasons, etc., terrain and other limitations may only create some circling RNAV or localizer approaches with high VDPs. The AIM, section 5-4-20, has some great detail on this

Funny that you should mention some of the reasons why an airport might not have ILS. I'm familiar with at least one of them.

I once called the city planning, codes and inspections office of a place in northern California. I asked them, what would it take to install a private runway with an instrument landing system. The response was (verbatim): "An act of God." I replied back: "I didn't know he was on the planning commission." The response (no joke): "Oh, yeah! Everybody on our planing commission thinks they are God." That was part of an actual phone conversation, back when I was doing land research suitable for installation of private runway with ILS. Talked first with FSDO who referred me out to the City.

It is actually doable. However, it would have to be in an unincorporated part of town/city, it would involve reams of planning, enough permits to cover a rain forest, intense coordination between the FAA and the City and basically little to no opposition from area residents. And, that's before the actual ILS studies begin. With the right topological configuration, it can be done in under 100 acres. However, given the topology of the area, that number could easily grow. We connected with an land agent in one of these areas and looked at some properties ranging up to 500 acres and found suitable land. We ultimately decided against it given the risk involved of having to make heavy investments up front without full agreement that the runway with ILS would not ultimately get blocked by "God."

I still want it. I just can't figure out a good way to get it done in Northern California, given the political climate and the local attitudes towards airports.

 

[DR750S]

Maybe you want to consider an Aerobatic Bonanza (F33C) as your single then? It'll give you a start with both flying in general and acro and make a decent standby for the turboprop phase.

Kind of takes care of several birds with one stone doesn't it. I had never thought of that, of course. So, I went and looked up an F33 doing aerobatics. Its lumbering and laboring through maneuvers makes it a 'lazy' aerobatic platform, but that's all I'll really need anyway. In fact, the lumbering and lazy aerobatic flight attitudes the F33C seems to produce is probably quite closer to the "unusual flight attitudes" one might experience in VLJ mission gone really bad (if you are upside down in a VLJ, its got to be a really bad for you). Certainly not the hyper snappiness of an Edge 540, but it gets the job done. It won't be like I'm trying to prep to win RedBull anyway and I can still carry passengers when I need to keep the sunny side up. And, the Bonanza would have more practical uses than the Edge 540, for certain.

Very interesting. Thanks. You've given me something else to ponder.