Instruments Don't Make Sense, Handling Immediate Actions

kontiki

kontiki

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
May 30, 2011
Messages
1,181
Display Name
Display name:
Kontiki
It's happened a few times in practice; things are not adding up while I'm under the hood. Final analysis was source select switching a couple times (in different airplanes with different configurations), and DG precessing once.

When it's happened, I couldn't figure it out for myself (we were in VFR), post flight we debriefed and lessons learned, I take it very much to heart.

I try to double check switching and cross check everything at each config change in the approach, if I can anyway. In training we do kind of sequence them together in an unrealistic way.

But it leaves me wondering if there is a quick methodology/checklist/mnemonic for discovering the problem fast?

In actual, my first thought is that I'd tell ATC I need to go missed and get vectors to diagnose a cockpit problem, even then what would even say?


Thanks,
 
Just tell ATC you are executing a missed approach. When you get radar identified again, most controllers will ask if you are ready to return. If they don't ask, let ATC know you're working on a situation and need to delay vector somewhere.
 
kontiki said:
It's happened a few times in practice; things are not adding up while I'm under the hood. Final analysis was source select switching a couple times (in different airplanes with different configurations), and DG precessing once.

When it's happened, I couldn't figure it out for myself (we were in VFR), post flight we debriefed and lessons learned, I take it very much to heart.

I try to double check switching and cross check everything at each config change in the approach, if I can anyway. In training we do kind of sequence them together in an unrealistic way.

But it leaves me wondering if there is a quick methodology/checklist/mnemonic for discovering the problem fast?

In actual, my first thought is that I'd tell ATC I need to go missed and get vectors to diagnose a cockpit problem, even then what would even say?


Thanks,
Click to expand...

In real hard IMC, I'm not flying a plane with a DG. I want at least an HSI.

In terms of instrument errors. IMO there are some things you can do to help, like have a low vacuum/pressure indicator light and/or put in an electric AI for a better cross-check (at least get one with a flag if nothing else).

Depending on equipment even if you are flying an VOR or ILS, use the GPS -> the airport when you turn on the final approach course. The DTK indication can help you see if you are off course and provide another possible reference in the case of instrument failure.
 
kontiki said:
It's happened a few times in practice; things are not adding up while I'm under the hood. Final analysis was source select switching a couple times (in different airplanes with different configurations), and DG precessing once.

When it's happened, I couldn't figure it out for myself (we were in VFR), post flight we debriefed and lessons learned, I take it very much to heart.

I try to double check switching and cross check everything at each config change in the approach, if I can anyway. In training we do kind of sequence them together in an unrealistic way.

But it leaves me wondering if there is a quick methodology/checklist/mnemonic for discovering the problem fast?

In actual, my first thought is that I'd tell ATC I need to go missed and get vectors to diagnose a cockpit problem, even then what would even say?


Thanks,
Click to expand...

Rod Machado teaches a good method for instrument scan and cross-check. Inverted-V, music scan, etc. It is in his IFR Flying: Tips & Techniques. That is the only solution I know of when the the instrument don't agree.

You can watch that bit here.

http://www.rodmachado.com/dvds_vhs/ifr.php
 
Last edited:
Just do a normal scan.

But add to that normal scan a conscious effort to spot anomalies. Always be on the lookout for ANYTHING that doesn't make sense.

Now, when and if you spot ANYTHING that doesn't make sense it's time to quickly isolate the fault instrument. That's when low pressure lights and the such come into play, but don't leave your scan too long looking. In fact, the scan itself can find the fault. You're looking for two things that agree and a third that doesn't.

So in a standard six pack, if two say your turning (DG and TC) and one says you're not (AI) then you've isolated the AI and can now disregard it.

If two say yore climbing (AI and VSI) and one says your level (Altimiter) then your altimeter is obviously Tango Uniform.

Easy Peasy...and deadly if you screw up.
 
Ron Levy said:
I'm not at all clear what the problem is. Can you explain in a bit more detail?
Click to expand...


I'll admit, I'm not following either. It sounds like he's having trouble associating individual instruments to specific flight changes and then integrating that information into a big picture of what's going on with the airplane. Just a guess.

Take the hood off and go out and look at one instrument, say the DG, and make what look like small heading changes. See and think about how very little the needles move for significant changes to where the airplane is going. Do the same thing with bank and pitch focusing on the AI. Altitude, Altimeter.

Next if you need help building a scan, have the instructor speak the standard scan out loud. AI, DG, AI, Airspeed, AI, Nav, etc. Or whatever order works for you. Look at the instrument and maintain straight and level. Now add patterns.

You can practice a scan just looking at a picture of a panel or a simulator screen. (Saves money.) Even just in your head with your imagination. Force yourself to move your eyes. It is busy and tiring at first. As you're doing it, imagine what the airplane is actually doing. Think about how that ten degree heading change looks out the window during VMC. It's a big change for a very small movement of the indications on the instrument.

Anyway, don't know if that's what you're having trouble with. But it sounds like it. It's not moving needles by rote. The needles are representative of real changes happening to the aircraft.

Cross check requires knowing this, and how the airplane should react. If you're pitched up ten degrees, the altitude and airspeed are both climbing, 2 of the three instruments agree. The airspeed is most likely bogus. Etc.

It sounds from the description you're having a mental disconnect between flying itself and what the instruments are saying about the flying. But that's a guess on what you're saying.

More info.
 
Ron Levy said:
I'm not at all clear what the problem is. Can you explain in a bit more detail?
Click to expand...

For example, last time I'm practicing a VOR approach that has a Second VOR radial to ID FAF. M01 VOR 17 Approach.

Yes I could have just flown it all with the GPS and do an RNAV approach, but what if that quits. It's almost too easy.

I'm flying it and I can even see on the iPad that I missed the inbound VOR interception. My problem, was I had the wrong PFD input source selected.

I was looking for my deviation needle to turn solid and start coming in (Aspen Pro 1000), but I just had the other VOR selected.

I just didn't figure it out right then and there, and that really bugs me.

I'm fairly new in this cockpit, but I studied how it worked pretty good before this flight.

I'm just looking for some silver bullet.
 
It sounds to me like he is having problems identifying the problem when things aren't going as expected.
 
kontiki said:
For example, last time I'm practicing a VOR approach that has a Second VOR radial to ID FAF. M01 VOR 17 Approach.

Yes I could have just flown it all with the GPS and do an RNAV approach, but what if that quits. It's almost too easy.

I'm flying it and I can even see on the iPad that I missed the inbound VOR interception. My problem, was I had the wrong PFD input source selected.

I was looking for my deviation needle to turn solid and start coming in (Aspen Pro 1000), but I just had the other VOR selected.

I just didn't figure it out right then and there, and that really bugs me.

I'm fairly new in this cockpit, but I studied how it worked pretty good before this flight.

I'm just looking for some silver bullet.
Click to expand...

Do you have SVT?
 
Do you use an approach briefing checklist? I go through a checklist to validate the key approach attributes are set or understood correctly. As an example, if I am doing a VOR approach, my checklist would include a step verifying the identification morse code. Same for all of the other attributes that make up the approach (altitudes, power settings, initial missed approach procedure steps, etc.).

I fly behind an Aspen panel, so my checklist includes items like setting the altitudes for the various steps of the approach. If I am flying the whole procedure, the altitude feature on the top is set for the initial approach altitude or what I am assigned. I then do the same for the minimums for the approach.

It sounds like you need to develop either a flow process followed up by a checklist or use a dedicated approach checklist in a "to do" mode to prevent missing or incorrectly setting something for an approach.
 
kontiki said:
For example, last time I'm practicing a VOR approach that has a Second VOR radial to ID FAF. M01 VOR 17 Approach.

Yes I could have just flown it all with the GPS and do an RNAV approach, but what if that quits. It's almost too easy.
Click to expand...
That's why I teach pure VOR first, and don't let my IR trainees use the GPS until they can do it VOR-only.
I'm flying it and I can even see on the iPad that I missed the inbound VOR interception. My problem, was I had the wrong PFD input source selected.
Click to expand...
We're talking G1000 or Aspen or other glass panel? Part of what I teach is to run your finger down the radio stack (including the CDI switches) and make sure everything is set the way you want it before commencing the approach. For a full approach, I teach doing this at least five minutes from the IAF, and then configuring for the approach three minutes prior.

I was looking for my deviation needle to turn solid and start coming in (Aspen Pro 1000), but I just had the other VOR selected.
Click to expand...
Just as I thought.

I just didn't figure it out right then and there, and that really bugs me.
Click to expand...
What you need to do is build some procedures so you always check the set-up for whatever you're doing before you start doing it.

I'm fairly new in this cockpit, but I studied how it worked pretty good before this flight.

I'm just looking for some silver bullet.
Click to expand...
Procedures, procedures, procedures. Have a procedure for everything, and then follow the procedure. And if something doesn't look right, step through the procedure again.
 
Last edited:
kontiki said:
For example, last time I'm practicing a VOR approach that has a Second VOR radial to ID FAF. M01 VOR 17 Approach.

Yes I could have just flown it all with the GPS and do an RNAV approach, but what if that quits. It's almost too easy.

I'm flying it and I can even see on the iPad that I missed the inbound VOR interception. My problem, was I had the wrong PFD input source selected.

I was looking for my deviation needle to turn solid and start coming in (Aspen Pro 1000), but I just had the other VOR selected.

I just didn't figure it out right then and there, and that really bugs me.

I'm fairly new in this cockpit, but I studied how it worked pretty good before this flight.

I'm just looking for some silver bullet.
Click to expand...

That error should have been caught when you briefed the approach.

I have to Agree with Henning.
 
Henning said:
Do you have SVT?
Click to expand...
SVT doesn't help if you have the avionics set up wrong. In any event, anyone going for an instrument rating is going to have to be able to do it without SVT, as that's certain to "fail" at some point in the practical test.
 
Ron Levy said:
That's why I teach pure VOR first, and don't let my IR trainees use the GPS until they can do it VOR-only.
We're talking G1000 or Aspen or other glass panel? Part of what I teach is to run your finger down the radio stack (including the CDI switches) and make sure everything is set the way you want it before commencing the approach. For a full approach, I teach doing this at least five minutes from the IAF, and then configuring for the approach three minutes prior.

Just as I thought.

What you need to do is build some procedures so you always check the set-up for whatever you're doing before you start doing it.

Procedures, procedures, procedures. Have a procedure for everything, and then follow the procedure.
Click to expand...


Yeah - what he said. If you use a flow that Ron describes without a checklist, make sure you touch, identify verbally what it should be and then move on.

I prefer a flow method, followed by an approach checklist with just those items that would contain "killer items" that if I missed or mis-set would cause a problem to successfully completing the approach and miss if I needed to do one.
 
kontiki said:
For example, last time I'm practicing a VOR approach that has a Second VOR radial to ID FAF. M01 VOR 17 Approach.

Yes I could have just flown it all with the GPS and do an RNAV approach, but what if that quits. It's almost too easy.

I'm flying it and I can even see on the iPad that I missed the inbound VOR interception. My problem, was I had the wrong PFD input source selected.

I was looking for my deviation needle to turn solid and start coming in (Aspen Pro 1000), but I just had the other VOR selected.

I just didn't figure it out right then and there, and that really bugs me.

I'm fairly new in this cockpit, but I studied how it worked pretty good before this flight.

I'm just looking for some silver bullet.
Click to expand...


Selecting the wrong source is a setup and planning problem to start with. Tune and identify. Part of identify is making sure you're receiving something sane, correct?

Take a guess at what radial you're on before the crossing point and spin the OBS for that radio and make sure it centers up, THEN set it to the cross-radial.

Next is not recognizing it didn't come in when expected. Choice of the word "when" is deliberate. There should be a clock running. Either literally or figuratively in your head.

You're doing 90 knots (or whatever). How long should it be until you see the needle start to move? If you're over that time, find out why it didn't move. Quickly. And/or go missed. Etc.

Let's look at the specific approach since you have given it.

da6ytuha.jpg


How far out did you go outbound and more importantly, for how long?

Depending on wind, you should know you will re-cross the 094 radial off of GQE in roughly the same amount of time inbound. If the radial doesn't come in, you start checking.

Now if you figure it out and you're tracking MEM just fine and haven't crossed the depicted 110 radial yet, you're still where you could *maybe* attempt to come down, but that's a judgement call and you probably would want to err on the side of caution and go missed and head for GQE, start over and get it right.

You have 4 minutes and only 6 miles from when you missed the radial crossing to the missed approach point, and 1300' to come down.

Making a dive for it isn't the best idea if you're confused, but if you're quickly un-confused and *know* you're only a minute or so past the radial you could still make a reasonable 500 FPM descent.

Still, just go missed and set up properly if you're at all unsure. If all you know is that you're on the MEM radial but not *where* on the radial, you let yourself get "lost". Your clock is primary here for checking if the cross-radial came in. The cross-radial and the instrument are not primary. Non-precision approaches are a time/ speed/distance mental game.

If you're flying something faster, the margin gets way smaller on this one. Just go missed. You'll have approximately 40 miles of relatively easy flying to get a better series of steps and a plan in your head for attempt #2. Keeping in mind your fuel state, that is. Big long missed approach procedures (especially if you go NORDO and can't cheat with radar vectors to final) can eat fuel/time safety margin.

Were you vectored onto final? That does mean you don't know how far out you are without doing a quick peek at which cross radial you intercepted MEM on. Again, info you need anyway since you need to know you're really receiving GQE.

Does that help? Do you see where you "set yourself up" to miss the cross radial at the tune-and-identify point? :)
 
Ron Levy said:
Procedures, procedures, procedures. Have a procedure for everything, and then follow the procedure. And if something doesn't look right, step through the procedure again.
Click to expand...

This is ESPECIALLY important in glass that's highly "virtualized", where there may not be clear indicators of modes or nav sources or other stuff.

Make it part of the approach briefing. My approach briefing (for a Glass-Panel airplane) normally runs (JYO ILS 17 here):

Name of the approach and how we're getting there - "This is the ILS 17 into Leesburg. We're flying to MRB IAF or expecting vectors"

NAV Radio setup: NAV 1 is 111.75, localizer. NAV 2 is 112.1, Martinsburg.

HSI/PFD setup: CDI set to GPS for now, will switch to NAV 1 later. RMI 1 set to NAV 2. RMI 2 OFF

Brief the approach using the chart - Localizer 111.75 tuned and identified, final approach course is 171. We've got 5500 feet and the threshold is at 378 MSL. AWOS 122.25, CTAF 122.975, PCL for the approach lights on the CTAF. From Martinsburg we'll track radial 134 to intercept the localizer at STILL at or above 3000. JOTUP at 2500, DANMO at 2100, final approach fix. Decision Altitude is 628, 1 mile visibility required. Missed approach is a climb to 1200 then a right turn to 340, climb to 4000, intercept the MRB 158 and track inbound to GAWDD (switch back to GPS for this).

Then check the RADIOS and PFD once more when you're on the leg to the FAF or start getting vectored.
 
Fearless Tower said:
I agree that it helps, but I wouldn't continue an approach where I couldn't identify the fix just based on having SVT.
Click to expand...

I never made any such suggestion. I asked a simple question because depending on the answer determines how one looks at things and cross checks their set up. With SVT it becomes instantly obvious when you don't have things set correctly, but you still have to understand what you're looking at to figure out exactly what. How one goes about that best is different between SVT and not.
 
Henning said:
Also makes obvious something isn't correct earlier.
Click to expand...
SVT will not make obvious the fact that you have the CDI switch set wrong any more than the color of the CDI needle being green rather than magenta, or the needle being pegged because you have the wrong VOR selected (and the fact that it says VOR2 on the Aspen rather than VOR1). In fact, those are probably more useful indicators as they tell you exactly what's wrong.
 
Ron Levy said:
SVT will not make obvious the fact that you have the CDI switch set wrong any more than the color of the CDI needle being green rather than magenta, or the needle being pegged because you have the wrong VOR selected (and the fact that it says VOR2 on the Aspen rather than VOR1). In fact, those are probably more useful indicators as they tell you exactly what's wrong.
Click to expand...


I had to look up SVT, I tend to agree with you, my problem hasn't been interpretation, just debugging the setup while flying under the hood and maybe being behind the airplane a bit.

I went up for my second instrument approach practice flight in this cockpit yesterday. It's mine, and I plan to get a lot of practice. It went 100% better. I'm still noticing new symbols for the first time. Still seeing the gear doing things I didn't expect.

For example, I load and activate the VOR 17 approach for M01, change the GNS 430W output to VLOC to get the Nav radio output to the PFD. Later during the approach, I just notice the flight mode annunciator on the Garmin showing me I'm OK for LPV minimums. I need to go back and look at the plate and the Garmin book. I didn't load the RNAV approach, and it sequenced through the procedure turn? Not a problem, I just didn't expect it.

Flying to the IAF from some off route location using GPS and cutting over to to the VOR radials and setting course for the procedure turn was a little confusing for a couple seconds. I need to think about that a bit. I need to think about the other responses in this thread too. Good stuff. Thanks.
 
kontiki said:
I had to look up SVT, I tend to agree with you, my problem hasn't been interpretation, just debugging the setup while flying under the hood and maybe being behind the airplane a bit.

I went up for my second instrument approach practice flight in this cockpit yesterday. It's mine, and I plan to get a lot of practice. It went 100% better. I'm still noticing new symbols for the first time. Still seeing the gear doing things I didn't expect.

For example, I load and activate the VOR 17 approach for M01, change the GNS 430W output to VLOC to get the Nav radio output to the PFD. Later during the approach, I just notice the flight mode annunciator on the Garmin showing me I'm OK for LPV minimums. I need to go back and look at the plate and the Garmin book. I didn't load the RNAV approach, and it sequenced through the procedure turn? Not a problem, I just didn't expect it.

Flying to the IAF from some off route location using GPS and cutting over to to the VOR radials and setting course for the procedure turn was a little confusing for a couple seconds. I need to think about that a bit. I need to think about the other responses in this thread too. Good stuff. Thanks.
Click to expand...

I don't know if you have a sim available for your avionics set up, but it sounds to me like more familiarity with your equipment will help. When I would move to an airplane new to me I'd usually try and get ground power to the airplane and work through the avionics on the ground. Might work for you too.
 
kontiki said:
I had to look up SVT, I tend to agree with you, my problem hasn't been interpretation, just debugging the setup while flying under the hood and maybe being behind the airplane a bit.

I went up for my second instrument approach practice flight in this cockpit yesterday. It's mine, and I plan to get a lot of practice. It went 100% better. I'm still noticing new symbols for the first time. Still seeing the gear doing things I didn't expect.

For example, I load and activate the VOR 17 approach for M01, change the GNS 430W output to VLOC to get the Nav radio output to the PFD. Later during the approach, I just notice the flight mode annunciator on the Garmin showing me I'm OK for LPV minimums. I need to go back and look at the plate and the Garmin book. I didn't load the RNAV approach, and it sequenced through the procedure turn? Not a problem, I just didn't expect it.

Flying to the IAF from some off route location using GPS and cutting over to to the VOR radials and setting course for the procedure turn was a little confusing for a couple seconds. I need to think about that a bit. I need to think about the other responses in this thread too. Good stuff. Thanks.
Click to expand...


From what you are describing, it was a similar experience I had. Although I have been flying IFR for over 20 years, it was all done with steam gauges without a GPS. A year ago December, I upgraded my avionics to include a WAAS GPS and a dual Aspen setup -- all in a plane I have owned for 23 years...

During my first practice with the new equipment, it felt like I was flying from the back seat. Not only was I exposed to new technology (GPS, electronic HSI, flight director, moving maps) but simple things like setting up a frequency on a new box all added to the learning curve.

The best way to learn this stuff is not up in the air. Rather, get them to put an auxiliary power supply on the plane and go through the equipment setup until it becomes second nature to you.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
kontiki said:
For example, I load and activate the VOR 17 approach for M01, change the GNS 430W output to VLOC to get the Nav radio output to the PFD. Later during the approach, I just notice the flight mode annunciator on the Garmin showing me I'm OK for LPV minimums.
Click to expand...
If that happened with the VOR17 approach loaded and activated, you have a serious software problem and your 430W should be taken off line until it's fixed. There is no way it should select anything but LNAV when a VOR approach is loaded and activated.

I need to go back and look at the plate and the Garmin book. I didn't load the RNAV approach, and it sequenced through the procedure turn? Not a problem, I just didn't expect it.
Click to expand...
And you shouldn't expect to see LPV on a VOR approach. My guess is you selected RNAV17 instead of VOR17 -- that's the only way it should be possible to see LPV. And it tells me you need to be more careful punching buttons on that 430W and checking that what you wanted is what you actually loaded.

Further, if you actually loaded the RNAV17 by mistake but had VLOC selected on your CDI switch, the system should have given you a MSG about selecting GPS on the CDI switch as you approached the FAF, since having VLOC selected is incompatible with a GPS-based approach -- and you really need to be noticing that flashing yellow MSG light any time it comes on.

All things considered, I think Tim's right -- you need more training and practice on the 430W using a sim on the ground before you get back in the airplane.
 
Ron Levy said:
If that happened with the VOR17 approach loaded and activated, you have a serious software problem.

And you shouldn't expect to see LPV on a VOR approach. My guess is you selected RNAV17 instead of VOR17 -- that's the only way it should be possible to see LPV.

Further, if you actually loaded the RNAV17 by mistake but had VLOC selected on your CDI switch, the system should have given you a MSG about selecting GPS on the CDI switch as you approached the FAF, since having VLOC selected is incompatible with a GPS-based approach
Click to expand...

I've seen the LPV annunciation flying the GNS430W on the M01 VOR 17 approach twice now. There is no mistaking it. The VOR17 and the RNAV 17 have completely different procedure turns and way points.

I wouldn't say that there is necessarily anything wrong with it either. What it does as you sequence past the FAF on a VOR approach is really a don't care. Just thinking about it, the GNS430 does tell you and make you acknowledge that ILS and VOR approach are advisory in nature before you can activate it.

All of my training in this cockpit has been done on severe clear days with a safety pilot, hood on or off.

I'm really curious to see now, If I had taken it out of suspend, after going missed, if the missed approach sequencing is as published. Again, the VOR17 and RNAV 17 have different missed approaches too. I'll fly both approaches again this weekend if I can.

It's really not possible to find a simulator that looks remotely like my modified Tiger. The desktop Garmin simulator has it's limitations, and on the ground I can't really pick up any nav aids or simulate the sequencing.

I do appreciate the suggestions though. I don't mind being challenged and I get a lot of good information from everyone really.
 
kontiki said:
I've seen the LPV annunciation flying the GNS430W on the M01 VOR 17 approach twice now. There is no mistaking it. The VOR17 and the RNAV 17 have completely different procedure turns and way points.
Click to expand...
I suggest you contact Garmin and find out why that's happening. Unless John Collins comes along and tells me I'm wrong, I'm pretty sure it should not be anything but LNAV with a VOR approach loaded and activated.
 
Ron Levy said:
I suggest you contact Garmin and find out why that's happening. Unless John Collins comes along and tells me I'm wrong, I'm pretty sure it should not be anything but LNAV with a VOR approach loaded and activated.
Click to expand...

I am going to do that. Before I do, I'll want to make sure I have all the software version data. If I can remember, and find time, I'll post the results here.
 
I just checked with Garmin, and they agree with me -- with the VOR 17 approach loaded and activated, you should not see an LPV indication. You should see ENR initially, then TERM when you get within 30 miles, then LNAV as you get to the FAF. If you're seeing LPV, something is wrong with your system, and you should take it to a Garmin shop for further investigation.
 
I played around with the M01 VOR RWY17 aaproach and got what Ron says:

e5uza3uq.jpg


a3ubened.jpg



Not sent from my underpriced Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
 
Ron, Marauder, Thanks
I will check it out before using it for IFR flight.
 
Well, Ron, Tim, Marauder, you guys were right. Thank you.

I went up with the guy that owns the local flying school. He just wanted to go flying, I guess he wanted to see how the Tiger flew and how I was doing with the new plane. We flew a couple no hood approaches into M01, the VOR 17 and the RNAV 17 and really paid attention to the annunciations.

On the VOR approach we saw LNAV on the annunciator, on the RNAV approach we saw LPV on the annunciator. I also spent more time with the desktop simulator for the 430W and am getting more out of it too.

I have a lot more work to do in my cockpit. We never made sense out of the Century 1 autopilot. I actually hadn't planned on doing anything with it yesterday, so I wasn't ready. Servos work, and I have an instruction pamphlet, but really haven't figured out how the interface to the Aspen Pro works. I don't know if it has a NAV mode that lets us steer using the Aspen Pro heading bug, and we didn't get it to track the GPS course via the GPSS output.

I do appreciate the helpful suggestions.
 
kontiki said:
Well, Ron, Tim, Marauder, you guys were right. Thank you.

I went up with the guy that owns the local flying school. He just wanted to go flying, I guess he wanted to see how the Tiger flew and how I was doing with the new plane. We flew a couple no hood approaches into M01, the VOR 17 and the RNAV 17 and really paid attention to the annunciations.

On the VOR approach we saw LNAV on the annunciator, on the RNAV approach we saw LPV on the annunciator. I also spent more time with the desktop simulator for the 430W and am getting more out of it too.

I have a lot more work to do in my cockpit. We never made sense out of the Century 1 autopilot. I actually hadn't planned on doing anything with it yesterday, so I wasn't ready. Servos work, and I have an instruction pamphlet, but really haven't figured out how the interface to the Aspen Pro works. I don't know if it has a NAV mode that lets us steer using the Aspen Pro heading bug, and we didn't get it to track the GPS course via the GPSS output.

I do appreciate the helpful suggestions.
Click to expand...


You're welcome! Trust me, it can take a while to figure the avionics out. As someone who has flown IFR for quite a while and owned the same plane for years, the addition of the new avionics took me back to the basics. It was a good 20 hours before I felt I had all of the nuances figured out.
 
As for the Aspen, I have mine hooked up to an STEC AP. It should work the same. To fly with the GPSS connected to the AP, the autopilot needs to be in HDG (or whatever gives you a heading control on the Century) and ALT if you have altitude hold. In this mode, you can fly the plane using the heading bug on the Aspen (right knob and it defaults as the thing that changes if you start turning it).

To fly using GPSS, you need to have the center button on the Aspen set to a valid GPS signal (GPS 1 or GPS 2) and have a flight plan in the GPS. Then select the GPSS button on the right side of the Aspen. It will be green when it is active. It will be yellow if something is wrong. And it will be gray if it is not active.mthen watch the magic happen...

If you are flying a conventional NAV signal (VOR or ILS), you would select it on the Aspen and use the NAV button on the autopilot. If the approach has a GPS overlay, you can have the GPSS fly it up to the FAF and then switch over to VLOC or VOR1 or the ILS signal before reaching it. You would then go into APR mode.

The important thing is to understand how your hardware works together while you are on the ground -- much easier that way.

Here is an example of an LPV approach using my Aspen with a GTN and the AP.

http://youtu.be/o-B_9SzekTo
 
Last edited:
murphey said:
What's source select switching?
Click to expand...


There are two things to watch for on an Aspen/GPS setup. The Aspen can control multiple Nav signals. You toggle through them using the center button on the Aspen under the HSI. You also need to make sure the signal from the GPS is appropriate for the approach. Many of the VOR/ILS approaches have a GPS overlay. You can fly the GPS overlay on a VOR or ILS approach but need to move the CDI switch over to VLOC before the FAF. The GTN I have will do an automatic switch over if it is setup in the configuration.

The unit will also give a warning to switch over if it hasn't done so automatically. This may be the case if you are vectored in close to the FAF.
 
Marauder said:
There are two things to watch for on an Aspen/GPS setup. The Aspen can control multiple Nav signals. You toggle through them using the center button on the Aspen under the HSI. You also need to make sure the signal from the GPS is appropriate for the approach. Many of the VOR/ILS approaches have a GPS overlay. You can fly the GPS overlay on a VOR or ILS approach but need to move the CDI switch over to VLOC before the FAF. The GTN I have will do an automatic switch over if it is setup in the configuration.

The unit will also give a warning to switch over if it hasn't done so automatically. This may be the case if you are vectored in close to the FAF.
Click to expand...
You make the assumption that I fly with an Aspen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top