IR check ride question

[the400kid]

I'll be taking my check ride in a few weeks.

In my area we have a VOR approach into an airport which has an on-field VOR. When approaching the airport from the south the procedure calls for tracking the outbound 002 radial for 5 miles at which time a procedure turn is initiated.

My question pertains to using the GPS for the approach. I know that when tracking the VOR inbound for the approach that the unit must be set to "ILOC" so that the actual VOR signal is utilized for the approach, but until established I can use the GPS mode. In the past I have heard that DPE's failed applicants because they didn't track the VOR properly when crossing the station, for example, some applicants turned to the outbound heading before the flipping of the flags. However, if the GPS is used for guidance, it's going to anticipate and recommend the turn before reaching the station. It seems to me this would result in the same failure that others have encountered.

What are the rules?

 

[flyingron]

I'd use the VOR mode on the CDI from the time you hit the IAF (or otherwise enter the approach). You'll need to make sure you ident (either aurally or using the auto feature on your radio) the VOR. Of course, even though your CDI is tracking the VOR, nothing says you can't be cross-checking the GPS position on the moving map.

I'm confused. If you don't cross the VOR (if that's the IAF) it doesn't matter how you're navigating, you've screwed up the approach. There's no regulatory reason that you can't use an IFR (even enroute and terminal) to navigate to the IAF. After that you must use the nav gear appropriate for the approach.

 

[marcoseddi]

Just use the FF app and be done tell him don't worry bout it.

 

[the400kid]

I'm confused. If you don't cross the VOR (if that's the IAF) it doesn't matter how you're navigating, you've screwed up the approach. There's no regulatory reason that you can't use an IFR (even enroute and terminal) to navigate to the IAF. After that you must use the nav gear appropriate for the approach.

The VOR is being crossed, the issue is whether I can legally fly over it and change to the new outbound heading using the GPS' turn anticipation instead of flying directly over (and passed it) then turning to the outbound radial.

 

[jordane93]

i did this vor approach for my instrument check ride http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1313/05603V6.PDF
we did the calverton (CCC) transition with the holding pattern at MASTI intersection.when we took off from islip i used the GPS to go direct CCC. when i got a little closer to CCC i switched the 430 to VLOC mode and started to set up the outbound radial 222. i was using raw data (VOR) once i got closer to CCC and thoughout the hold over MASTI intersection. although the GPS had a desired track and teardrop entry hold all set up for me i still had to time, twist, and turn and identify MASTI with a cross radial from DPK. if its a vor approach you need to set up the inbound radial and set up the final approach course bearing in VLOC mode because that's where your getting the data. not from the GPS

 

[the400kid]

i did this vor approach for my instrument check ride http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1313/05603V6.PDF
we did the calverton (CCC) transition with the holding pattern at MASTI intersection.when we took off from islip i used the GPS to go direct CCC. when i got a little closer to CCC i switched the 430 to VLOC mode and started to set up the outbound radial 222. i was using raw data (VOR) once i got closer to CCC and thoughout the hold over MASTI intersection. although the GPS had a desired track and teardrop entry hold all set up for me i still had to time, twist, and turn and identify MASTI with a cross radial from DPK. if its a vor approach you need to set up the inbound radial and set up the final approach course bearing in VLOC mode because that's where your getting the data. not from the GPS

This is a similar situation, but my question is legality. Must I approach the VOR in VLOC mode and fly the outbound radial or can I keep the unit in GPS mode and fly by its guidance until established on the inbound (042), at which time it must legally be completed using the VOR.

 

[poadeleted20]

My question pertains to using the GPS for the approach. I know that when tracking the VOR inbound for the approach that the unit must be set to "ILOC"

You did mean "VLOC", right?

...so that the actual VOR signal is utilized for the approach, but until established I can use the GPS mode.

Actually, you can leave the CDI in GPS until you begin the final segment (on this approach, intercepting the radial inbound after the course reversal), at which point your GPS will start flashing a MSG light and the message will be "Select VLOC on CDI for this approach" (or words to that effect) to remind you of this if you forget. However, use of the GPS for guidance on the outbound leg and through the course reversal is completely legal.

In the past I have heard that DPE's failed applicants because they didn't track the VOR properly when crossing the station, for example, some applicants turned to the outbound heading before the flipping of the flags. However, if the GPS is used for guidance, it's going to anticipate and recommend the turn before reaching the station. It seems to me this would result in the same failure that others have encountered.

It shouldn't. Turn anticipation with the GPS in this case is completely legitimate. If the examiner fails you for following that guidance, the examiner is wrong. However, if operating only on VOR, you cannot legally start the turn until you see positive indication of station passage by the TO/FROM flag.

If the examiner has a question about this, she should be referred to his/her POI at the FSDO for guidance.

 

[the400kid]

You did mean "VLOC", right?

Actually, you can leave the CDI in GPS until you begin the final segment (on this approach, intercepting the radial inbound after the course reversal), at which point your GPS will start flashing a MSG light and the message will be "Select VLOC on CDI for this approach" (or words to that effect) to remind you of this if you forget. However, use of the GPS for guidance on the outbound leg and through the course reversal is completely legal.

It shouldn't. Turn anticipation with the GPS in this case is completely legitimate. If the examiner fails you for following that guidance, the examiner is wrong. However, if operating only on VOR, you cannot legally start the turn until you see positive indication of station passage by the TO/FROM flag.

If the examiner has a question about this, she should be referred to his/her POI at the FSDO for guidance.

Thanks for the reply, yes I meant VLOC.

My CFI has also repeatedly told me that I can use the GPS for guidance up until intercepting the final approach course but I've been scared off by so many horror stories, including some here on POA, of applicants being failed for not flying the VOR inbound and not waiting for the flags to flip before initiating the turn.

 

[poadeleted20]

My CFI has also repeatedly told me that I can use the GPS for guidance up until intercepting the final approach course but I've been scared off by so many horror stories, including some here on POA, of applicants being failed for not flying the VOR inbound and not waiting for the flags to flip before initiating the turn.

Well, the first is a legitimate failure in any case, and the second is a failure unless you have something to guide you through the turn anticipation. But if you have a GNS430 or the like, then you can legally follow the turn anticipation guidance and wait until you turn for the inbound intercept to hit VLOC on the CDI switch. Personally, as a matter of technique, I teach doing that on the "Twist" of the 5 T's when you make the 45-degree displacement turn at the end of the outbound leg, but that's technique, not procedure, and you can do as you like as long as you have VLOC set before you leave the PT altitude when established inbound.

 

[the400kid]

Well, the first is a legitimate failure in any case, and the second is a failure unless you have something to guide you through the turn anticipation. But if you have a GNS430 or the like, then you can legally follow the turn anticipation guidance and wait until you turn for the inbound intercept to hit VLOC on the CDI switch. Personally, as a matter of technique, I teach doing that on the "Twist" of the 5 T's when you make the 45-degree displacement turn at the end of the outbound leg, but that's technique, not procedure, and you can do as you like as long as you have VLOC set before you leave the PT altitude when established inbound.

Thanks for the reassurance. I like using GPS mode because the outbound turn puts me on the outbound course almost immediately. If I followed the VOR, I'd have to fly directly over the station, wait for flag reversal, then intercept the outbound radial which takes valuable time and space because the procedure turn comes up on me quickly thereafter.

 

[TMetzinger]

Thanks for the reassurance. I like using GPS mode because the outbound turn puts me on the outbound course almost immediately. If I followed the VOR, I'd have to fly directly over the station, wait for flag reversal, then intercept the outbound radial which takes valuable time and space because the procedure turn comes up on me quickly thereafter.

Ron's advice is good, for the reasons you mention... in fast aircraft that 5 NM happens quickly.

I also stay in GPS mode until I start the course reversal. Since I'm flying headings and time for the procedure turn, I really have no more use for the CDI to be driven by the GPS.

 

[poadeleted20]

Thanks for the reassurance. I like using GPS mode because the outbound turn puts me on the outbound course almost immediately. If I followed the VOR, I'd have to fly directly over the station, wait for flag reversal, then intercept the outbound radial which takes valuable time and space because the procedure turn comes up on me quickly thereafter.

Your thinking is just like mine. However, I do have a question about something you said earlier. What makes you think the turn must be initiated at the 5-mile mark? Can you tell us what approach this is?

 

[flyingron]

Even without the turn anticipation, I suspect that a terminal-approved GPS gives you a much faster indication of station crossing than waiting for the proper To/From flag flip.

 

[poadeleted20]

Even without the turn anticipation, I suspect that a terminal-approved GPS gives you a much faster indication of station crossing than waiting for the proper To/From flag flip.

It does. But with only an enroute/terminal GPS, you would have to switch to VOR navigation once you pass that VOR (which is the IAF on this type of approach) rather than using the GPS to fly the outbound leg, since once you pass the IAF you are no longer in the terminal environment.

 

[bobmrg]

Your thinking is just like mine. However, I do have a question about something you said earlier. What makes you think the turn must be initiated at the 5-mile mark? Can you tell us what approach this is?

I wondered about that too. He can do the PT anywhere within 10 miles (unless otherwise noted). Time outbound should be based on the wind and any necessary altitude loss.

Bob Gardner

 

[EdFred]

What about flying the approach on the second CDI, and leaving the one tied to the GPS in GPS mode? That's what I do to be "legal" when flying a VOR approach - not that anyone is in the plane with me to verify.

 

[flyingron]

Like I said, I flip the HSI over to the VOR (or LOC) on those approaches, but he Moving Map is still showing my plane flying the GPS's idea of where I ought to be on the approach. Situational awareness.

 

[EdFred]

I fly it on the second CDI so that if I go missed, I don't forget to switch back to GPS mode on the first one.

 

[timfountain]

I think the issue with the DPE failing prior candidates for using the GPS is that he was asking the candidates to demonstrate a non-precision approach and GPS is not required. During my IR CR my DPE switched off the GPS completely for the VOR and ILS approaches. He wanted to see that I knew how a VOR and ILS approach actually worked without the support of the GPS for Situational Awareness (his words). BTW this was a DPE who said that if we had an ADF in the plane, he would have made me fly an NDB approach (not a requirement of the PTS in 2006 but I didn't argue with him)!

IRL heck yes, I'd use Foreflight with geo referenced approach plate, the panel-mounted 430 GPS and a second VOR in the 182 I fly.

 

[flyingron]

If you have an ADF, he was within his rights to assign you an ADF approach. The PTS doesn't require you to have an ADF, but if you have one he's free to have you track ADF courses and fly an NDB approach. The PTS just says you have to accomplish two non-precision (using different navigational facility types, and at least one without vertical guidance) and one precision approach. It's the examiner who gets to pick not the student.

It's that way now and it was that way in 2006.

 

[timfountain]

If you have an ADF, he was within his rights to assign you an ADF approach. The PTS doesn't require you to have an ADF, but if you have one he's free to have you track ADF courses and fly an NDB approach. The PTS just says you have to accomplish two non-precision (using different navigational facility types, and at least one without vertical guidance) and one precision approach. It's the examiner who gets to pick not the student.

It's that way now and it was that way in 2006.

I stand corrected. I got lucky as the ADF was placarded and written up as INOP....

 

[poadeleted20]

What about flying the approach on the second CDI, and leaving the one tied to the GPS in GPS mode? That's what I do to be "legal" when flying a VOR approach

It is legal. Whether or not you do it that way is a matter of technique. However, if you do, you will be seeing that pesky MSG indication the entire time you're flying the approach. In addition, if the GPS quits and there's any sort of stepdown or other intersection on that approach, it will take more than one push of one button to revert to pure VOR for the approach.

 

[poadeleted20]

I think the issue with the DPE failing prior candidates for using the GPS is that he was asking the candidates to demonstrate a non-precision approach and GPS is not required.

The DPE cannot fail you for using GPS up to the final segment and after the MAP on a VOR approach. S/he cannot fail you for following the GPS turn anticipation guidance at the IAF, either. S/he can, however, simulate GPS failure and make you do it all on VOR, and fail you if you start the turn to the outbound before positive station passage is indicated by the VOR.

During my IR CR my DPE switched off the GPS completely for the VOR and ILS approaches. He wanted to see that I knew how a VOR and ILS approach actually worked without the support of the GPS for Situational Awareness (his words).

Perfectly acceptable, and something I do to all my trainees just in case it happens for real.

BTW this was a DPE who said that if we had an ADF in the plane, he would have made me fly an NDB approach (not a requirement of the PTS in 2006 but I didn't argue with him)!

Good thing you didn't, because it's entirely within his authority under the PTS to test you on any approach system you have working in the aircraft.

 

[poadeleted20]

I stand corrected. I got lucky as the ADF was placarded and written up as INOP....

For all you folks out there planning to take an IR practical test in the future, the FAA within the last year or so made this a special interest item for DPE's. If the ADF (or anything else) is placarded as INOP, they will check to see that it is actually disabled, and that any required entry regarding that disablement has been made in the aircraft maintenance records.

 

[EdFred]

In addition, if the GPS quits and there's any sort of stepdown or other intersection on that approach, it will take more than one push of one button to revert to pure VOR for the approach.

That's going to be an issue anyway - unless of course you are already using the 2nd CDI for the crossing radials/fixes. But having a second WAAS GPS in the plane (even though not certified) still provides a backup plan. Yes, not legal, but hey, if I'm on the approach when the GPS goes kablooey, I'm calling 91.3 and finishing the approach.

 

[poadeleted20]

That's going to be an issue anyway - unless of course you are already using the 2nd CDI for the crossing radials/fixes.

...which is the way I teach it -- set up the #2 for any necessary cross-radial even if you have the approach loaded on an IFR/approach GPS. This is especially true on IR practical tests were more than one examiner I've seen has twisted the 430 to the AUX page in the middle of the approach saying "the satellites just went off line".

But having a second WAAS GPS in the plane (even though not certified) still provides a backup plan. Yes, not legal, but hey, if I'm on the approach when the GPS goes kablooey, I'm calling 91.3 and finishing the approach.

If you try that on a VOR approach, you'll fail with most examiners I know. They don't consider the failure of your installed GPS while your VOR's are still working to be the sort of emergency justifying the use of noncertified avionics when you still have other certified avionics to fly the assigned approach. Generally speaking, examiners are very tough on people who cannot conduct non-GPS IFR operations without a GPS, and I train my people accordingly.

 

[EdFred]

...which is the way I teach it -- set up the #2 for any necessary cross-radial even if you have the approach loaded on an IFR/approach GPS. This is especially true on IR practical tests were more than one examiner I've seen has twisted the 430 to the AUX page in the middle of the approach saying "the satellites just went off line".

If you try that on a VOR approach, you'll fail with most examiners I know. They don't consider the failure of your installed GPS while your VOR's are still working to be the sort of emergency justifying the use of noncertified avionics when you still have other certified avionics to fly the assigned approach. Generally speaking, examiners are very tough on people who cannot conduct non-GPS IFR operations without a GPS, and I train my people accordingly.

On a check ride, I agree that would be a fail. I was referring to how I fly it post check ride. Althought the only VOR approaches I flew in actual (or sim) over the past couple years had no crossing radials. The only fix (which allowed for a lower MDA) was a DME/GPS fix.

 

[GCA319]

What about flying the approach on the second CDI, and leaving the one tied to the GPS in GPS mode? That's what I do to be "legal" when flying a VOR approach - not that anyone is in the plane with me to verify.

I do the same thing when flying a VOR approach for real.

 

[poadeleted20]

On a check ride, I agree that would be a fail. I was referring to how I fly it post check ride. Althought the only VOR approaches I flew in actual (or sim) over the past couple years had no crossing radials. The only fix (which allowed for a lower MDA) was a DME/GPS fix.

Lots of approaches out there with crossing radials for stepdowns or even the FAF, and you don't always have a GPS to help (either due to lack of equipment or GPS outages). I'd suggest changing your habits so you don't forget to do this the day you really need to (Law of Exercise, and all that) -- which is also why the FAA wants to see you doing it that way on the practical test. As my friend DPE and former FAA Inspector Frank Phillips likes to tell folks, good habits and procedures will save your bacon the day things go sour, so develop them early and stick with them.

 

[EdFred]

Lots of approaches out there with crossing radials for stepdowns or even the FAF, and you don't always have a GPS to help (either due to lack of equipment or GPS outages). I'd suggest changing your habits so you don't forget to do this the day you really need to (Law of Exercise, and all that) -- which is also why the FAA wants to see you doing it that way on the practical test. As my friend DPE and former FAA Inspector Frank Phillips likes to tell folks, good habits and procedures will save your bacon the day things go sour, so develop them early and stick with them.

There are, I just never fly them. The DPE (and my CFII) I had suggested that whenever something goes out on the approach, go missed and figure it out which approach to fly the second time around. (GS goes out on an ILS, and now you're trying to convert it to a LOC approach on the fly, DME goes out and now your step downs are blown. ADF goes TU and now you can't ID the OM - don't try and fix it, go missed and set up for something else the second time through)

Besides, GPS can't ever go out anymore. Not with the 430W/530W no longer needing a backup system of navigation.

 

[Pilot Nick]

It sounds like the VOR approach plate identifies the IAF as the VOR. You can not identify, using VOR alone, that you are at the IAF without the F/T indicator flipping over unless the approach plate indicates another method of identifying the IAF (like an intersection or DME). You cannot turn down the initial approach course unless you have identified the IAF using the primary navigation equipment double checking the GPS being used for reference only. Therefore you cannot legally use turn anticipation until identifying the IAF.

If you are being vectored to the IAF maybe you can use small deviations in heading while staying within PTS to maneuver yourself to somewhat anticipate the turn?

 

[poadeleted20]

There are, I just never fly them. The DPE (and my CFII) I had suggested that whenever something goes out on the approach, go missed and figure it out which approach to fly the second time around. (GS goes out on an ILS, and now you're trying to convert it to a LOC approach on the fly, DME goes out and now your step downs are blown. ADF goes TU and now you can't ID the OM - don't try and fix it, go missed and set up for something else the second time through)

Only problem with that advice is it's hard to go missed when you don't have any way to tell when you reach the MAP or to provide lateral navigation to the MAP or along the missed approach segment. I'll stick with teaching "belt and suspenders" rather than trying to run for the men's room to pull your pants back up.

 

[poadeleted20]

If you are being vectored to the IAF maybe you can use small deviations in heading while staying within PTS to maneuver yourself to somewhat anticipate the turn?

You can't be vectored to a VOR IAF. You can be vectored to join a published segment or other legal route (such as a VOR radial) which leads to the VOR that is the IAF, but eventually you'll be navigating yourself to it and (absent a means for turn anticipation such as GPS) using the T/F flag to determine station passage for commencement of the turn to join the initial approach segment.

 

[EdFred]

Only problem with that advice is it's hard to go missed when you don't have any way to tell when you reach the MAP or to provide lateral navigation to the MAP or along the missed approach segment. I'll stick with teaching "belt and suspenders" rather than trying to run for the men's room to pull your pants back up.

My second CDI doesn't provide lateral navigation? Ooooooooook.

 

[poadeleted20]

My second CDI doesn't provide lateral navigation? Ooooooooook.

You said you weren't going to set up the VOR's. So, how do you use it if it isn't set up? Start twiddling knobs as you're at MDA and trying to figure out where the MAP is? Yeah, you can get away with that if you're experienced enough, but after a couple of thousand hours of giving instrument training, I don't think teaching people to take that lazy route is the way to do that, although YMMV.

 

[EdFred]

You said you weren't going to set up the VOR's. So, how do you use it if it isn't set up? Start twiddling knobs as you're at MDA and trying to figure out where the MAP is? Yeah, you can get away with that if you're experienced enough, but after a couple of thousand hours of giving instrument training, I don't think teaching people to take that lazy route is the way to do that, although YMMV.

You seem to be getting in a habit of not reading what I said. I said when I fly a VOR approach, I fly it on the #2 CDI. Never did I say I don't set up the CDIs. JOOC how do you determine the MAP on a VOR approach if the DME/GPS goes out on the VOR17 into GRR prior to reaching GRFFN?

http://download.aopa.org/ustprocs/current/EC-1/grr_vor_rwy_17.pdf

 

[Alexb2000]

On a check ride I would do it by the VOR using GPS only for DME if I didn't have that and the approach required it. I would do that to show the examiner I can fly without a GPS. Crossing the station in a slow aircraft is no big deal especially when you are anticipating it.

In practice. GPS until inbound.

All of us should have the skill to do it either way, anytime, check ride aside.

 

[the400kid]

All very interesting replies. Now for my next question.

Although my CFI engrained it into my brain, I always listen for the VOR station identification when I tune it in. However, my GPS does have an auto-identify feature where it displays the station name under the frequency. In the unlikely event that I forget to listen to the ID but do read it on the display, is that legal or does the DPE need me to physically listen for it?

 

[Alexb2000]

All very interesting replies. Now for my next question.

Although my CFI engrained it into my brain, I always listen for the VOR station identification when I tune it in. However, my GPS does have an auto-identify feature where it displays the station name under the frequency. In the unlikely event that I forget to listen to the ID but do read it on the display, is that legal or does the DPE need me to physically listen for it?

I use the GPS to identify. When mine turns green and ID's the station I consider myself good. Using the audio panel and hearing rapid dots and dashes doesn't mean much except you have tuned something IMO (unless you have the ear to actually match up the morse).

Further, with all the CFI's and examiners I've flown with most just verify there is morse for about half a second. That only serves to prove the station is on, not which one.

 

[poadeleted20]

On a check ride I would do it by the VOR using GPS only for DME if I didn't have that and the approach required it. I would do that to show the examiner I can fly without a GPS. Crossing the station in a slow aircraft is no big deal especially when you are anticipating it.

In practice. GPS until inbound.

I teach my trainees to do it the same way on the practical test as they would the day after. If your GPS is operational, program the approach, and use the GPS all the way to the final segment, then go back to GPS on the missed (but still set up the VOR's for the approach in case you have to revert in the middle due to GPS issues). If not, then just leave the GPS out of it completely. For example, if there are DME fixes, and you have a GPS but not a DME, then either the GPS is working and you use it as "normal," or the GPS is not working, then you play it without the lower DME stepdown and fly to the regular non-DME mins. I've seen too many people get balled up trying to do an approach as a mish-mash of GPS and no-GPS procedures.

And if it's a VOR/DME approach, then if the examiner says they can't use the GPS, they tell the examiner they aren't legal to fly the approach, and they'll have to pick another approach to fly (or the examiner will have to give the GPS back). None of this "you can use this part of your GPS but not that part" business -- that's a big mess.

All of us should have the skill to do it either way, anytime, check ride aside.

Agreed, which is why my trainees with approach GPS's learn to do VOR approaches without the GPS at all before they get to use the GPS.