IR training without GPS?

[uncreative]

One of the local CFIIs has a plane with no GPS. Knowing that any aircraft I will fly in my near future will have a 430 at the least and likely a G1000, does it make sense to train in this aircraft? My initial reaction was that it would be good for me to learn the old way, but after reading stratobee's recent post, it got me thinking that learning without a GPS might be a disadvantage.

 

[Sac Arrow]

GPS training is so equipment specific that I think you're better off doing your training without a GPS. Maybe get some toward the tail end if that's an option. I didn't use a GPS at all during my IR training.

 

[jordane93]

Find a plane with a 430 or G1000 to fly with during your IR. If you do all you instrument training without it, then decide to rent/own a plane with GPS you'll have to learn all the buttonology those avionics have to offer

 

[azure]

And I'll post the contrarian view. Yes, GPS training is very equipment specific, but it sounds like you have a pretty good idea of what equipment you'll be using (at least a 430). Once you're past the BAIF preliminaries, a large chunk of the time you'll spend getting ready to fly real IFR will be learning your GPS's buttonology. Yes, you could learn on steam gauges, get the rating, and then do transition training, but in the long run that would certainly involve more hours. If your GPS-equipped plane isn't available yet then by all means don't wait, you can always get the basics down without it. But I wouldn't devote a huge amount of time to learning how to fly e.g. approaches using steam gauges if you're soon going to transition to a GPS-based plane.

 

[dtuuri]

Consider that the current IFR system is non-GPS based. GPS cuts the corners in that IFR system. For getting a good grounding in the ATC system, I'm for removing the distracting clutter initially. When you can plan flights that always suppose two-way radio failure, yet keep you above the obstacles without reliance on ATC, then you're ready to incorporate tools that cut corners--corners you may choose not to cut that would be oblivious to you otherwise. After a good grounding in land-based navigation systems, then you can concentrate on how to safely use the features offered in the 200 pages of your GPS operating manual within the constraints of our old ATC system that's still trying to come to grips with how best to deal with the technology. If it weren't for radar, they'd be up the creek.

dtuuri

 

[PPC1052]

Consider that the current IFR system is non-GPS based. GPS cuts the corners in that IFR system. For getting a good grounding in the ATC system, I'm for removing the distracting clutter initially. When you can plan flights that always suppose two-way radio failure, yet keep you above the obstacles without reliance on ATC, then you're ready to incorporate tools that cut corners--corners you may choose not to cut that would be oblivious to you otherwise. After a good grounding in land-based navigation systems, then you can concentrate on how to safely use the features offered in the 200 pages of your GPS operating manual within the constraints of our old ATC system that's still trying to come to grips with how best to deal with the technology. If it weren't for radar, they'd be up the creek.

dtuuri

Reasonable minds can differ on this issue. But I agree with dtuuri on this, and am acting accordingly. I am working on my IFR in my non-GPS equipped plane. I did spend some time in a Red Bird sim this last winter that simulated a 530/430 combo set up, and I also did my private in a DA-20 with a 430. My experience is that the GPS makes IFR very simple, once you have it set up properly. I believe I do not believe that it will be significantly more expensive to get specialized training in whatever GPS I ultimately choose after I complete my IFR rating, and I believe I will have a better grasp at the end of the day, being comfortable with ILS/VOR/ADF and the GPS.

 

[petrolero]

Find a plane with a 430 or G1000 to fly with during your IR. If you do all you instrument training without it, then decide to rent/own a plane with GPS you'll have to learn all the buttonology those avionics have to offer

Agree. Train as close to what you will ultimately fly or plan on more training later.

 

[frfly172]

Agree. Train as close to what you will ultimately fly or plan on more training later.

+2 best to train on what your going to fly ,most often.

 

[Brad Z]

Like pilotage for VFR training, you do need to master VOR flying, even if you will inevitably only fly /G. No hard in training on the old stuff and adding gps training later.

The only problem training without a certified gps is finding a sufficient number of approaches to fly for training. Around these parts, more and more small airports iaps are rnav gps only.

 

[Sac Arrow]

I say train for the equipment that will save your ass if your GPS takes a crap. Yes there is buttonology, but the learning curve for GPS operation is pretty flat.

 

[poadeleted20]

GPS training is so equipment specific that I think you're better off doing your training without a GPS.

Concur. If you'll be flying a GPS plane later, you'd want to do your IR in that plane, but if you don't know, then skip it.

Maybe get some toward the tail end if that's an option.

Not worth the effort. The OP can learn whatever system is in any future plane at the time of checkout in that future plane. No sense wasting time, brainpower, and money now on a system you won't be using on the ride and probably won't be using immediately thereafter.

 

[poadeleted20]

Find a plane with a 430 or G1000 to fly with during your IR. If you do all you instrument training without it, then decide to rent/own a plane with GPS you'll have to learn all the buttonology those avionics have to offer

So? Later is just fine, and there's no point taking a lot of time and effort during IR training learning a system you may not be using for some time or at all. When you do check out in something with a GPS or glass panel system, you can learn the system as part of the checkout.

 

[jordane93]

So? Later is just fine, and there's no point taking a lot of time and effort during IR training learning a system you may not be using for some time or at all. When you do check out in something with a GPS or glass panel system, you can learn the system as part of the checkout.

It might save some money if the OP later wants to rent planes for instrument flights that have GPS. He already is familiar with the system and it can take a little while to learn how to really use the 430 or G1000 for IFR flights

 

[marcoseddi]

If you are flying with gps learn with it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[poadeleted20]

It might save some money if the OP later wants to rent planes for instrument flights that have GPS. He already is familiar with the system and it can take a little while to learn how to really use the 430 or G1000 for IFR flights

Not going to save a dime. It will take the same amount of time to learn the system now as later, but it may be money wasted if the later plane has a different system. You've got enough issues going through IR training without learning a system you've never used before and may not ever use again.

 

[James331]

I did mine in a plane with 2 vors, 1 adf, and no GPS.

It requires you to build more situational awareness. Flying a DP, STAR, holds etc build far more skill.

Flying to a waypoint on a garmin ain't rocket surgery.

I'd go with the non-GPS especially if its cheaper to rent.

Teaching a basic six pack plane guy on a /G is W A Y vs the other way around.

 

[Somedudeintn]

I was just about to post this same question. I finished my private rating in a no gps plane at a 141 school and have started renting from another school (part 61) who's planes have g430's. I've been debating the whole GPS vs no GPS along with the 141 vs 61 issue. Those bad weather days keep making me wish I had started an instrument program, and that I could at least jump in a sim and log some time. For now I'll just stick to building my x-c time and studying the instrument ground on those bad weather days. I was thinking that with the 2020 regs I might as well learn how to use a GPS besides just using the Direct button.

 

[vontresc]

Nooo don't be tempted by the Magenta Line of Death!

 

[ja_user]

I am very glad I learned in a /U plane. The needles are all the same, and flown the same whether a VOR or GPS is driving them.

The problem you have, is when students stare at the GPS screen to much and try to fly that.

 

[azure]

Not worth the effort. The OP can learn whatever system is in any future plane at the time of checkout in that future plane. No sense wasting time, brainpower, and money now on a system you won't be using on the ride and probably won't be using immediately thereafter.

Right, I would agree with that, if the GPS plane is essentially "vaporware" then it is silly to try to duplicate its current setup. But I had the impression from the OP that it was something he'd have access to in the "near future." So I guess maybe some clarification from the OP is in order. Is that "near future" something like a couple of months, i.e. before he expects to be ready for the checkride? If not, then that paints a different picture and my answer would be closer to C'Ron's.

 

[Marauder]

I obtained my IFR rating on two VOR/ILS receivers, an ADF and years before GPS was available even as a portable. I flew in the system for years with just this hardware and a portable GPS when it became available (for situational awareness) -- in the same plane I owned the entire time. Even with a portable GPS with a moving map, it was not the same as "follow the magenta line". I needed to interpret the CDIs and without an HSI transpose all of that information to the DG. Old school, is just that, old school.

In December 2012, I installed a WAAS GPS and glass. Although I knew my plane, power settings and configurations for IFR, the learning curve on the GPS and glass was steep. After about 10 hours, I finally felt as comfortable as I did during the previous years. I would say that IFR became much easier for me after the learning curve.

That said, I had a LOI come up on my GPS during a recent flight and for a few seconds had to convince myself that I was not a Lemming and did not have to panic because the magenta line went away. I switched back to VORs and the old comfort came back.

If you are looking to get your rating quicker, I agree with Ron. Simplify the hardware, get the rating and then get further training on the equipment in the planes you will be flying.

The reason I say this is because of the differences in panels. My GTN has a flow to it and I understand how to configure it quickly. I flew with another pilot recently who had a 430, straight up DG and a CDI. I watched him enter stuff. And it was clear I would need some training on the buttonolgy. What you don't want to do is get the rating in a simple airplane and then jump in a glass cockpit and shoot approaches to minimums by yourself.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[peerlesscowboy]

One of the local CFIIs has a plane with no GPS. Knowing that any aircraft I will fly in my near future will have a 430 at the least and likely a G1000, does it make sense to train in this aircraft? ......

I'd recommend giving greater weight to the "local CFIIs" reputation for instructing than whether his airplane is equipped with GPS or not. Learning to fly by sole reference to the instruments involves a lot more than just pushing the right buttons in the proper sequence.

 

[poadeleted20]

I was just about to post this same question. I finished my private rating in a no gps plane at a 141 school and have started renting from another school (part 61) who's planes have g430's. I've been debating the whole GPS vs no GPS along with the 141 vs 61 issue. Those bad weather days keep making me wish I had started an instrument program, and that I could at least jump in a sim and log some time. For now I'll just stick to building my x-c time and studying the instrument ground on those bad weather days. I was thinking that with the 2020 regs I might as well learn how to use a GPS besides just using the Direct button.

Since the planes you're using have 430's, I'd say do the training with the 430 since that's what you'll be flying when you get the IR.

 

[poadeleted20]

Right, I would agree with that, if the GPS plane is essentially "vaporware" then it is silly to try to duplicate its current setup. But I had the impression from the OP that it was something he'd have access to in the "near future." So I guess maybe some clarification from the OP is in order. Is that "near future" something like a couple of months, i.e. before he expects to be ready for the checkride? If not, then that paints a different picture and my answer would be closer to C'Ron's.

That said, if the GPS which the OP plans to fly later isn't available now, there's not much point in flying with some other GPS now as it will make the IR training longer and more expensive without an equal reduction in learning the other system later.

 

[uncreative]

Thanks for the replies everyone.

near future= day after I get my IR up to the day I start flying something with a FMS. I can do my IR training in a gns430 or g1000 equipped plane as well.

sounds like I'll ultimately be better training with a gps since that is what i'll be flying after my rating.

 

[CTLSi]

One of the local CFIIs has a plane with no GPS. Knowing that any aircraft I will fly in my near future will have a 430 at the least and likely a G1000, does it make sense to train in this aircraft? My initial reaction was that it would be good for me to learn the old way, but after reading stratobee's recent post, it got me thinking that learning without a GPS might be a disadvantage.

GPS is fast replacing old RNAV. In fact, the ONLY reason to have RNAV in a plane right now is because all the IFR training is still centered around it, though GPS approaches and enroutes are also established.

The real question is why do any of us have to learn RNAV at all...not whether you should train in a plane with no GPS.

When you are done with your training and you fly with GPS you will never want to even fly on a victor airway let alone fly a radial.

 

[dtuuri]

sounds like I'll ultimately be better training with a gps since that is what i'll be flying after my rating.

Sounded to me like almost two out of three posters thought the other way 'round. I think you were already decided.

Still, to me it'll be like taking grad school at the same time as college in order to save two years--sounds better on paper than in practice. Happy contrails to ya though.

dtuuri

 

[dtuuri]

When you are done with your training and you fly with GPS you will never want to even fly on a victor airway let alone fly a radial.

Do you fly a Flight Design with terrain mapping?

dtuuri

 

[Marauder]

Sounded to me like almost two out of three posters thought the other way 'round. I think you were already decided.



Still, to me it'll be like taking grad school at the same time as college in order to save two years--sounds better on paper than in practice. Happy contrails to ya though.



dtuuri

That's what I read as well. There is a lot to know for IFR flying and adding advanced technology during this process is just going to take longer. Not to mention give the DPE a bit more to test him on...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[uncreative]

Sounded to me like almost two out of three posters thought the other way 'round. I think you were already decided.

Still, to me it'll be like taking grad school at the same time as college in order to save two years--sounds better on paper than in practice. Happy contrails to ya though.

dtuuri

The way I counted it, it was 6 for training with the gps and 8 saying needles only. didn't seem to be an overwhelming consensus either way.

dtuuri, I have been going through the lessons on your site, that is a very helpful resource, thank you for making it available.

 

[CTLSi]

Do you fly a Flight Design with terrain mapping?

dtuuri

I have dual Dynon Skyviews with terrain, and ADS-B weather, traffic.

I also have a Garmin 796 as a GPS source into the Dynons which drives Dynon's autopilot.

 

[PPC1052]

The way I counted it, it was 6 for training with the gps and 8 saying needles only. didn't seem to be an overwhelming consensus either way.

dtuuri, I have been going through the lessons on your site, that is a very helpful resource, thank you for making it available.

There is a donate button, don't ya know?

 

[dtuuri]

I have dual Dynon Skyviews with terrain, and ADS-B weather, traffic.

I also have a Garmin 796 as a GPS source into the Dynons which drives Dynon's autopilot.

Is it legal IFR? I sold two Flight Designs a few years ago, one brand new with an autopilot. Haven't been following the IFR certification aspect since then.

dtuuri

 

[dtuuri]

There is a donate button, don't ya know?

Now cut that out! I keep forgetting it's there or I'd remove it and put in something to make me rich, like uh, hmmm... this is the part I always have trouble with.

dtuuri

 

[PPC1052]

Now cut that out! I keep forgetting it's there or I'd remove it and put in something to make me rich, like uh, hmmm... this is the part I always have trouble with.

dtuuri

Hey, I paid my money. Now I have the right to promote it (and shame others) as I see fit.

 

[kevmor99]

I trained in a plane without GPS, but used simulators and their manuals to learn them, at least enough to get familiar with the technology for the instrument oral. Then as I later decided on the plane I wanted to fly, I brushed up and learned all the in's and outs. As I fly different planes now, I find myself needing a quick refresher sometimes on a particular model. When flying IFR you will need to know it well enough to know the sequence of buttons to push for an action without much thought.

Others were saying if you know the plane you'll be flying, learn the system in that plane in your training, but otherwise you may be spending a lot of time on one type of GPS (although that knowledge will help transfer to learning others). Taking the checkride without one has the advantage of one less thing to worry about.

 

[azure]

Others were saying if you know the plane you'll be flying, learn the system in that plane in your training, but otherwise you may be spending a lot of time on one type of GPS (although that knowledge will help transfer to learning others). Taking the checkride without one has the advantage of one less thing to worry about.

If that part were true my answer wouldn't be so guarded. I don't think it is. I learned the 430 early in my IR training, then bought a plane with a 480. My knowledge of the 430 was useless and even a detriment to learning the 480. Learning the 480 was HARD, though that was in large part because I didn't know anyone locally who could help me learn it. And now that I'm fairly comfortable with it, I've pretty well forgotten the 430 and don't even venture a guess on any of the many questions here about it.

I agree with your last sentence too. My recommendation to train in the plane the OP plans to fly (or a close facsimile) really assumes that it's going to be his primary platform for a long time and that it's going to be available fairly soon. Otherwise, I think he would be better off just learning on steam gauges and traditional nav instruments.

 

[Henning]

One of the local CFIIs has a plane with no GPS. Knowing that any aircraft I will fly in my near future will have a 430 at the least and likely a G1000, does it make sense to train in this aircraft? My initial reaction was that it would be good for me to learn the old way, but after reading stratobee's recent post, it got me thinking that learning without a GPS might be a disadvantage.

If you know what equipment you will be taking your IR ticket into IMC in, train on that equipment. When you finish 40 hrs of instrument training in it and pass your ride, you will be **** hot and ready in it. Thing is if you have a 430 or G1000, you may need to spend a bit of time and training learning the equipment as a prerequisite to doing the IR training.

 

[CTLSi]

Is it legal IFR? I sold two Flight Designs a few years ago, one brand new with an autopilot. Haven't been following the IFR certification aspect since then.

dtuuri

Well, the POH is vague on that, though one can put in a Garmin GNC 255 navcom radio which uses the Dynon HSI as a CDI. But the FAA says LSA may not fly IFR, at least that is my understanding of the regs.

I do plan to get an instrument ticket, but I will do it on sims, and eventually sell the CTLSi and upgrade to the new C4 which comes with a GTN 750.

 

[Henning]

Well, the POH is vague on that, though one can put in a Garmin navcom radio as an option. But the FAA says LSA may not fly IFR, at least that is my understanding of the regs.

I do plan to get an instrument ticket, but I will do it on sims, and eventually sell the CTLSi and upgrade to the new C4 which comes with a GTN 750.

Actually I believe it is SP cannot fly IFR, the restriction being on the pilot, not category of aircraft. I believe it is fine for an IR rated PP to get in an LSA equipped for IFR and go file and fly.