Keep up proficiency, not just currency!

[drummer4468]

Just a reminder to all (especially newer) instrument rated pilots not to be lulled into ticking off easy approaches just to be legal to file IFR. I went up today to shoot a couple approaches, and decided to try a VOR approach(not the one I posted about yesterday) since I honestly hadn't done one since my IR checkride. Have to admit I've gotten somewhat complacent with vectors and vertical guidance, and really wanted to sharpen up my altitude awareness/control.

Hoooo boy, did I bork it up something fierce. The procedure turn was sloppy but not terrible; I can attribute some of that to the stiff winds I was fighting. But man was it embarrassing to be thinking I was on a nice stable descent inbound, and have my safety pilot(whom I just met today) say "Isn't that the field under us?" while I'm still about 1500 AGL.

Still not sure where the disconnect happened. One minute I feel like I'm crawling through the 40kt headwind, the next I'm blasting past the intended airport. I think that the combination of non-precision rustiness, a new-to-me safety pilot, and having that pilot handling the radio instead of myself, all contributed to me being off my game.

At any rate, definitely time to practice some more VOR approaches. Stay sharp and fly safe!

 

[midlifeflyer]

Did you shut off GPS for that VOR approach?

 

[Jim K]

Hand flying holds is by far the hardest skill in my opinion, so I try to do that every other month or so. I'm fortunate to have a vor approach with a dme arc at my home field in addition to the ils and multiple rnav's, and a couple vor-a and localizer backcourses within 20min flying time. Flying a variety of full approaches is good, as is I think using "green needles". I like to fly that dme arc with my #2 nav and dme box to make sure I can use that equipment if gps goes out.

I try to fly 2-3 approaches a month in actual, and in 22 months since I got the rating the longest stretch I've missed was 3 months when my plane was down recently. Corrected that by getting 6 in this month. I'm fortunate have a flexible enough schedule to be able to go fly on those good practice days. Seems like there's always a couple every month that are flyable, but summer storms and winter ice make it harder. Picking those days is good practice too for analyzing the weather, which is nearly as important as (more than?) the actual flying.

 

[Country Flier]

Although we are all told repeatedly, that it's not legal to fly that VOR approach on an iPad, it sure does "help" with the situational awareness.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Unfortunately you don’t know what you don’t know until you do something you haven’t done for a while. That’s the primary reason I recommend regular IPCs with a proficient (as opposed to qualified) instructor.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Although we are all told repeatedly, that it's not legal to fly that VOR approach on an iPad, it sure does "help" with the situational awareness.

Here's the catch, and the reason why I asked about shutting off GPS.

Sure the FAA allows us to fly a VOR approach with GPS while monitoring VOR raw data. And sure, an iPad is great for situational awareness. But think about it. In a world where PBN RNAV predominates, with only a limited VOR MON network, exactly when might we fly a VOR approach for real?

 

[Country Flier]

Here's the catch, and the reason why I asked about shutting off GPS.

Sure the FAA allows us to fly a VOR approach with GPS while monitoring VOR raw data. And sure, an iPad is great for situational awareness. But think about it. In a world where PBN RNAV predominates, with only a limited VOR MON network, exactly when might we fly a VOR approach for real?

Well, I know what you are getting at (gps system failure), but I've flown them for real when MY gps has failed (radio and/or indicator failure)...so the iPad was great.

 

[somorris]

A lot of us feel safe because we have GPS navigators in the panel, ForeFlight or similar EFB on our iPad with a backup on our iPhone. Just keep in mind the FAA also likes redundancy and their backup is the MON with something like an ILS within 100 miles. We need to keep our ground based equipment skills sharp. There will likely be a lot of confusion and havoc if some kind of sudden GPS failure happens and we need to be able to smoothly switch so we don’t become a statistic. . Stay safe up there!

 

[midlifeflyer]

Well, I know what you are getting at (gps system failure), but I've flown them for real when MY gps has failed (radio and/or indicator failure)...so the iPad was great.

Absolutely. I've also flown them (and NDB approaches) in the pre-iPad days with a handheld 396 for situational awareness.

 

[midlifeflyer]

A lot of us feel safe because we have GPS navigators in the panel, ForeFlight or similar EFB on our iPad with a backup on our iPhone. Just keep in mind the FAA also likes redundancy and their backup is the MON with something like an ILS within 100 miles. We need to keep our ground based equipment skills sharp. There will likely be a lot of confusion and havoc if some kind of sudden GPS failure happens and we need to be able to smoothly switch so we don’t become a statistic. . Stay safe up there!

Exactly.

 

[Rgbeard]

A lot of us feel safe because we have GPS navigators in the panel, ForeFlight or similar EFB on our iPad with a backup on our iPhone. Just keep in mind the FAA also likes redundancy and their backup is the MON with something like an ILS within 100 miles. We need to keep our ground based equipment skills sharp. There will likely be a lot of confusion and havoc if some kind of sudden GPS failure happens and we need to be able to smoothly switch so we don’t become a statistic. . Stay safe up there!

Been there, done that, while navigating past restricted airspace (R-5115, the Border Patrol balloon on a steel cable).

The VOR was already tracking when the GPS outage occurred. I was glad to be flying an airway.

 

[kaiser]

I absolutely could use more actual. The biggest issue is my work schedule vs weather. My best time to fly is weekends typically, where we get nice weather. What rotten luck that is! Today it's MVFR and IFR across the area, but I'm heads down at work.

As Jim said, I try to do 2-3 monthly. It's now been almost 2 months since I've done my last approach - @Jim K want to do an approach with me tomorrow at KBAK?

 

[Palmpilot]

Here's the catch, and the reason why I asked about shutting off GPS.

Sure the FAA allows us to fly a VOR approach with GPS while monitoring VOR raw data. And sure, an iPad is great for situational awareness. But think about it. In a world where PBN RNAV predominates, with only a limited VOR MON network, exactly when might we fly a VOR approach for real?

Not all rental planes have an IFR GPS installed, and of those that do, not all of them have a current database.

 

[drummer4468]

Did you shut off GPS for that VOR approach?

Although we are all told repeatedly, that it's not legal to fly that VOR approach on an iPad, it sure does "help" with the situational awareness.

I did not turn it off(G1000), though I did my best to treat it like any ol' steam gauge HSI. I, like most others I think, tend to get complacent with having the super convenient moving map giving them peace of mind. The confirmation bias sneaks in and we convince ourselves that we rely on the GPS display far less than we really do. And don't get me wrong, modern tech is a wonderful thing. Use it to its full potential. Staying sharp with the fundamentals facilitates that. My philosophy dictates that the more comfortable I can get at maintaining situational awareness using the bare minimum, the more fun and easy it is to master a challenging approach with a full complement of nav displays, under real-world workload, when there are no foggles to take off and it's imperative to get myself and my passengers on the ground. You stay good at weeding out extraneous information, dialing in on the important stuff, all helping to keep yourself that much further from the task saturation monster.

I.e., Less because of unrealistic catastrophes like "what if X, Y, and Z all fail at the same time?" and more for the sake of staying smarter than, and ten steps ahead of the airplane. In other words, staying good at flying basic "green needles" gives us the needed mental workouts that keep us exponentially more competent when we have the full array of navigational tools, and we can appreciate them more for how much aid they really offer. Super high effort/reward ratio.

*hops off soapbox* Fly safe!

 

[Clip4]

Not all rental planes have an IFR GPS installed, and of those that do, not all of them have a current database.

Rent junk, get junk. If the IFR data base is expired, the pitot static check probably is too.

 

[IK04]

One of the biggest advantages of being an instrument instructor/evaluator is observing others while they either properly or improperly execute holding pattern entries and holding.

Visualizing the pattern an entry without the crutch of a moving map has definitely reinforced my situational understanding and makes holding so much easier.
Having done it hundreds of times has helped, too!

 

[Palmpilot]

Rent junk, get junk. If the IFR data base is expired, the pitot static check probably is too.

It depends on where you rent. The club I usually rent from keeps the pitot static checks up to date on all of their planes, not just the ones with up-to-date databases.

 

[midlifeflyer]

It depends on where you rent

True. And it's not always about junk. But in 2022, rentals which are available for IFR use should have IFR-capable GPS units and up-to-date databases. If they don't, do what one local operation does - label them VFR only.

Sure, in the right location, one can get an instrument rating without ever touching a GPS. And give a whole new meaning to the rating not being preparation for the real world.

 

[MauleSkinner]

True. And it's not always about junk. But in 2022, rentals which are available for IFR use should have IFR-capable GPS units and up-to-date databases. If they don't, do what one local operation does - label them VFR only.

Kinda like when they used to label ADFs INOP…what’s old is new again.

 

[Palmpilot]

True. And it's not always about junk. But in 2022, rentals which are available for IFR use should have IFR-capable GPS units and up-to-date databases. If they don't, do what one local operation does - label them VFR only.

Lots of thing should happen, but one of the problems with renting is that you can't always get a plane that has the equipment you want. I'm thankful to be a member of a club that treats its pilots like adults, to the extent of allowing us to make our own assessments of fitness for a given flight. And that is facilitated by tracking things like pitot-static and database currency, as well as other fitness-for-flight items, on their Web site.

 

[Adam Harmon]

Absolutely agree with the original poster. It wasn't until I got my CFII, in my circumstance, that I was able to become truly proficient with ifr ops.

 

[luvflyin]

True. And it's not always about junk. But in 2022, rentals which are available for IFR use should have IFR-capable GPS units and up-to-date databases. If they don't, do what one local operation does - label them VFR only.

Sure, in the right location, one can get an instrument rating without ever touching a GPS. And give a whole new meaning to the rating not being preparation for the real world.

That seems excessive to label them VFR only if they are legal for IFR. Granted there may not be a lot of things you could do in IMC, but …..

 

[steingar]

I flew safety for a pilot I thought very safe and proficient. At the end of the night he lost it completely and tried to land in some trees, I took over the airplane and corrected. He was just tired. It happens, and it's why we bring along safety pilots.

 

[midlifeflyer]

That seems excessive to label them VFR only if they are legal for IFR. Granted there may not be a lot of things you could do in IMC, but …..

Well, if it's not IFR-capable, it's not IFR legal. In terms of database currency, sure, you can use an outdated database in a GNS430 so long as you identify the accuracy of every waypoint being used but In a rental operation I think advising renters which airplanes are suitable for IFR flight is not a bad thing.

 

[Palmpilot]

Well, if it's not IFR-capable, it's not IFR legal. In terms of database currency, sure, you can use an outdated database in a GNS430 so long as you identify the accuracy of every waypoint being used but In a rental operation I think advising renters which airplanes are suitable for IFR flight is not a bad thing.

I noticed that the AMFS for the GNS430W in one of the planes I rent says that "GPS instrument approaches using the 400W Series units are prohibited, unless the 400W Series unit's approach data is verified by the pilot or crew to be current." I'm wondering if one could comply with that requirement by verifying that the date on the installed database is later than the amendment date that is printed on the bottom of the current FAA approach chart for the approach being flown, or would the entire database have to be the current one?

 

[luvflyin]

Well, if it's not IFR-capable, it's not IFR legal. In terms of database currency, sure, you can use an outdated database in a GNS430 so long as you identify the accuracy of every waypoint being used but In a rental operation I think advising renters which airplanes are suitable for IFR flight is not a bad thing.

Ok. It sounded like they wouldn't allow IFR just because the plane didn't have GPS even if otherwise legal.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I noticed that the AMFS for the GNS430W in one of the planes I rent says that "GPS instrument approaches using the 400W Series units are prohibited, unless the 400W Series unit's approach data is verified by the pilot or crew to be current." I'm wondering if one could comply with that requirement by verifying that the date on the installed database is later than the amendment date that is printed on the bottom of the current FAA approach chart for the approach being flown, or would the entire database have to be the current one?

I think it's theoretically possible. Load the approach and compare it with a current approach chart. If the sequence of waypoints and the courses and distances between the are the same, I think it's accurate.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Ok. It sounded like they wouldn't allow IFR just because the plane didn't have GPS even if otherwise legal.

They're not prohibiting anyone from taking an otherwise IFR legal airplane and flying IFR with only a single VOR and an ADF. Not sure how many would want to anymore.

 

[frfly172]

Did a few approaches on the round gauges today in the sym .couple of ils and a vor with a hold. I could feel the rust. Not having an auto pilot really keeps you working.

 

[Palmpilot]

I think it's theoretically possible. Load the approach and compare it with a current approach chart. If the sequence of waypoints and the courses and distances between the are the same, I think it's accurate.

That looks like it would comply with the AFMS wording for en route and terminal in Section 2.3(a), but the wording for approaches in 2.3(b) is different. That's why I thought my method might work, but the wording in 2.3(b) is somewhat ambiguous. (I have expanded the AFMS excerpt in my earlier post to make it easier to access.)

Below is the FAA approach chart for my home airport as an example. The date at the bottom shows that it was last amended almost three years ago, but the dates in the left and right margins show that it is still the one in current use.

 

[midlifeflyer]

That looks like it would comply with the AFMS wording for en route and terminal in Section 2.3(a), but the wording for approaches in 2.3(b) is different. That's why I thought my method might work, but the wording in 2.3(b) is somewhat ambiguous. (I have expanded the AFMS excerpt in my earlier post to make it easier to access.)

Below is the FAA approach chart for my home airport as an example. The date at the bottom shows that it was last amended almost three years ago, but the dates in the left and right margins show that it is still the one in current use.

View attachment 109734

Actually, I think the opposite. I don't see how one would verify some random enroute RNAV waypoint (or airport) not tied to an airway unless you had the official documents describing its latitude and longitude. OTOH all the approach data you need to verify is on that chart. What do you think is missing?

i don't get your point about the dates. As long as the chart is current, it's current even if it was last amended several years ago.

 

[EdFred]

Actually, I think the opposite. I don't see how one would verify some random enroute RNAV waypoint (or airport) not tied to an airway unless you had the official documents describing its latitude and longitude. OTOH all the approach data you need to verify is on that chart. What do you think is missing?

i don't get your point about the dates. As long as the chart is current, it's current even if it was last amended several years ago.

I think he was saying if the chart shows it was last amended 3 years ago, and your database is 24 months old, you probably don't have to do any verification of waypoints.

 

[Palmpilot]

Actually, I think the opposite. I don't see how one would verify some random enroute RNAV waypoint (or airport) not tied to an airway unless you had the official documents describing its latitude and longitude.

I agree, but the AFMS says what it says (and the AIM has similar language in a footnote to a table on GPS use). As a result, the rules for IFR en route without a current database seem pretty impractical.

OTOH all the approach data you need to verify is on that chart. What do you think is missing?

i don't get your point about the dates. As long as the chart is current, it's current even if it was last amended several years ago.

I'm not saying that anything is missing. I was talking about the dates in order to point out that the current approach chart was last amended nearly three years ago. And I'm talking about how to comply with paragraph 2.3(b) of the AFMS when the GPS does not have the current database installed. What I am saying is that instead of verifying that "the sequence of waypoints and the courses and distances between them are the same," an easier way would be to compare the expiration date of the installed database to the amendment date of the current chart. Paragraph 2.3(b) doesn't specify a particular method to verify the approach data in the database, so I'm hoping that my easier method will comply with the regulatory requirement to comply with AFMS limitations.

Or more succinctly, what EdFred said in the post immediately above.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I agree, but the AFMS says what it says (and the AIM has similar language in a footnote to a table on GPS use). As a result, the rules for IFR en route without a current database seem pretty impractical.



I'm not saying that anything is missing. I was talking about the dates in order to point out that the current approach chart was last amended nearly three years ago. And I'm talking about how to comply with paragraph 2.3(b) of the AFMS when the GPS does not have the current database installed. What I am saying is that instead of verifying that "the sequence of waypoints and the courses and distances between them are the same," an easier way would be to compare the expiration date of the installed database to the amendment date of the current chart. Paragraph 2.3(b) doesn't specify a particular method to verify the approach data in the database, so I'm hoping that my easier method will comply with the regulatory requirement to comply with AFMS limitations.

Or more succinctly, what EdFred said in the post immediately above.

Agreed. Now I understand what you meant.

 

[sonopoa]

Also flying on home sim with pilotedge helps with proficiency. A lot. Can fly any approach in the coverage area at a fraction of the cost of a real plane.