gsengle
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- May 9, 2016
- Messages
- 2,099
- Display Name
Display name:
Gsengle
He wouldn’t have WAAS, he’d still have non precision like GPS approaches.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
He wouldn’t have WAAS, he’d still have non precision like GPS approaches.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
tspear
En-Route
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2010
- Messages
- 3,585
- Display Name
Display name:
Timothy
True from the OP. But I responding to @Sac Arrow who implied anyone who uses anything besides steam gauges and a sextant for an approach is not a pilot.
Tim
- Joined
- May 11, 2010
- Messages
- 20,689
- Location
- Charlotte, NC
- Display Name
Display name:
Snorting his way across the USA
I did no such thing.
gsengle
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- May 9, 2016
- Messages
- 2,099
- Display Name
Display name:
Gsengle
In a case of serious thread drift, I’m a big advocate of all instrument ratings being delivered free of moving maps and synthetic vision. If you don’t have the picture in your head, you’re not safe. These extra tools make new pilots not develop the ability to operate without them with sufficient spatial awareness imho. So yeah steam gauge trainers please...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
tspear
En-Route
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2010
- Messages
- 3,585
- Display Name
Display name:
Timothy
Note I said implied....
chemgeek
En-Route
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2009
- Messages
- 3,099
- Display Name
Display name:
chemgeek
Let's bring this back to the original question. I think if you are flying IFR into small airports that won't have an ILS, you will wish you had LPV capability. And if you have ever flown an LPV into your home field in the sticks, you will wonder why you waited so long. LPV is not just for flying to 200 AGL in low IFR. At out-of-the-way airports, it could mean the difference between getting in and diverting in relatively benign IFR conditions. So where you fly into and out of can influence your thinking. I also think there is significant value in training for IFR in a WAAS environment, especially if you contemplate using it in the future.
A good recent example from my own flying: on a trip back from Pittsburgh there were widespread MVFR to IFR conditions, with ceilings 700-1200 with tops at 7000. It was a nice day to file IFR and punch above in the sunshine and smooth air. On arrival at my home field, ceilings were just below the LNAV minimums (about 800-900 AGL then) but well above the LPV mininums (about 250 AGL then) on a misty day. The LPV was a no-brainer, but the LNAV might have resulted in a trip to Syracuse. Since then our approaches got re-designed and the LNAV mins have gotten better (750 AGL) and the LPV has gotten worse (450 AGL), but the LPV is still a significant improvement. In a pinch, I could use a downwind approach (if necessary) to the other end of the runway with a 300 AGL DH.
How to go about getting WAAS from your GNS 530 is another matter. Upgrading 20+ year old technology may not be the best use of your resources, but it would avoid re-wiring the panel. I'd be tempted to sell the 530 while you can, and replace it with an Avidyne slide-in unit. That would minimize re-wiring and re-configuration, and get you a modern WAAS GPS/NAV/COM in the process. Other options would leave you with less utility or cost more. I've had WAAS in my plane for a long time, and am especially glad to have it for getting into and out of my home field. We had one of the earliest designed LPV approaches in the country, and it was a miracle at the time. It's still pretty awesome considering our location between two tall 500' ridges. I don't regret the cost, which at the time was quite exorbitant.
chemgeek
En-Route
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2009
- Messages
- 3,099
- Display Name
Display name:
chemgeek
This sounds like the discussions educators have had about allowing students to use calculators, computer graphing programs, etc. in the past. For the most part, these fears of intellectual collapse were unfounded, and neglected the higher-order gains and learning efficiency resulting from utilizing more advanced educational tools. Technology marches on, and brings new advantages as well as new challenges. While pilots should be able to demonstrate control of an aircraft in IFR conditions with basic instrumentation, simulating equipment failure, I would want to train with the technology I am going to fly and learn to use it well in the flying environment. The reality is that is would be virtually impossible, short of widespread GPS system failure, to not have some form of moving map available in the cockpit. Between 1-2 panel/portable GPS units, and EFB moving map, and a smartphone with a another EFB backup, it should be nearly impossible to lose graphical situational awareness today. It is one of the greatest gifts to aviation safety.
Now, having said that, I trained for my IR in the 1980s, when NDBs and VORs ruled, and inflight weather was HIWAS, FlightWatch or ATC. Today is is whole new ball game, with redundant G5 AIs and HSIs and the like, moving maps, traffic alerting, GPS approaches everywhere, FIS-B and XM-WX, etc. I wouldn't go back to the 80s for anything for IFR flight, except as a dire emergency. IFR flying has never been safer--if you are properly trained to use the technology and are current in its use.
I actually really liked flying NDB approaches during training in the olde days, but to tell the truth, never needed to fly one in real life. Ever. Give my my LPV, please. Just awesome.
gsengle
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- May 9, 2016
- Messages
- 2,099
- Display Name
Display name:
Gsengle
It sounds like it but it’s not the same. Specifically, IFR flight requires a three dimensional mental picture to exist in the brain of the airplane moving in relation to the world. The best way to develop this skill is to try and fly without a picture already made for you on a computer screen. It’s not just removing the drudge work, it’s doing much of the core work (visualization) that is still required to be a competent instrument pilot... it’s fine to have it once you’ve developed the foundational mental skills, just not a fan for basic training.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Craigd31
Pre-Flight
My experience with students is that the reverse can be (and more often is) true. Most students are visual learners. If a student can start with the avionics that provide a graphical depiction of the mental picture their supposed to have, then they understand the mental picture their supposed to develop later when they have to build that same mental picture using the information provided by steam gauges. It's similar to the concept that "A picture is worth a thousand words".
David Megginson
Pattern Altitude
I don't think it's too expensive, but going from a non-WAAS Garmin GNC 530 to a WAAS Avidyne IFD 540 wouldn't be an entirely slide-in replacement (much cheaper than installing a GPS from scratch, though).
John Myers
Pre-takeoff checklist
And for some of those there are good reasons, a knob is more useful than a touchscreen for many things and the reverse can be true also, so it makes sense to have both. It may not create any cognitive load to say, if it's turbulent use the knob otherwise use the touchscreen, etc.
John Myers
Pre-takeoff checklist
ILS works, LPV works, some are more familiar with one than the other. LPV is more accurate, more reliable, generally easier to use, and far more widely available. I don't think it is unreasonable for a pilot to say, I'm going to keep sharp with an LPV, and not want to fly without that capability. People speak of GPS and WAAS outages, link to charts and notices, etc. and it's not a good argument. LPV is where the entire industry has moved, and it is an improvement. If there are people who have an ILS at their home field and don't care to install WAAS equipment, or don't need it, no problem with that either.
I think it is more reasonable to say that someone won't fly without LPV than won't fly without ILS needles.
John Myers
Pre-takeoff checklist
I feel the biggest shortcoming with instrument training is not recognizing when a student is overwhelmed. A student who is struggling to track horizontally will not be on top of flaps, etc. at FAF and will probably be quickly overwhelmed and at that point learning stops. It's the same with anything else, giving someone five things to work on their golf swing at the same time will probably make things worse. Having a moving map, etc. at the start keeps things manageable, and then you can remove these aids once the other things are dialed in. Even if they are used as a crutch, crutches can be useful, so long as they do not become permanent.
Asking a student to do a VOR intersection hold the first time with a moving map will likely greatly accelerate how fast they can then later do one without a moving map. I'd fly with the student who had a moving map (and now does not) versus one who never did. I see no advantage to not using one right from the start.
I am reminded of a guy I overheard in an FBO say "I'll never fly with anyone who only uses digital charts". I guess he never flies commercial.
gsengle
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- May 9, 2016
- Messages
- 2,099
- Display Name
Display name:
Gsengle
The danger is that the moving map masks that they never got the big picture and can’t really fly raw data... you can teach slowly and methodically and still achieve learning...
My kids never had training wheels on their bikes instead they had strider bikes. This way they developed no bad habits and it took em at 4 maybe 15 mins to transition to pedal bikes. Think there is an analogue there..
But totally get what you’re saying...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
John Myers
Pre-takeoff checklist
The only danger would be if you never remove the training wheels to use your analogy, I feel a moving map is a good thing to use until it is no longer needed.
gsengle
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- May 9, 2016
- Messages
- 2,099
- Display Name
Display name:
Gsengle
Nah the danger is the kids can’t ride a bike and crash when the training wheels disappear. And it takes them days or weeks if they ever do to learn to balance with pedals.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
John Myers
Pre-takeoff checklist
I think the analogy is being strained here– the idea would be you use a moving map as an instructional tool, with an instructor. It's pretty obvious if a student is continuing to use the moving map to run an approach or a hold (apart from the fact it will probably result in sloppy approach or hold).
David Megginson
Pattern Altitude
That would vary a lot by student: some are visual-first learners, but many others are verbal-first learners (like I was).