VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics


Go Back   VAF Forums > Avionics / Interiors / Fiberglass > Glass Cockpit
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21  
Old 01-08-2020, 12:56 PM
breister breister is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 1,231
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by catmandu View Post
I applaud your concept of personal minimums, but remember you will never be more proficient than the day after you pass your IFR check ride (to a degree).
lol that reminds me of the first time I had to fly a for-real PAR down to 100' minimums at KEF (over a year after passing my IFR checks). I admit that may be an exception to your rule, but I agree if you are flying a LOT of IFR (like you do during training) you do get a lot better.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 01-08-2020, 01:24 PM
breister breister is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 1,231
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cumulo View Post
Several sage observations in this thread. A question of my own:

A VHF nav unit is often suggested as an economical path to the part 91 requirements for IFR.

Since the 75Mhz marker systems which had been an essential part of the ILS/LOC approach are now gone, that would leave a non-TSO GPS as the only practical substitute for the marker locations which are now DME positions. Is that OK?

Ron
I'm hardly the most knowledgeable here, but it is my understanding that if the marker beacon identifier is represented in the IFR legal GPS as a nav point (they aren't all, or weren't at one time) then "over the fix" is legal to be determined by GPS. If it just says "MB" on the chart then it may not be in the GPS; if it has an identifier and the GPS "recognizes" the identifier, then you can use GPS to navigate to it.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 01-08-2020, 04:13 PM
andyrv andyrv is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Leawood, KS
Posts: 275
Default /G

To get the benefits of GPS (filing direct, etc.) on an IFR flight plan (even enroute) you have to file /G and filing /G means that you have the FAA approved equipment to fly the plan you filed. Since the GRT "IFR" option is not certified I don't believe you can file /G on a flight plan.

Other than shooting a few individual approaches (not under the control of ATC on an IFR flight plan) I don't see how useful this option could be.

When getting my Instrument Rating we always filed IFR in the system to learn how the system operates even under VFR conditions. I had GRT equipment in my RV at the time but rented a C-172 to get the rating and appropriate experience with a certified GPS navigator. I don't believe you can do this type of training (file /G) with a non-approved navigator.

Andy
__________________
Andy Cobb
RV-7A
MO00 & KLXT

Last edited by andyrv : 01-08-2020 at 05:27 PM. Reason: Spelling
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 01-08-2020, 06:14 PM
catmandu's Avatar
catmandu catmandu is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 917
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by breister View Post
lol that reminds me of the first time I had to fly a for-real PAR down to 100' minimums at KEF (over a year after passing my IFR checks). I admit that may be an exception to your rule, but I agree if you are flying a LOT of IFR (like you do during training) you do get a lot better.
Wings of Gold ARE the exception to the rule, shipmate!
__________________
Mike C.
Sierra Nevada
RV-6A bought flying
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 01-08-2020, 06:52 PM
skate89 skate89 is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 1
Default

Another P3 driver here, multiple deployments to BIKF. A few PARs to min there
__________________
____________

Steve
RV-8 N127EK
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 01-08-2020, 07:15 PM
Cumulo Cumulo is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: KHMT
Posts: 55
Default

I could have been a bit more clear.
Equipping with a radio like a Val nav unit to cover the legalities of IFR operation is often suggested. It ties in really nice to a G5 for VOR/LOC/GS. A 2nd G5 gives you an HSI. Since I got my instrument ratings well before GPS arrived on the scene, I could be perfectly happy and even competent with this lavish arrangement in an IFR environment.

But for ILS, no Middle Marker any more (the only one I would really miss). I assumed that the previous location of the marker would be designated by a DME. How to get around that legally?

So, I have looked at a few approach plates now and I am somewhat surprised. The outer marker is a radar or vor intersection and the middle marker is gone and replaced by - nothing. RAL and CNO are local examples.

So, in these cases, It looks like we're good-to-go part 91 legal. - IFR without a TSO'ed GPS navigator $$$. And of course, one can monitor the flight and approach with any GPS nav device.

Re PAR: Yes PAR approaches way back with students at a local bomber place. Seemed easy with a Cessna. With an F4 it might have been a challenge.

Ron
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 01-08-2020, 08:23 PM
svyolo svyolo is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: bellingham, wa
Posts: 202
Default

I will be shocked if the "legal" functions of certified IFR navigators aren't incorporated into EFIS's in a very very short time. Garmin is obviously wanting this to be as far off as possible. Dynon, GRT, and MGL have a vested interest in making it happen as soon as possible.

Probably for enroute IFR legality first. Approaches later.

It is coming.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:58 AM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.