midlifeflyer

If the approach is loaded and you hit PECIT, as you said, the FAC will become active. The box is smart enough for that. Or, you can activate vectors to final and get the extended FAC or as you said, activate leg. I'm not sure about going direct since that is going to bring you direct to whatever fix you chose for the direct navigation. It's going to depend on where you are when you hit direct. I like to keep this simple and consistent at this stage so, my SOP is going to be to hit FPL → Activate VTF if it is in fact a finale vector to the FAC unless the box beats me to it.

Another I can think of off-hand is dealing with the recommendation to enter an approach to your departure airport when the weather is IFR in case there is a problem shortly after departure (or to a nearby airport if that makes more sense). Since you can only enter approaches for the destination, add your home airport (or nearby one) after your real destination and load the approach. Easy enough to delete it at your leisure once en route.

Yep. That's the "And you wouldn't really have to do even that." part

Good tips. This one is generic to most if not all IFR GPS boxes. In fact the AIM now advises to never use vectors to final, but rather load an appropriate IAF, for this very reason. Consider the effect of coming into Raleigh NC from the west, hearing "expect vectors to the final approach course" and entering vectors to final instead of selecting the PECIT IAF for the Runway 5L ILS: http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1502/00516IL5R.PDF You are now 25 NM west of RDU when the controller comes back to tell you, "Fly direct PECIT; cleared for the ILS 5L approach." Oops. Now you have to go back and re-load the approach. And that's after you stared blankly at the screen trying to figure out what the hec the controller was talking about. OTOH, if you selected PECIT to begin with and it was a vector to intercept, the absolute most you would have to do would be to tap the unit twice. And you wouldn't really have to do even that. I've seen it happen a number of times, once in this exact scenario, and at other airports as well.

You are, but it is a guidance not a rule. And keep in mind that it's one waypoint in each Center airspace. Depending on where you are. that can be a pretty large area. You can file direct from Grand Rapids, MI (KGRR) to Grand Island, NE (KGRI), a 583 NM direct route and be in full compliance with the advisory. Probably easier to do in the midwest than in the more populated east and west coast areas.

If you go to a site like FlyPlan.com or Fliteaware or one of the EFB apps that shows common ATC cleared routes, you'll see how many of them are either direct or have large direct segments. A lot. The amount is pretty dependent on geography. The AIM has a guidance that one should select at least one named waypoint in each Center airspace. I've found that for the most part this seems to be what most of the cleared routes entail, and when I gen a route amendment, it's typically to add a real waypoint. So I generally file that way (and tune my Nav 2 to VORs)

I think you are correct about the concern about being sanctioned, or at least being called upon to do a lot of paperwork. But I think that's less about ego than it is ignorance. When I do my FAA enforcement seminars, I discuss declaring an emergency as the exact opposite - in many situations it's an effective way to avoid an enforcement action. I've declared emergencies twice; once was in solid IMC in the Rocky Mountains when I lost most of my manifold pressure. The aftermath was terrible - as I mentally flagellated myself for what I perceived as my own part in creating it. OTOH, my telephone interview with a FSDO Inspector was downright enjoyable. But you are also right that we really don;t know what he was thinking or why he made the decisions he did.

I don't think that was the issue. The GPS/LPV approach to Runway 32 at SBY has the same minimums as the ILS, which would have made the GPS option just as realistic as the ILS option. In both cases the weather was above minimums. The pilot told ATC he was having "a problem" with his GPS, when he twice executed the missed well above minimums.There was nothing in the report to indicate whether there was in fact some problem with the GPS or the GS. So we don't really know whether it was a GPS issue, whether, if it was a GPS issue, that an ILS would have worked, or whether it was a pilot proficiency/stress/confidence/missionitis issue. The probable cause is listed only as the pilot's failure to land and to declare a "fuel emergency" sooner. No contributing causes mentioned. A real sad read.

I think one of the other takeaways is something someone else alluded to earlier. VOR with no DME and no GPS can be fine for training for the rating since it forces you to be able to rely on very bare bones navigation. But I think you are going to find that for practical IFR use, you will need more. I flew a set-up like yours for a few years when I lived in Colorado and flew VFR 95+% of the time. One day, for jollies, I decided to see where I could actually go IFR and, in additon to the obvious situational awareness benefit, there were few places that did not require DME (or GPS in substitution). And that was before the FAA started de-commissioning compass locators instead of fixing them, increasing the number of "DME Required" chart notes.

I like that option a lot. It can work. So can HRM's proposed option to file to KEDC. Here's there's thing. There are multiple options for this flight. And as someone else pointed out, the "filed" alternate is a preflight planning requirement not an "in flight" consideration. And what one thinks would be the best "real" alternate might not be the best (or legal) "filed" alternate. So, for another possibly, one can file for KEDC, list KAUS as the alternate, and plan, if the visual is not available into KEDC but the weather is right, to ask for the approach into T34 and plan to land or break it off to go to KEDC. Which of the available planing choices makes the most sense depends on a number of things, some of which may have nothing to do with flying but all of which have to do with the pilot. Is my experience such that I don't want to play "multiple choice" in the phase of flight when the workload tends to be highest? If someone is picking me up, what is convenient for them? If I ultimately need a car or overnight lodging, which airport has the best available services? Those are just examples. The real difference between VFR and IFR flight is that IFR gives us more options. That's the best part of IFR flight but it's also what sometimes makes sorting the choices and selecting the best one more difficult.

Here's the one I mentioned and recently saw a discussion on. http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20121216X70057&key=1 Note the "inadequate assistance provided by FAA ATC personnel, and the inadequate recurrent training of FAA ATC personnel in recognizing and responding to in-flight emergency situations" as a significant contributing factor. The full narrative is long by with a lot of good lessons.

Declare an emergency. It is one after all.

I'm not entirely convinced that filing to the destination even knowing you likely can't get in and making the final decision while en route is any less "prudent" than the three other options I mentioned in another post

A SID that involves expected vectors also needs to tell you what to do in the case of communication failure or other need for non-vector navigation. The MIAMI 3 WINCO Transition SID is vectors to the transition. But if there is a comm failure you need some way to get there with self-navigation. Forget GPS and recall the service volume of VORs. Looking at the en route chart, doesn't DHP to WINCO make a lot of sense for that?

He apparently likes to copy long clearances rather than have a picture of it. A SID and A STAR are shorthand for the convenience of both us and ATC. I never quire understood the hesitation to accept them.

HRM, Not bad but I't toss in a couple of possible modifications: I don't know where you are in your instrument training but, whether you are using an EFB or an app or print them from the Internet or use nice old-fashioned paper approach books, al of the instrument approaches available at an airport are easily accessible by the name or identifier of the airport. It's probably the very easiest part of your preflight planning job to look at them and ascertain whether there are any approaches you can use and what the weather minimums for those approaches (or none at all) are. so you can make decisions. Never rely on ATC to bail you out from poor decisions. Even when declaring an emergency, the very first thing ATC will say in response is "What are your intentions." "Your" intentions, not theirs. I'm not sure if it was mentioned in this thread or elsewhere but there's a good presentation floating around now about a pilot who loses his gyro instruments, attempts an approach, can't maintain directional control, is vectored, enters visual conditions and, with ATC prompting, elects to head back into the soup rather than stay in visual conditions and fly to another airport.

We used to do that during my instrument training 20 years ago. We flew out of a small airport on the edge of BDL's Class C (ARSA then) and, when the weather was low but acceptable, fly the approach into BDL and break it off to go the 10 NM to home.

It only causes confusion if you hide your intentions from ATC. Diversions, changes in plans, checking weather en route and deciding that landing somewhere else is preferable all take place. The key is communicate and coordinate with ATC what you want to do, not spring it on them. I think one has a number of legitimate choices on how to handle the situation and, from a practical standpoint I'm not sure why someone would want file to an airport they are 95% sure they will not be able to land at. But I don't see how calling ATC 30 miles from the destination with "Approach, 1234X. The weather at Podunk looks like we won't be able to get in. Change our destination to Big City." is a huge problem. Or, for that matter, "How far down can you bring us to see if we've got visual?" Are they somehow worse than filing to Big City and then, if the weather looks right, changing the destination to Podunk. Or using the approach into Big City as a way to get down to VFR and then break it off to fly over to Podunk. I don't really see any one of them as being intrinsically better or worse than the other two.

Yes you can. Filing a destination in an IFR flight doesn't depend on whether the destination weather will be VFR or IFR or has an instrument approach or not. You can certainly file it as a destination just like you can file a destination with an instrument approach even if it's forecast to be below minimums for that approach. If you look at 91.169, the only limitations in what you file with regard to airports are a prohibition on filing an alternate that is forecast to be below certain minimums - that's where the language about an instrument without an instrument approach needing to be VFR is contained - with respect to the fplanned alternate, not with respect to the destination. the rule that requires an alternate unless certain conditions apply. Can you point to a rule or official guidance in any FAA publication that prohibits any civil airport from being listed as the destination for any reason? Or were you thinking of the rule about alternates? There are, of course, rules about what you can do once you get there. For example, if you can't go from the minimum IFR altitude to the destination airport that doesn't have an instrument approach VFR, you can't land there. Just like if you file a destination with ILS and VOR minimums but you only have VOR, you can't land there if it's below the VOR mins.

For the FAR, try here. Scroll down to Title 14. Just be aware that this is current only as of January 1, 2014.. For the AIM, you probably already grabbed this since the link was posted earlier.

Most of it doesn't matter, unless is does.

Not "downloadable." "Viewable." Both of the links I gave in that post. (I gave a link to a downloadable PDF of the AIM in a later post). What we call the FAR is Chapter I of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Clicking the link I gave should bring you there.

Consider the value of a 3-year old publication that is probably 4 years out of date. That's a minimum of 6 AIM revisions and who knows how many regulatory ones. Including a change just a month ago. Consider: if you have a "2015 FAR/AIM" in printed form, it is already out of date. The most current downloadable PDF version is from the FAA. The link to is is here: https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/

Love it. I have the same "problem." She fell asleep on her first flight with me and has been dozing off ever since. When she's not reading as though she were a passenger in 22F

Mine once bought me three introductory lessons, a logbook and the FAA Airplane Flying Handbook for my birthday so I could finally get it out of my system. That was 24 years ago. She was eventually my first passenger and has flown as my best passenger ever since.