Ibra

Yes, the missed has to be requested by PIC or instructed by ATC, it’s not implied in visual clearance….isn’t this applicable to flying pattern in ATC airport? you are not automatically cleared to join pattern from visual unless you explicitly request it? In untowred airport, I guess there is one easy answer: visual, pattern, land For ATC airport, it’s not clear, no pun intended, what the clearance limit (fix and/or altitude restriction) for a visual approach if one can’t land: - Runway threshold? is used by tower for visual separation, is further ATC clearance required to go past runway threshold? - Visual pattern? it make sense as an accepted limit (weather should be ok), does one need further ATC clearance to enter downwind? - Clearance limit = radar/procedure altitude? ceiling > 500ft than MIA or MVA, hence, one can always self-separate and self-navigate visually under these, can one climb back to FAF altitude? In busy airports, ATC seems to issue vector and they may even send one to the departure frequency (aka back of the queue rather than N#1 in pattern) It’s a hypothetical question: one will always get an amended clearance from tower following go-around on visual (in meantime, ATC therapists make tons of money )

I think in most Mooney like pistons, the instrument procedures: LPV, L/VNAV (and LNAV+V) systematically get their glide from SBAS signal, the Garmin navigator is not aware of QNH or baro inputs when you fly 3D RNP APCH I only come across two exceptions that has BARO navigation like the one in jets: PA46 (2000 model) and SR22 G5 that could do BARO L/VNAV procedure (even when you disable SBAS), nothing gets flagged if you set wrong QNH ! Note that barometric altitude gets used in en-route VNAV glides such as cruise climb or cruise decent, it will use barometric input (in VPATH mode, you bug target barometric altitude to change level, then Garmin calculate TOD or glide using barometric data), the 3D VNAC magenta builds slope using barometric delta and track miles, if you rotate the QNH on cruise vertical navigation, your glide change...

Indeed, there is that risk of losing legal flexibility if people seek clarification

This was similar serious incident using BARO L/VNAV, the crew actually say the ground as wheels were 6ft from it, I am sure one need new trousers after such sight ! https://bea.aero/fileadmin/user_upload/BEA2022-0219_9H-EMU_preliminary_report_for_publication_EN_finalise.pdf The various glitches from “BARO VNAV” are not a concern on LPV or L/VNAV using “3D GPS” like G530W with WAAS input in most piston GA, if one sets wrong QNH they may misjudge DA or DDA, however, their glide path remains the same: aircraft wheels will be on same touchdown point of the runway, which is the goal at the end of the day? For terrain awareness, it’s better to have something like “AGL in ForeFlight” or using panel GPS with no flight plan? I had one terrain warning from iPad while altimeter showed sensible reading, it scared the hell out of me, went on the missed climb to get my act together and double check, it turns out to be a spurious one maybe with intermittent gps signal…

I think the lack of missed procedure for visual approach makes things open to interpretation, however, I am sure all 4 options: landing, flying visual pattern, flying instrument missed, or flying instrument departure should be available following visual approach (the 4 cases require tower clearance) I would hope the tower does not treat visual pattern following visual approach as request for flying VFR pattern or VFR overhead approach? where IFR clearance gets terminated past some fix, altitude or runway threshold

Looking at 337, it does two functions in block 8 and block 3, - If one uses data in box 8 that are already approved by FAA via STC, then FAA stamping box 3 is pretty much useless? - If one uses field approval sign-off in box 8 for unapproved data after major alteration, then FAA has to countersign in box 3 I think the chain of approval is the only distinction between 337 major alteration and stc alteration, the choice of the form is irrelevant… Also, shortcuts like “STC => major => 337” are not helpful when it comes to (standard) changes that are are done by STC across all designs (LED lights, Rosen visors, G5 replacement of AI): the FAA does not have “standard change” category to would deal with this intersection, so most mechanics and inspectors will fill 337 instead of splitting hairs, the pilots also like to have reassurance for future sale or pre-buy and ask to send 337 just in case What about aircraft re-painting? it needs fresh weight & balance with control surface rebalance and has some gotcha, it’s pretty standard across all designs, so what is the certification path and rational for such work? Maybe one should compile the list of “universal STC” that don’t need to follow 337 (adds nothing other than red-tape), then agree with FAA to publish that list? there won’t be much debate between pilots, IA/AP or FSDO on this…

I would not be surprised that Lufthansa policy prohibits it, the operator policy tend to be inline with the rules of the state, in Germany, visual approach are not allowed in major airports for large jet aircraft (something to do with noise regulations and requirement for anything above 15T to be on an instrument procedure path or in controlled airspace or pattern), however, * visual separation is used in good weather conditions and allow ATC to relax separation * "Shorty ILS" is also used to expedite in good weather, you get vectored to 6nm (sometimes even near MVA under FAF altitude) in good weather, if you are planning on using GPS for missed everything will gets scrambled, however, they pick you on radar vector quickly (in France, and US, one will not get vector heading to after FAF and rarely under it's altitude) The point on missed being missing on VA is interesting, I gather requesting to fly pattern as missed is an option? assuming tower ATC approves it (my impression, FAA rules allow one to make visual approach followed by missed along the pattern, all under IFR while clear of clouds of course)

For ILS & LPV, the geometric glidepath is designed to clear any stepdown SDF altitude after FAF from LOC & LNAV under ISA, hence, this only works when temperature is ISA or bellow ISA In extreme hot days, the official glidepath of ILS & LPV may go into stepdown fix altitudes at or after FAF, however, there is no high temperature restriction: you can always fly 3D official glide even if penetrate SFD MDA from 2D NPA procedure (ILS GP and LPV GP won't penetrate anything solid like ground or obstacle, it retain the same geometric shape and won't move at all all year around, it's stepdown fix altitudes that move up on hot day, as such, a regid glidepath may go into raising hot air mass) On vectoring, ATC take care of altitude assignement, they may even have a separate chart for cold vs hot days and will vector you to FAP on higher altitudes than the one published for FAF On procedures, you are expected to adjust altitude of intermediate segment and mda due to temperature, however, only for cold days L/VNAV with BARO glide is completely different, it even does the opposite: the glide go into terraiinand obstacles (origin and angle) with wrong QNH or in low temperatures, hence, they are restricted L/VNAV on SBAS glide behave like SBAS for the glide (lateral guidance or design may differ) +V advisory glide from Garmin SBAS will also clear every SDF altitude after FAF at ISA and remain static over time in an identical fashion to LPV GP (however, this is a moot point as +V is only advisory while SDF altitudes are official when flying an LNAV procedure on CDFA) There are advisory glides and vnav that rely on BARO input, however, they are irrelevant for single piston GA pilots? most of us use SBAS input in vertical navigation... If you lose GP on ILS during a hot day, can you fly LOC minima? It's a compliance question: I don't think one will hit anything being dead on ILS glide while being bellow LOC fix altitude at FAF

Yes true, however, for all practical purposes the LOC guidance on Cat1 ILS gets toasted after passing threshold, touchdown or GP antenna (only Cat3 ILS have smooth signal that can be used for guidance all the way) In LPV, it's different, the lateral signal switch between angular & lateral along the runway and past in smooth fashion, there are no glitches or singularities, the glideslope dies as it hit the ground I think it's worth trying low pass on the lateral signal of ILS & LPV over the runway? handflying it with flight director ON (or autopilot, maybe at circling height not at 50ft)

Visual Approach is only available after FAF, the discussion is mainly about airport vicinity where MDA is relevant, +V is only showed for conventional overlay 2nm before FAF (or 3nm at V3NM point in visual approach, at least in Garmin under default setting) The + V guidance won't appear if one is flying airways at nights, let’s say between peaks on 15DME arc inside a valley before turning into some NDB radial on final segment...even in that case, I still think it's healthy to load GPS procedures when doing raw data or getting vectors in mountains at night, I would even add Synthetic-Vision to the screen At the end of the day, it's an extra tool (or toy) that one can use for own consumption !

Shield up as well, we may need TERPS and ICAO experts For the design, LPV and ILS will have a safe geometric glide path in space with obstacle clearance down to DH and the line in space will not penetrate any surface under DH as you have 1:34 surface... For actual signal and visual guides, you are in the 50 shades of grey, * CAT2/3 ILS will be on instrument runway, the quality of signal and protection areas is whole topic on it's own * ILS is usually on precision runway (*), the signal has to be good between 200ft-100ft, you can actually decend on it: it's not good for auto-pilot coupled and you need to see the ground and runway environment, however, you need to see touchdown to go under 100ft * LPV is whole thing on it's own (you don't even need an instrument runway: no approach lights, no papi, no vasi...) to get 200ft DH, GP signal is always good down to GIPP (it becomes one sided and very sensitive above threshold crossing height), still need to see his touchdown from DH (*) There are ILS to non-precision runways or even ILS to non-instrument runways in France & Switzerland, I am not sure the US has any? we better let this dog sleep... ILS: unless it's Cat2/3, visuals have to be obtained at DH and the signal is not guaranteed to be smooth under 200ft-100ft, the lateral guidance goes away passing antennas (actually, in ILS Cat1 glide signal gets bent by surface reflection under 100ft, one pay load of benjies to straighten it up) LPV: lateral guidance stays in on runway centerline until other side of the runway, it's smooth like silk, the glide signal disappears at GPIP and LPV remains until other runway end: of course, you still need to know what is ahead under DH (LPV autoland is only reserved for those with SmartGlide button, assuming no one is parked on runway ) LNAV lateral guidance depends on equipment the widths on WAAS GPS (angular) and non-WAAS (lateral) are different +V advisory guidance on Visual Approch in Garmin (Avydine?) is made on the fly using 50ft threshold crossing, 3deg and FAF (V3NM) at 3nm On LPV at night, at DH if one sees the runway = continue, then one keep flying GP while looking outside? likely, the only choice one have when ALS or PAPI are not installed...

Of course, but I am sure one is allowed to use +V while above MDAs? it's better than stopwatch on NDB Even flying cruise at MDAs bellow +V using Dive-and-Drive techniques is considered safe for non-precision (well according to Rod Machdo), I think what is not good is going bellow MDA (on +V or luck) without good visual on runway & obstacles… On GTN NXI, +V is available for GPS overlay of conventional non-precision procedures (NDB, LOC, VOR...), it's even better than using Visual Approach: one has offsets as well as missed procedures coded, all one has to do is to load from GPS then tune and monitor raw data... ILS & LPV are always better as the glide is certified to be safe, including the portion under DH For night VFR operations, +V comes handy when airport does not have an instrument runway with approach lights, vasi, papi... For IFR visual approach, I think loading LNAV+V on GTN is super nice feature that could solve many issues highlighted in article above

I recall it did some sanity checks against obstacles in database as well? it won’t show +V if it penetrate terrain or obstacles with some margin, however, this does not work if database is not accurate or not up to date (most of pilots only pick nav data) and also +V is only advisory as it’s not signed-off and certified as safe Yet testing of +V in good conditions is enough for me to get comfortable with using it to go back at night while looking ahead (unless they install a net with no lights to catch late aircraft on their short final) It’s a super nice tool, I used to operate at 1800ft strip in UK where night lights consisted of two bulbs on runway edges, GTN visual approach made it easier, it’s pity that one can’t change glide to steeper values > 3deg, like 5deg? I missed it with an OBS on G430W in my aircraft now, it’s on the plan for my next upgrade The tool is similar to 3D guidance that some airliners have in their FMS, which generate “synthetic ILS signal” to every runway in database, some operators have the ability to use it for advisory 3D guidance while monitoring official raw data (e.g. ADF & MDA on funky NDB procedures that are not in GPS database) I was guilty of doing the same with GTN in Scotland Isles, they don’t have GPS procedures and they fly NDB procedures the twin otter commuters who run regular flights there, will hand-fly an ADF with 25kts crosswind where the cockpit looks like this, no GPS at all…

I would expect GA traffic to find VFR & SVFR joins and approaches more challenging than visual IFR when ceiling is higher than radar and visibility is high to see airports? I guess contact IFR approach would be similar to VFR & SVFR in terms of challenges Most of challenges (wrong airport, wrong runway, lack of clearance…) highlighted in IFR visual approach feedbacks highlight large difficulties to operate under VFR or SVFR as well, especially, as the majority of airliners tend to operate IFR on procedures or vectors all time, who then get caught when operating IFR visual (maybe the case for few GA pilots who don’t fly VFR or SVFR at all) This reminds me of night VFR operations in small uncontrolled GA airports with no IFR procedures and minimal lights, if one is used to flying night under IFR on ILS or LPV to big ATC with high intensity approach & runway lights, they will get surprised when making straight-in or night pattern with minimal lights, these require different mindset…

What is the difference between IFR visual approach and VFR/SVFR approach in similar daylight conditions? Putting aside night as it’s very special

Also portable units, like Sentry, seems to have multi-frequency and multi-constellations with their own level of robustness and position tolerances as well different orientation of the antenna (aircraft have two external antenna toward ground and toward sky while portable antenna is shielded from some sides), an example here vs Garmin glass panel going into “dead reckon” while ForeFlight show 9m accuracy, ADSB-OUT from GPS -> Transponder did fail, even on RNAV5/ENR leg,

iPad mini seems to have multi-constellations, Samsung phone seems to have more as well, iPad Pro seems limited but it does relax tolerances and may use cellular Samsung S8 tablet process almost every GNSS & SBAS sats out there (even Glonass, LUCH, BDS…), however, ForeFlight does not run on it, so back to iPad…

I had the impression the US will keep it’s core VOR network with good radar coverage as conventional backup for GNSS loss, this seems to be growing rather than shrinking In Europe, it’s pretty much toasted for light GA as 1/ the plan by 2030 for most countries is to keep “big DME network” and “some VOR” and 2/ rely on radar which covers mostly big airports at low level and +FL195 Down here, without VOR, there are no serious backup alternatives for to GPS (other than flying toward VMC or flying high into radar, this means staying above FL195 in many places), there are no DME/DME RNAV avionics for GA? although, if it’s like and death one can calculate arcs himself In the other hand, starlink STC are coming to the cockpit, imagine looking online for your registration in FR24 and you navigate using your position? (still need triangulation from Radar or TCAS returns against your ModeS), or better let ATC remotely fly your aircraft while en-route, online In the meantime, Trent Palmer got his certificate back

I don’t think it matters that much in Mooney (other than inconvenient noise if you have very sensitive ears), it’s like “positive rate of climb gear up” callout in Mooney, it always made me laugh as it’s easy to know when wheels have left ground in small pistons? especially, if you already flew old aircraft that were certified without VSI indicators “Positive rate of climb, gear up” make sense in aircraft where at rotation you already climbed 100ft agl from pilot cockpit while aircraft wheels are still on ground, in other words, you don’t know if you are flying above the ground or not without looking at VSI > 0

Sorry, yes I was referring to TIS-A but you answered my question, it does not have registration under ModeA/C (without ModeS), so ATC are still in the loop to identify the aircraft, especially, if everyone are using same transponder codes (we have situations where everyone IFR is under 2000 or 1000 squawks if they are using ModeS) If TIS-A has systematic aircraft identification (ModeC = known squawk or with ModeS), then it would be enough for own navigation RNAV1 or RNAV2 with onboard equipment while in radar environment (even RNP1 or RNP2 if more radars are used in integrity testing), it would be like using position from ATC radar screen, except one can navigate an airway or direct without ATC assigned headings For GPS jamming, yes it would affect TIS-B broadcasts from aircraft and I imagine ADSB-out is dead…is ADSB used for identification or vectoring? that would be an interesting case of contingency (no GPS, no ADSB) by controllers to manage tight airspace In France, we only allow idents and vectors using primary return (plus ATC instructions), mode S or assigned ATC code (except in Corsica, where they started one pilot experiment with ADSB due to surrounding terrain near Ajaccio airport) For GPS degradation, it would interesting to see it GPS failure to achieve required navigation (LOI) does affect ADSB-out signal…I recall losing LNAV on procedure while my iPad kept working, I assume ADSB-out was working as well as it does not care if I was loading a flight plan in GPS? or if I am flying LPV, or TERM, or ENR mode?

There is an AIC in France where they removed load of VOR, DME, NDB...I was discussing with an ATC on GPS loss procedures (in addition to plans for weight loss in 2024 ), then ADSB come up into the talks... https://www.sia.aviation-civile.gouv.fr/media/store/documents/file/l/f/lf_circ_2024_a_001_fr.pdf In case of GNSS total loss, ADSB-OUT is dead, does TIS-B fill the gap? also, Can one still get own ModeS transponder echo and position from TIS-B using ADSB-IN? Given that position comes from ATC radar feeds wouldn’t that be enough for own en-route navigation instead of ATC heading? or reverting to VOR/DME (if any are left)? There are no plans of TIS-B or ADSB in France yet, maybe in 2030?

Why do you need OAT on PFD? it does not vary that much with distance and altitude and you can read it from elsewhere if you have analog transponder, analogue gauge... Unless you are looking to avoid icing with +/-1C accuracy (you still need to look at the wings in case instrument are not accurate and in Mooney true speeds TAT will be higher)

There are so many G430, G430W, G530, G530W around that I would not worry what Garmin thinks or does with support as long as they keep database updates Then, plenty are coming into the market with GTN and NXI upgrades, so lot of spares around…I am more worried about my home TV repair support, there is a new model every week

Sounds like error in internal flash memory of chip (stm, str) than the memory of the external data card (sdcard, sandisk), you want to bet? To OP, have you looked that this website? there are stuff related to updating KLN GPS if you are keen https://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/index.html

Come on who does not like "Read back correct" and pax in RHS saying "Wow, Blimey" "Cleared as filed," "pls, remind me what I have filed" We rarely get "cleared as filed" in Europe from small airports at piston GA altitudes, when I get it, I become suspicious that ask to clarify at least my initial departure portion, sometimes there is a surprise ! The funny part is the naming convention for SID in Garmin versus naming in the Jeppsen or sate plates, so ATC tend to spell and split the whole departure instruction for you, they are just as inefficient as well... Maybe one day Garmin would recognise ATC voice in COM input and plot it as NAV output for me? In the meantime with G430W, I just ask and if I am not sure, I get clarifications: it's nice to talk to someone (other than therapist) and repeat what he says