Training required to perform GPS approaches

[Awqward]

Over here in Europe there is a discussion on private PPL/IR forum as to the training requirements that should be mandated before one should be allowed to fly a GPS approach...I don't believe there is any FAA mandated training or endorsement required...however that doesn't fitvwell with the European mentality of "if you need some training / instruction then it should be mandated by regulation".... What if any training have people in the US undertaken?

[Marauder]

Over here in Europe there is a discussion on private PPL/IR forum as to the training requirements that should be mandated before one should be allowed to fly a GPS approach...I don't believe there is any FAA mandated training or endorsement required...however that doesn't fitvwell with the European mentality of "if you need some training / instruction then it should be mandated by regulation".... What if any training have people in the US undertaken?

There is no FAA required or mandated training to fly a GPS approach if you are already instrument rated. I will say however, that it took me a bit to migrate from steam to glass including my first GPS approach.

The hardware installation took a bit of time and I decided to do an IPC with the new hardware. What it became was a couple of flight lessons to get comfortable with all of the switchology that comes with flying GPS approaches. I don't like the idea of it being mandated, but there are probably a few out there who think the jump from VOR/ILS approaches to a GPS is straightforward.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Hank]

GPS approaches were covered in my Instrument training, and my IPCs. You can also do them on your Flight Review if you want. No special training required, just have the appropriate equipment and current database. I have steam gauges and Garmin 430W, mo transition training required.

[MooneyBob]

GTN750 simulator. I am not saying it is right or wrong but coincidentally my first ever GPS approach was in IMC with 700' ceiling and it went pretty smooth. However, I spent many hours reading the manual and touching buttons on the simulator. Generaly the GPS approaches are designed to be easier to fly and I don't think you need special training for this. Equipment is different story.

[Danb]

As Chris mentioned the useful knowlegde of your system is paramount in flying the airplane neatly in instrument conditions, I had three days of training in my Bravo mostly on the G1000 system which is irrevelent since all types of complicated systems now exist, I had in excess of 2000 Mooney hours prior to my Bravo training..still uncomfortable I spent 3 more days with Doug C for 1000 training prior to venturing back intstrument conditions...Bob mentioned the simulators which are great, when I got one of the first 1000 units they basically did not exist...this long winded string is just meant that learning the system is extremely important to learn in nice clear sky's or in a simulator . Bob and Chris hit a home run in their approach to Taa

[ArtVandelay]

There are special GPS NOTAMs which you have to ask for if calling for a briefing, and RAIM prediction. Other than that I think everything else similar to other approaches

[Awqward]

Yes...this highlights the fundamental difference in mentality between Europe and the US....Obviously you need to understand your system ...and if you need help from a CFI get the help...but I amazed by the comments in this European forum where all seem to agree training and an endorsement should be mandated by regulation...one of the issues is that there are not that many GPS (LNAV) approaches here yet....and even fewer LPV approaches (none in the UK)...

[flyboy0681]

I prefer GPS approaches to ILS because they are so structured. Everything is laid out on the plate in simple form and it's essentially connect-the-dots flying.

[rbridges]

I prefer GPS approaches to ILS because they are so structured. Everything is laid out on the plate in simple form and it's essentially connect-the-dots flying.

 

I've only done a few, but they seem very simple.  And the WAAS is very similar to flying an ILS.

[Hank]

Yes...this highlights the fundamental difference in mentality between Europe and the US....Obviously you need to understand your system ...and if you need help from a CFI get the help....

U.S.--Everything not specifically prohibited is allowed.

EU--everything not specifically allowed is prohibited.

Know your equipment. Know the procedure. Fly your clearance. Easier and more accurate than an ILS, but by definition it is non-precision. (?) It's not difficult if you are proficient with the GPS.

[flyboy0681]

EU--everything not specifically allowed is prohibited.

 

 

I'd be interested in knowing the background of this mentality. Is it due to so many countries being in such close proximity to each other and conflicts they have had in their past histories? 

[Guillaume]

Yes...this highlights the fundamental difference in mentality between Europe and the US....Obviously you need to understand your system ...and if you need help from a CFI get the help...but I amazed by the comments in this European forum where all seem to agree training and an endorsement should be mandated by regulation...one of the issues is that there are not that many GPS (LNAV) approaches here yet....and even fewer LPV approaches (none in the UK)...

Check this : http://egnos-user-support.essp-sas.eu/egnos_ops/lpv_map/map.php

There is many LPV approaches in France / Germany

[Awqward]

Thanks Guillaume...my statement is still correct.

[Awqward]

I'd be interested in knowing the background of this mentality. Is it due to so many countries being in such close proximity to each other and conflicts they have had in their past histories?

It makes more work for bureaucrats....and there are no shortage if these in a socialist society...

[midlifeflyer]

Yes...this highlights the fundamental difference in mentality between Europe and the US....Obviously you need to understand your system ...and if you need help from a CFI get the help...but I amazed by the comments in this European forum where all seem to agree training and an endorsement should be mandated by regulation...one of the issues is that there are not that many GPS (LNAV) approaches here yet....and even fewer LPV approaches (none in the UK)...

 

I think it's just a different regulatory mentality, more cultural/historical than anything else. The same question came up here - not the FAA proposing to mandate training, but pilots, apparently concerned about their own ability to adapt, assumed everyone should be required to have the same degree of help. Their comments probably were similar to those you are hearing on the European forums.

 

As a number of folks said, while the US doesn't mandate specialized training, with the exception of a few who have been able to self-teach themselves, most have gotten involved in some level of training. And in some cases, insurance and FBO rental folks have required training the FAA hasn't.

 

There are numerous books and training videos on the subject, with stuff directly from the manufacturers and third parties. And Garmin, for one, even has it's own proposed syllabus.

[midlifeflyer]

I'd be interested in knowing the background of this mentality. Is it due to so many countries being in such close proximity to each other and conflicts they have had in their past histories? 

 

I think both. US history pretty much starts with a rejection of the European model of governments with absolute power. A centuries-old cultural history of monarchs and other non-democratically-chosen tribal rulers is something very difficult to break away from. And it probably made sense with nation-states extending ancient inter-tribal war customs. Even here, there have been times Americans welcomed or at least condoned despotic activities by our own government. A strong belief that strong, central governments with large amounts of power can be very comforting to some from a safety and security standpoint.

[sreid]

U.S.--Everything not specifically prohibited is allowed.

EU--everything not specifically allowed is prohibited.

Know your equipment. Know the procedure. Fly your clearance. Easier and more accurate than an ILS, but by definition it is non-precision. (?) It's not difficult if you are proficient with the GPS.

 

A joke I heard:

How do you spot the American in England? He is the one crossing the street against the don't walk sign, because there isn't a car in sight.

[flyboy0681]

A joke I heard:

How do you spot the American in England? He is the one crossing the street against the don't walk sign, because there isn't a car in sight.

 

Why did the siamese twins, err, conjoined twins go to England?

 

So the other one could drive.

[Hank]

I'd be interested in knowing the background of this mentality. Is it due to so many countries being in such close proximity to each other and conflicts they have had in their past histories?

It's the mindset that the government controls everything, dating to Ancient Greece and before. The king was god, everyone obeyed the king; those who displeased the king were executed.

America was largely settled by independent spirits, and they created a culture of independence. Every man for himself, the government just keeps the peace and tries to keep some from going to far. Unfortunately this is changing rather quickly into government supporting and protecting each person from their own mistakes.

Without the freedom to fail, the incentive to succeed is reduced. Our tort system has turned stupid mistakes into a lottery against manufacturers and insurers.

[ryoder]

God Bless America.

[Hank]

God Bless America.

Sorry, I can only like this once.

[cliffy]

When the 757 came out it was called "the widow maker" by many as it was a giant leap from 727s to the first glass cockpit. It took a lot of training, some never made it.

If one learns from the beginning in a glass airplane the transition to WAAS approaches is a snap. Those of us who came from black and white dials and NDBs need more training.

Mandated training for glass? I could go either way on that one although I think it is more of a buttonolgy issue for each installation and its idiosyncrasies.

I do however like LPVs much more than ILSs.

[Bob - S50]

When the 757 came out it was called "the widow maker" by many as it was a giant leap from 727s to the first glass cockpit. It took a lot of training, some never made it.

If one learns from the beginning in a glass airplane the transition to WAAS approaches is a snap. Those of us who came from black and white dials and NDBs need more training.

Mandated training for glass? I could go either way on that one although I think it is more of a buttonolgy issue for each installation and its idiosyncrasies.

I do however like LPVs much more than ILSs.

 

I have 20 years in the Diesel Nine (DC9) and about 5 in the 757/767.  I did not consider the 757 to be glass.  That's one of the things I liked about it.  It used glass to display steam gauges.  The hardest part was learning the FMS.  What's it doing now?  Is it doing what I asked it to?  How do I get it to....

 

I never flew a GPS approach until we put one in the Mooney and find them no more difficult than any other approach.  The main thing is as  MooneyBob said, know how to use the box.  I spent probably a couple hundred hours playing with the simulator before I ever flew the airplane with it (hey what else am I going to do on a 16 hour layover in a hotel)?  I'm still learning tricks for the box.  Here's my latest:

 

1.  Have a plan.  Know what the winds are, what approaches are likely, and what approach I want to fly; both at my destination and my alternate.  If they don't give it to me and they are using the runway I planned, ask for what I want.

2.  Load the route of flight.

3.  Load the approach but obviously do not activate.

4.  Scroll to the bottom of the list after the missed approach procedure.  Add the transition fix of the approach I want at my alternate if I have to go missed and plan to divert.  Then add my alternate airport.  You can do this with the GTN650/750 but don't know if you can do this with the 430/530.

5.  To activate the approach, activate a leg of the approach, not by using the 'activate approach' button.  This keeps the alternate airport and transition fix in the flight plan.

6.  If I have to divert, I already know what I want to do so when they say, "state your intentions" I can tell them I want to go direct to XXXXX for the XXX approach to XXX.  When they say cleared direct I can hit D-->, select it from the flight plan, and get going the right direction.  I can then select my alternate from the flight plan and load and activate the approach.

 

As we used to say in Training Command, technique only, not procedure.

 

Bob

[MooneyBob]

I have 20 years in the Diesel Nine (DC9) and about 5 in the 757/767.  I did not consider the 757 to be glass.  That's one of the things I liked about it.  It used glass to display steam gauges.  The hardest part was learning the FMS.  What's it doing now?  Is it doing what I asked it to?  How do I get it to....

 

I never flew a GPS approach until we put one in the Mooney and find them no more difficult than any other approach.  The main thing is as  MooneyBob said, know how to use the box.  I spent probably a couple hundred hours playing with the simulator before I ever flew the airplane with it (hey what else am I going to do on a 16 hour layover in a hotel)?  I'm still learning tricks for the box.  Here's my latest:

 

1.  Have a plan.  Know what the winds are, what approaches are likely, and what approach I want to fly; both at my destination and my alternate.  If they don't give it to me and they are using the runway I planned, ask for what I want.

2.  Load the route of flight.

3.  Load the approach but obviously do not activate.

4.  Scroll to the bottom of the list after the missed approach procedure.  Add the transition fix of the approach I want at my alternate if I have to go missed and plan to divert.  Then add my alternate airport.  You can do this with the GTN650/750 but don't know if you can do this with the 430/530.

5.  To activate the approach, activate a leg of the approach, not by using the 'activate approach' button.  This keeps the alternate airport and transition fix in the flight plan.

6.  If I have to divert, I already know what I want to do so when they say, "state your intentions" I can tell them I want to go direct to XXXXX for the XXX approach to XXX.  When they say cleared direct I can hit D-->, select it from the flight plan, and get going the right direction.  I can then select my alternate from the flight plan and load and activate the approach.

 

As we used to say in Training Command, technique only, not procedure.

 

Bob

Nice. Sophisticated enough to be simple.

[Tommy]

Different mentality. Regulation vs Freedom

It boils down to "okay we believe that you won't do anything that can kill yourself or others"

With European approach, we like you to prove that to us.

With American approach, we trust you and hopefully you will not prove us wrong.