Need assistance with Ifr Garmin database question

[glenn reynolds]

I fly with a Garmin 530w a Garmin g650 and ForeFlight. I just flew the approach into Kgpi and had difficulties. Here is what happened:  Due to winds they are landing runway 20. Some of the planes ahead of me are taking the ils for 02 and circling to land however it is Ifr and night and I would prefer to not circle to land. I select the rnav 20 approach as does the aircraft ahead of me. Approach control vectors me to fikab (Iaf) and clears me for the approach. ForeFlight loads the plate but the approach is NOT listed on the Garmin 530w list of approaches. I fly the approach using ForeFlight break out and land. However on further review I note the plate has authorization required on the bottom. I’m assuming that my approach clearance is not what the plate is talking about. I’m also guessing that maybe the Garmin database doesn’t load these approaches?  In Canada, restricted approach plates have a hazard marking border to alert you that you must have an Canada approval to use the approach. Revelstoke has one as does Victoria. Is anyone familiar with the rnav 20 approach at kgpi?  

[carusoam]

Let’s see if we can get the Rnav20 at KGPI up... glacier national park...

First thing I notice.... is my subscription needs to be updated...   

Next up...

Take a look at how the approaches are titled...

There are different types of Rnav approaches, the GPS ones have become specific to GPS lately... there is an explanation around here recently... like last week...

Rnav 20 is not a gps approach... it is labeled RNP...

rnav 02 has a GPS ‘overlay’... it has an RNP approach as well...

if it isn’t a gps approach, Garmin seems to have left it out of the gps database...

Do these look familiar?

PP thoughts only, not a CFII...

Best regards,

-a-

[ilovecornfields]

The RNAV 20 approach is an AR RNP approach. The 530W does not have this in the database because you are NOT authorized to fly this approach using that equipment.

I’m glad you made it down safely. Now file a NASA form, call your CFII to review this stuff and delete this thread. (Not trying to be bossy, but that’s what I would do in your situation).

 

Edited December 22, 2019 by ilovecornfields

[midlifeflyer]

5 hours ago, ilovecornfields said:

The RNAV 20 approach is an AR RNP approach. The 530W does not have this in the database because you are NOT authorized to fly this approach using that equipment.

It also might be an approach where the equipment is capable but the operator isn't authorized. That's the "AUTHORIZATION REQUIRED" on this chart. I think the 650 actually has the ability to fly RNP approach legs, although even in the few without full "AR" there are additional requirements.

Besides, as the AIM puts it...

All approach procedures to be flown must be retrievable from the current airborne navigation database supplied by the equipment manufacturer or other FAA-approved source. The system must be able to retrieve the procedure by name from the aircraft navigation database, not just as a manually entered series of waypoints. Manual entry of waypoints using latitude/longitude or place/bearing is not permitted for approach procedures.

Edited December 22, 2019 by midlifeflyer

[carusoam]

Quick note...

This technical occurrence has happened a couple of times... around MS.

it is a really good idea to get the word out and circulated...

Please do not delete this thread...(yet)

Without at least creating a new one with the names removed to protect the innocents...

 

Something is mis-guiding good MSers via a change in how approaches are now categorized...(?)

Lets learn from the small mistakes that have occurred Already, before erasing them as if they haven’t happened...

Accidentally setting up a booby trap for the next person...

 

It looks like some pilots have done their pre-flight flight planning using an app like FA, or WingX, and finding out later the approach they have selected is not available to their equipment...

Finding out minutes before the IAF is a bit late to become confused about equipment that has been in the plane for years...

I applaud @glenn reynolds for bringing this to our attention...

This could actually save somebody’s life... I think...

Anyone know how to explain the differences between the RNP vs. the GPS approaches? What to look for when?

Is this something we should raise to a higher level like AOPA? WingX, and foreflight? This seems like a trap for many pilots across the board... a simple human error in the making... let’s get the error shut down..?

PP thoughts only, not a CFII...

Best regards,

-a-

[ArtVandelay]

What was the ceiling? 02 only requires a side step into a left downwind and then it’s VFR assuming you can stay below the ceiling.


Tom

[Bob - S50]

3 hours ago, midlifeflyer said:

It also might be an approach where the equipment is capable but the operator isn't authorized. That's the "AUTHORIZATION REQUIRED" on this chart. I think the 650 actually has the ability to fly RNP approach legs, although even in the few without full "AR" there are additional requirements.

Besides, as the AIM puts it...

All approach procedures to be flown must be retrievable from the current airborne navigation database supplied by the equipment manufacturer or other FAA-approved source. The system must be able to retrieve the procedure by name from the aircraft navigation database, not just as a manually entered series of waypoints. Manual entry of waypoints using latitude/longitude or place/bearing is not permitted for approach procedures.

First:  Agree that the reason the approach was not in the database was because it was an RNP approach.

Second:  The OP's options for GPI were the ILS 20, RNAV (GPS) RWY 30, or RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 02; all of which would require circling if he wanted to land on 20.

Third:  I do NOT think the GTN650 is legally capable of flying an RNP approach for the following reasons from the AFMS:

"The GTN includes 3 out of 6 of the features required for operations in airspace requiring Advance RNP based on the ICAO document 9613 Performance Based
Navigation (PBN) Manual, fourth edition, 2013 and is therefore not approved for Advanced RNP operations."

Right after that statement it lists the capabilities required for AR RNP and says it is capable of RF legs, parallel offsets, and RNAV holding; but it is not capable of scalable RNP, fixed radius transitions, or time of arrival control.

Glad he survived.

[carusoam]

Great details Bob! (I ran out likes already this morning...)

@mooneygirl I think I may have found an important AOPA story you might help get across to people that can put it in print in front of a wider audience...

Something has gone slightly awry regarding private pilots and the latest technology...

Best regards,

-a-

[midlifeflyer]

5 hours ago, carusoam said:

Anyone know how to explain the differences between the RNP vs. the GPS approaches? What to look for when?

Is this something we should raise to a higher level like AOPA? WingX, and foreflight? This seems like a trap for many pilots across the board... a simple human error in the making... let’s get the error shut down..?

PP thoughts only, not a CFII...

Best regards,

-a-

What to look for?

 

Generally speaking, the difference is threefold. The current group of US approaches with RNP in the title:

(1) are all RNP-AR. the  'AUTHORIZATION REQUIRED'  is indicated on the chart indicated on the chart. That doesn't mean ATC has cleared for the approach. It means that all the other requirements, including pilot  training and additional needed equipment, have been met and the FAA has specifically authorized the use of the approach.   

(2) Generally have a tighter performance requirement. Out GPS approaches are generally 0.3, meaning within only a 0.3 NM error. The RNP approaches require RNP 0.1.

(3) One of the additional equipment requirements is a system which has the ability self-monitor andtell the pilot whether the operational requirement is, or is not, being met during an operation.

#1 is my bottom line on the confusion. In the pre-GPS days I flew airplanes with VLOC and ADF, but no DME. Before a trip I would look at the charts for my destination to make sure there were approaches which were not "DME Required."  I just thought of it as a normal part of the requirement to have "all available information." If I had a diversion enroute, reading the chart would also be part of the selection process. 

Do you have any suggestions on what should be done short of pilot training?

 

Edited December 22, 2019 by midlifeflyer

[midlifeflyer]

23 minutes ago, Bob - S50 said:

First:  Agree that the reason the approach was not in the database was because it was an RNP approach.

Second:  The OP's options for GPI were the ILS 20, RNAV (GPS) RWY 30, or RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 02; all of which would require circling if he wanted to land on 20.

Third:  I do NOT think the GTN650 is legally capable of flying an RNP approach for the following reasons from the AFMS:

"The GTN includes 3 out of 6 of the features required for operations in airspace requiring Advance RNP based on the ICAO document 9613 Performance Based
Navigation (PBN) Manual, fourth edition, 2013 and is therefore not approved for Advanced RNP operations."

Right after that statement it lists the capabilities required for AR RNP and says it is capable of RF legs, parallel offsets, and RNAV holding; but it is not capable of scalable RNP, fixed radius transitions, or time of arrival control.

Glad he survived.

Agreed.

I was thinking in terms of the GNS having the capability to meet the RNP .1 metric, not the other requirements for RNP authorization under current rules.

[carusoam]

Thanks for the details, Mark!

Best regards,

-a-

[glenn reynolds]

Good morning and thanks for the fantastic feed back. The explanations make a lot of sense.  While the wind at the surface was only 15 knots the wind at 15,000 feet was 75 knots with light icing. Both these conditions influenced me in the following ways:  I can’t use spreed brakes due to the icing so I want the cleanest approach I can get. Second I was thinking through both wind shear and turbulence on the decent. Runway 12, 30 was too short and not great lighting. I had been monitoring the approach frequency and understood that most planes were flying the ils 02 with a circle to land but with too much discussion about direction to circle. There was also discussion on gusts on approach. Approach was in flow control mode and I was being vectored for same. I really hate to hold in icing but had plenty of fuel and TKS. The plane in front of me asked for and got the rnav 20 and when I requested the same the controller seemed was happy to do it as I felt it gave her less flow control issues. She promptly held the jet behind us who requested the ils and circle.   We broke out as advertised at 5,000, asked the tower to turn up the lights and landed visually. Yes I have filed a NASA report. I did brief the approach prior to requesting it but never saw the bottom tape of not authorized as the I didn’t have any clue there would be a critical message on the bottom margin, just was not in my preapproach brief. My bad. Again thanks for all the great feedback. If you look at the FlightAware track it is pretty stunning to see the ground speed swing when we got vectored. It goes from 240 to 93. That gets your attention. 

[carusoam]

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N9624M/history/20191221/2230Z/KBNO/KGPI/tracklog
 

That’s some variation...200+ and 100- ground speeds...

Best regards,

-a-

 

[ilovecornfields]

I’m glad you’re alive to tell the story, however, If something had gone wrong I don’t thing the agencies involved would have been very complimentary of your decision making process and knowledge of the applicable regulations.

For example:

The expectation is that you will review all available information prior to your flight. While this can be vague and broad, I don’t think you can argue that this would NOT include the approaches at your destination and alternate for an IFR flight. I have tabs in foreflight labeled “departure, destination and alternate” and load the relevant plates prior to the flight and review them. If they are approaches I can’t legally fly (like an RNP approach) then I don’t include them. 

If you felt uncomfortable landing at your destination, it may be useful to think about what compelled you to fly an approach in what sounds like pretty legit night IFR conditions without approach guidance from your GPS instead of diverting to your alternate. At the point you were using your iPad as the primary approach guidance was there a “red flag” that went off somewhere telling you that this didn’t seem like a good idea? It’s kind of like those stories of people putting Jet A in planes designed to take 100 LL and the fact that the nozzle doesn’t fit doesn’t stop people from doing it. You would think that somewhere along the process of having to do things very differently that usual you would stop and think that maybe there a good reason this is so difficult...

It sounds like there was a knowledge deficit which I would work with an instructor to correct. I learned to fly IFR before GPS and iPads so when I came back to flying I had to spend a LOT of time learning about this new technology. I asked a lot of “stupid” questions of my instructors because the concept of a GPS approach was totally foreign to me. I would recommend meeting with a CFII and reviewing this. Sporty’s also has an IFR refresher course which I found helpful in bringing me up to speed on the changes.

Lastly, and I mean this in the nicest way possible, it may be good to ask yourself “was I impaired?” Maybe go back through the IMSAFE checklist. Were you tired? Hungry? Unusually stressed? Taking any medications? Feeling sick? Had you been flying above 5000’ without oxygen? I’ve mentioned it several times before but I find that people really underestimate the effect of prolonged mild hypoxia on their cognitive function and it seems like something lead you to make decisions that were not really in your best interest. AOPA Air Safety foundation just released a video this last week that references my new favorite book “Thinking Fast and Slow” and may give you some insight into how to make better choices.

I guess you decided not to delete the thread and that’s fine. Thank you for wiling to put yourself out there so others can learn.

[MooneyMitch]

Excellent video!  Topics mentioned in the video most definitely apply to non-holiday situations as well.

Perhaps post this AOPA ASI video in MS Safety Forum also...... it’s most timely now!!  It seems most Mooney Safety forum postings are after the fact.......

 Thank you for posting! 

[carusoam]

good point Mitch...

Let’s invite the @irishpilot to the thread... (safety topic regarding databases on and off iPads and panel mounted navigators...)

Best regards,

-a-

[irishpilot]

Thanks@carusoam. Most of the details have already been covered. As a recap, WAAS capable receivers are authorized to fly LPV, LNAV/VNAV approaches. RNP approaches are not authorized with the 530W or 650. Hint: if the approach you want is not loaded in your Garmin and you've updated it on its 28 day cycle, your unit can't that approach.

That being said, from the safety perspective, flying off of the iPad is a bad idea. iPads do not have FAA certified GPS units. iPads with Foreflight are great for SA but should never be considered a primary instrument reference for IFR flying.

There were valid reasons to be cautious with icing, turbulence, etc. However, if you are uncomfortable flying a circling approach at night, I recommend practicing them at night at your local field with a CFII.

Hindsight being 20/20, the decision matrix was either fly an approved approach for circling, or divert.

Lastly, thanks to the OP for asking this question because it takes guts knowing you will get Armchair quarterbacked by 100 of your closes MS friends. This is how we all learn. In fact, I had to brush up on RNP requirements/limitations before posting.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

[PT20J]

There all sorts of ins and outs to performance based navigation. The simplest rule is: If it's not in the database, you cannot legally fly it. The GPS manufacturers are required to eliminate approaches for which the equipment is not suitable. Also, the FAA prohibits flying a GPS approach by entering waypoints -- you have to load the approach from the database.

Skip

[ilovecornfields]

3 hours ago, MooneyMitch said:

Excellent video!  Topics mentioned in the video most definitely apply to non-holiday situations as well.

Perhaps post this AOPA ASI video in MS Safety Forum also...... it’s most timely now!!  It seems most Mooney Safety forum postings are after the fact.......

 Thank you for posting! 

Thanks. Beautiful weather we’re having today...

[MooneyMitch]

4 minutes ago, ilovecornfields said:

Thanks. Beautiful weather we’re having today...

I’m drifting off topic....... but it’s beautiful to have the rain ! 

[Gagarin]

For landing on runways with no approach procedure at all, I set the OBS on my 530W to the runway alignment for lateral guidance and maintain a VSR of 500 ft/m for vertical navigation. It works pretty well for grass strips.

[tmo]

The newer GTN software has Visual Approach Guidance for such operations.

[Hank]

18 hours ago, irishpilot said:

That being said, from the safety perspective, flying off of the iPad is a bad idea. iPads do not have FAA certified GPS units. iPads with Foreflight are great for SA but should never be considered a primary instrument reference for IFR flying.

Tablets are great for situational awareness, passenger entertainment and sometimes taking pictures. They also make it much easier to keep approach plates updated. But that's the full extent of aviation use, besides reading and posting here.

18 hours ago, irishpilot said:

. . . .if you are uncomfortable flying a circling approach at night, I recommend practicing them at night at your local field with a CFII

Negative, unable! Circling at night is incredibly risky, even my DPE recommended against doing it outside of an immediate emergency. He was the Wing Commander of the Air National Guard, so I believe he knew from where he spoke.

18 hours ago, irishpilot said:

Lastly, thanks to the OP for asking this question because it takes guts knowing you will get Armchair quarterbacked by 100 of your closes MS friends. This is how we all learn.

Amen, brother! The discussion has been good, and may keep the rest of us from making similar attention-deficit mistakes. Everything on the plate is important . . . .

[Marauder]

The newer GTN software has Visual Approach Guidance for such operations.

 

I have been using that feature on my 650. It does give you a warning that you are responsible for terrain clearance (and rightly so). Some airports served by GPS approaches have higher minimums due to TERPS requirements. And they may be limited to a non precision approach. Using the visual approach guidance can still get you into trouble.

 

I think the visual approach capability is great for going to an airport and given a visual approach. It sets up up nicely for identifying the final approach segment including a 3 mile waypoint on final. As well, using it to identify a runway at an unfamiliar airport is great.

 

Here is a good example of why the visual guidance feature can get you into trouble. At my home airport, until recently it was served with a VOR approach with an MDA of 940. Part of the reason for a roughly 500 HAA is because of a hill on the north side but also because of wires that cross in front of the runway. Using the visual approach capability, the 3 degree glide slope would put you really close to the wires. And in this picture, you can see me staying above the glide slope just to make sure I don’t get too close to those wires.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[Marauder]

And just to chime in on iPad usage. I fly a bit as a safety pilot and I see how some pilots have gotten pretty dependent on their iPad. In fact, one guy was trying to convince me that his iPad heading was sufficient to replace his broken DG.

I think where some guys get off into the weeds is related to the GPS capabilities of these iPads. The approval for these EFBs was to serve as a replacement to the paper system that was in place. It was never intended to replace a certified GPS unit in the panel. But to some pilots, it has been a hard sell.

To the original OP, thanks for sharing this experience. I know some of the peanut gallery has been chucking nuts. It is important to learn, especially since these new electronics have introduced new ways of flying. I’m sure there were a few in the gallery that didn’t know what an RNP approach was.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro