IFR equipment and capability

[midlifeflyer]

1 hour ago, Schllc said:

Could be a newbie ifr but I have to say, the few months after I got my ticket is probably the most proficient I have ever been...

I think "most proficient at the checkride" is a myth. and the exact opposite to "license to learn." Can you really say you were a better instrument pilot then than you are now? 

It may have been true at some time in the past and it might still be rue when it comes to pure hand flying skills, but I doubt even that. My experience with new instrument pilots is, with the new avionics, instrument training to the checkride predominates and the avionics use is simplistic at best. You can easily pass an instrument checkride or by-the-book IPC with very, very little knowledge of how to work the avionics in a modern airplane.

I was flabbergasted a few months ago when three pilots in a row, during club IFR checkouts,  didn't know what to do when, after loading an approach with a procedure turn, I ("ATC") gave them a "direct to the IF, cleared straight in...". Talk about a basic  and common real-world task! The reasons for the inability to do that very basic and common task varied but one, by a recent instrument pilot with the virtual ink still wet on his ticket. simply said, "I've never seen that before."

[Schllc]

34 minutes ago, midlifeflyer said:

I think "most proficient at the checkride

Maybe in general you are correct, but in my case I went directly from the ppl checkride into ifr training and it took me a good bit longer than the average bear because I was such a new pilot. It was about three months of flying close to 150 hours into my ifr check ride, followed by another 200 hours of all weather commuting so in my case it was absolutely true. 
I mostly avoid planning to land into known low ifr conditions so I try to do ipc’s every six months. 
I always feel like I need improvement …

[midlifeflyer]

1 hour ago, Schllc said:

Maybe in general you are correct, but in my case I went directly from the ppl checkride into ifr training and it took me a good bit longer than the average bear because I was such a new pilot. It was about three months of flying close to 150 hours into my ifr check ride, followed by another 200 hours of all weather commuting so in my case it was absolutely true. 
I mostly avoid planning to land into known low ifr conditions so I try to do ipc’s every six months. 
I always feel like I need improvement …

Your example doesn't disagree what I said. I was referring to the "day of the checkride" myth. You are describing the 3 months after the ride during which you put in 200 hours of all-weather IFR commuting. I'm willing to bet that you were a far better instrument pilot after those 200 hours than the day you took your checkride. 

[PeteMc]

8 hours ago, PMcClure said:

Door popped open in cruise and everything was sucked out the door. 

Okay then....   I've met the source of the story!!!!   

[DXB]

On 10/3/2023 at 8:30 AM, midlifeflyer said:

What nav equipment do you have? Apparently, the pilot had GNS430.

1. Load the approach. I shouldn't  have to mention that but based on the audio, that seems to have been a missing piece. You've lost so much situational awareness that you have no clue where you are even with the certified unit's moving map? See steps 2 & 3.
2. Report the chart loss to the controller. Our pilot sort of did that.
3. Tell the controller what you need. With a GNS, the courses are all there even for a full approach., but you will need altitudes. (With something  newer you wouldn't even need that, but let's stick with the more limited unit.)  And perhaps you will want to enter the procedure at a specific fix or get vectors to final if available.  So you ask the controller to read them to you. In this case, the controller, knowing there was a problem, vectored the pilot to a straight in fix and assigned an altitude until established, so that was all taken care of.
4. Fly the approach. 

I put #3 in read because (other than reporting the problem) it is literally the only thing out of the ordinary. That's why I say it should be a non-event. I've done this with pilots in recurrent training.  If you've never simulated an iPad failure (with no EFB or chart backups) grab a CFII (so they can simulate ATC) and practice it. 

Once you've got the approach loaded, the chart previously briefed, and panel set up with key info including minimums, then sure no problem, particularly if it's a precision approach.  Telling the controller anyway about the issue is probably a good idea here. But it doesn't sound like that was the case in this instance.  Even if rated, current, and proficient, I'd ask for a delaying vector to try to get the chart back unless there was minimum fuel or some other issue pressing me to get on the ground.   If unsuccessful and without an easy VFR out, I'd ask the controller to talk me through the key chart info - which I suspect neither of us would interpret as a non-event since the regs require you to have the charts.  If the controller had a high workload, I could see this leading to a phone number to write down at the end.  

[midlifeflyer]

14 hours ago, DXB said:

Once you've got the approach loaded, the chart previously briefed, and panel set up with key info including minimums, then sure no problem, particularly if it's a precision approach.  Telling the controller anyway about the issue is probably a good idea here. But it doesn't sound like that was the case in this instance.  Even if rated, current, and proficient, I'd ask for a delaying vector to try to get the chart back unless there was minimum fuel or some other issue pressing me to get on the ground.   If unsuccessful and without an easy VFR out, I'd ask the controller to talk me through the key chart info - which I suspect neither of us would interpret as a non-event since the regs require you to have the charts.  If the controller had a high workload, I could see this leading to a phone number to write down at the end.  

There is no reg that requires you to have the charts in a plain vanilla Part 91 op. 

As for the rest, what you do for #3 obviously depends on when the chart loss takes place.  In the specific situation being discussed, the controller gave the pilot all the time in the world to get set up even if he never had the chart. If the pilot wanted more, all he had to do was ask for something other than requesting to cancel IFR and scud run.

I may have overstated "non-event." But I think of  things that are easily handleable that way. And as both a pilot and CFII, this should be one of them. To me, it about looking for solutions rather than trying to find all the problems when something unusual happens.

Personally, I rejoice when something unusual  happens during an IPC or recurrent training. I had one happen within the past month. During a club checkout, it turned out that the localizer on a local ILS was OTS. No NOTAM, and the glideslope was operative. Weird. But I just loved how the pilot handled it.

[Hank]

1 hour ago, midlifeflyer said:

Personally, I rejoice when something unusual  happens during an IPC or recurrent training. I had one happen within the past month. During a club checkout, it turned out that the localizer on a local ILS was OTS. No NOTAM, and the glideslope was operative. Weird. But I just loved how the pilot handled it.

Don't keep us all in suspense! Was there a GPS overlay? Glideslope by itself would make for a poor approach in IMC.

[midlifeflyer]

6 hours ago, Hank said:

Don't keep us all in suspense! Was there a GPS overlay? Glideslope by itself would make for a poor approach in IMC.

He simulated requesting  vectors while setting up for the co-located RNAV. Made me smile. 

[Pinecone]

No charts, 3 letter answer.

ASR approach.

Airport surveillance radar approach.  Typically flown to Localizer minimums, but the controller tells you headings to fly and what altitude to be at.

If near a military field, they may have a PAR.  Which is actually lower minimums than an ILS or LPV. 

[Sue Bon]

On 10/4/2023 at 11:28 PM, DXB said:

the regs require you to have the charts.

We are required to have two iPads with charts loaded in order to not have paper charts on board. If we only have one iPad, we must have paper charts. From this discussion, it seems that you don't have any such requirement. Is just one iPad and nothing else (not including the Nav equipment/instruments) enough?

[midlifeflyer]

8 hours ago, Pinecone said:

No charts, 3 letter answer.

ASR approach.

Airport surveillance radar approach.  Typically flown to Localizer minimums, but the controller tells you headings to fly and what altitude to be at.

If near a military field, they may have a PAR.  Which is actually lower minimums than an ILS or LPV. 

With a working Garmin 430? Why?

Besides, the guy couldn't even follow simple vectors from miles out. What makes you think he'd be able to follow ASR or PAR instructions? 

The ceiling was 1600. Low minimums were not an issue,

[midlifeflyer]

4 hours ago, Sue Bon said:

We are required to have two iPads with charts loaded in order to not have paper charts on board. If we only have one iPad, we must have paper charts. From this discussion, it seems that you don't have any such requirement. Is just one iPad and nothing else (not including the Nav equipment/instruments) enough?

For basic Part 91 there is no specific regulatory requirement for charts, nor a requirement for backup for either paper or digital charts*. The need for charts is arguably a byproduct of the "all available information" requirement in 91.103. It's also pretty clear that if your choice to not have current charts causes a problem, don't expect any slack if there's a pilot deviation.

So, yes, so long as you have "navigation equipment suitable for the route to be flown", 91.205(d)(2), you are good to go with a single source* of charts.

(* you'll notice I avoid making distinctions between paper and digital. I'm media neutral)

[wombat]

This always brings up a question I love posing to people about my 182.... It's navigation equipment consists of a single com radio (VAL COM760 TSO) https://www.valavionics.com/com-760-tso.html and a Directional Gyro and a compass.  No GPS.   No VHF nav radio.  No LORAN, no ADF, nothing.

Assuming a current pitot/static and transponder and everything else is in order, can I fly IFR with it?

 

The answer is 'yes' of course, however my choice of routes is limited.   Nothing that requires anything more than a DG and a compass, which is basically only RADAR vectors.   But some departure procedures (example: NEEDLE ONE DEPARTURE from KBFI) can be flown with it.

Also, just being legal doesn't mean it's safe, and I have not and do not intend to fly that plane IFR as it is currently equipped.

[midlifeflyer]

53 minutes ago, wombat said:

This always brings up a question I love posing to people about my 182.... It's navigation equipment consists of a single com radio (VAL COM760 TSO) https://www.valavionics.com/com-760-tso.html and a Directional Gyro and a compass.  No GPS.   No VHF nav radio.  No LORAN, no ADF, nothing.

Assuming a current pitot/static and transponder and everything else is in order, can I fly IFR with it?

 

The answer is 'yes' of course, however my choice of routes is limited.   Nothing that requires anything more than a DG and a compass, which is basically only RADAR vectors.   But some departure procedures (example: NEEDLE ONE DEPARTURE from KBFI) can be flown with it.

Also, just being legal doesn't mean it's safe, and I have not and do not intend to fly that plane IFR as it is currently equipped.

Practically speaking, what would you put in your filed IFR flight plan ? Even with a heading-based departure procedure and fully radar vectored enroute portion, how would you land at an IFR destination?

Seems to be like IFR in uncontrolled airspace. Theoretically possible but practically not so much.

[wombat]

You wouldn't generally do this if the destination is IMC.   We've got Whidbey Naval Air Station nearby, and they'll provide a PAR if you ask, but this 'no-nav' IFR is not useful for that kind of weather.  It's only useful if you can get vectored below the ceiling.    

 

What I would put in my flight plan Eastbound is KBFI NEEDL1 2S0

What I would put in my flight plan Westbound is 2S0 KBFI and *maybe* a comment of "Expecting RADAR vectors to visual approach, no GPS, no ILS"

The climate here is quite predictable and often East of the Cascades is clear while West is overcast at or above 2,000'.   You can (and I have) flown through the passes to get in or out of Puget Sound when that area is overcast.  But there are plenty of conditions where you can't do that.  Ceilings in Puget sound below about 4,500 tend to make the passes IMC; as the relatively stable air masses move Eastward, orthographic lifting causes the ceiling to lower as you enter the Cascades, which results in the passes being fogged in even though they are 1,000' or more below the reported ceilings in Seattle.   I've also had to wait it out at Easton State (ESW) for the pass to clear, or try Stevens Pass, and failing that, turn around and try Snoqualmie Pass.  And I've had that fail and I've gone back to BFI, offloaded everything into a car and driven.   I've also climbed over all the clouds, then flown over all of that to the 'rain shadow' East of the Olympic mountains (They don't call W28 "Sunny Sequim" for nothing!), descended, and then proceeded back East to Boeing Field under the ceiling.   It can be a real pain, and it's a non-trivial part of why I now own the Mooney that I do.

Generally if the WX is bad enough on the East side of the Cascades that you really need an approach it's bad enough that you might want to reconsider flying over the Cascades in anything less than a 737. (Not quite true, ERJ 175's and DHC-8's do fine as well, but I would think twice before trying a single engine piston.  Or multi-engine piston, or single-engine turbine.)

Edited October 6, 2023 by wombat

[kortopates]

Interesting thought experiment.
I think any “practical use” would be limited to climbing through a very localized ceiling, like a marine layer, and then continuing on VMC to a VFR destination.
it would be an emergency in practical terms to land at an IFR destination. You’ll need a PAR or ASR approach or if really lucky, vectors to a visual when the ceiling is above the controllers MVA. That would be very unlikely where i live in the southwest. Hence it being an emergency in practical terms.

On a side note, back in the days of paper charts, jepp used to publish MVA charts for approach control airspace but no longer in digital subscriptions that i know of and the FAA’s MVA maps are pretty useless to us in their raw form.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[midlifeflyer]

46 minutes ago, wombat said:

What I would put in my flight plan Eastbound is KBFI NEEDL1 2S0

I see that as a problem since you don't have the required "navigation equipment suitable for the route to be flown." You don't have any way to get to 2S0.
I suspect that if asked, the FAA would say that "hope for vectors" is not suitable navigation equipment.

OTOH, it might work with ATC if you rely on the 1990's version of the then common portable GPS hint-hint-wink-wink.

[wombat]

@kortopates I agree that it's almost exclusively an interesting thought experiment.  I have not even gotten the IFR tests done on my 182's pitot/static system, just the VFR check so it's not like I could even try this.    And yes, at an IFR destination that would be a bad plan. But in the case of Puget Sound or much of the West Coast, if departing right on the coastline for destinations East of there (which they basically all are!)  The 'very unlikely where I live' from your perspective is 100+ days a year here.

@midlifeflyer We can argue it back and forth all day and I expect we'd never come to a conclusion.

I say I do have the navigational equipment required, since the needle one departure says "Climb heading 315, maintain 2100 or ATC assigned altitude, for RADAR vectors to assigned route/fix"   I can do all of that....  So they provide me RADAR vectors to my next fix, which is 2S0.    There is no 'hope for vectors'.   There is no 'hint, hint, wink, wink'.  There is just following the regulations and the departure procedure.       

Now just because I filed it doesn't mean they'll clear me for it.  I could be pretty sad with the engine idling on the ground when they say 'cleared via needle one, then NORMY, V120, EAT then as filed', since I can't fly that.   The DP only promises RADAR vectors to the next fix, nothing after that.

[MikeOH]

@wombat

And, when the ONE comm fails...squawk 7600 and call 'em the cell phone?

[PeteMc]

11 hours ago, wombat said:

The answer is 'yes' of course, however my choice of routes is limited. 

Is it yes?  I have to admit I couldn't just find it just now in my quick search, but I thought there had been an additional Legal Interpretation that you needed to be able to continue if you lost Comms.  I'm pretty sure they did not have you in mind with your scenario of flying with just Radar Vectors.  But I seem to remember it being an additional clarification of the basic equipment list.  And if you lost your radio you would have no other means of Navigation and you would then definitely fall into this category.  

But again... I can't find what I thought I read, so know way to confirm what the details were. 

And yes, I get you're not talking about blasting off into hard IMC but more of a Rules Awareness process.

ADDED:  Found it right in front of my nose...   I learned years ago from a very high FAA guy that would comment on the regs and how people wanted to always read them to their advantage vs. just reading them - which is the way legally they would be interpreted.  So...

91.205(d) only states that an airplane must have:

(2) Two-way radio communication and navigation equipment suitable for the route to be flown.

Pay special attention to the "...AND navigation equipment..."  Doesn't specify what kind, just that you have it.  If it said radio OR nav equipment that would be a different story.  So that's why I would question your interpretation that you only need a radio.

Edited October 7, 2023 by PeteMc

[midlifeflyer]

5 hours ago, PeteMc said:

Found it right in front of my nose..

...or twice in prior posts  . And that @wombat already gave his answer to it.

[wombat]

@MikeOH Yes.   If you  have a complete communications failure, you would set your transponder to 7600.    Why would you think this is any different than any other situation?    There is nothing in the regs that says you must have redundant communications equipment.

@PeteMc Yes, that's why you would not be able to do this without a DG and/or compass.   They are navigational equipment and they are appropriate for the route of flight.    Nothing in the regulation says the navigation equipment must be a radio or any sort.  If they wanted you to have a nav radio, they would have said you have to have a nav radio.   But they didn't.

 

 

One thing I've noticed as I've watched pilots move from less capable to more capable aircraft is that they tend to think of the equipment in the aircraft they currently fly as the 'minimum required equipment' for flight.   As soon as they get a second engine, they say they'll never fly single engine again.    Switching from piston to turbine means they'll say that any piston aircraft is unsafe in any condition.  Same thing about ADS-B in.  Or a second transponder, third attitude indicator, parachute, autopilot, autoland, second required pilot, or whatever.  Or in this case, a nav radio or second com radio.  But those things are not required.  If you want to set them as your personal mimums, that's fine.  But they are not required by the FAA.

[KLRDMD]

On 10/3/2023 at 2:01 PM, PeteMc said:

I'm assuming they do the same thing.  But when you mentioned their name I looked at the website and it looked pricier than RAM.

Yes, the MyGoFlight cases are far superior to RAM mounts. And the cooling MyGoFlight case is awesome.

[MikeOH]

7 hours ago, wombat said:

@MikeOH Yes.   If you  have a complete communications failure, you would set your transponder to 7600.    Why would you think this is any different than any other situation?    There is nothing in the regs that says you must have redundant communications equipment.

@wombat

Sigh,...I see my attempt at humor fell flat; there was a reason I put the  at the end.

To be serious, I find the idea of flying real IMC with nothing more than a compass and a SINGLE radio (for radar vector nav!) to be a "careless and reckless" operation despite it being technically legal.  I believe, even you, pointed out the hypothetical nature of your posited situation.  I like the concept of multiple fault tolerance; departing with zero fault tolerance???? No thanks!

I'm in full agreement with you on how the nature of advancing technology and 'moving up the aircraft food chain' seems to redefine what is considered 'safe'. I find that disappointing, for certain.

[Ibra]

On 10/6/2023 at 3:24 PM, wombat said:

The answer is 'yes' of course, however my choice of routes is limited.

YES it’s legal to fly IFR in Golf (if you can find some) and Echo (plenty out there) but it will be a tough flight plan (you can’t file GPS waypoints) and tough execution (you can’t take directs) and planning in IMC is a nightmare due to limited backup with secondary navigation 

I had the impression IFR in Charlie, Bravo, Alpha in US now require PBN/RNAV1 (DME-DME or GPS) with up to date database of waypoints, even KNS80 with RHO - THETA RNAV5 is not enough in busy terminal areas  !

Also my understanding, you can’t plan PAR/SRA or Contact/Visual again low aerodrome minima, weather has to be good very ceiling >> airway/radar otherwise you need raw data with instruments from your cockpit 

Getting MVA/MIA charts for your whole route outside terminal area would be a challenge, some are not even published and getting them would probably cost as much as new TSO’ed 146 GPS 

Edited October 7, 2023 by Ibra