How many GPS functions do you know?

[natdm]

4 minutes ago, midlifeflyer said:

That’s 101 level operational knowledge. Not particularly surprising. But scary when one considers that this is about the level of knowledge tested in many instrument checkrides and displays a sense by pilots that transition training is not necessary.

100% agree. I think one of the last flights I did to willmar was IMC the whole way and I was able to research airports, look at diagrams, find and switch frequencies, look at NOTAMS, runway analysis, etc, al on the 650 and G500 (the old one). Felt great, and also felt right. The iPad was just chilling on the next seat. 

[midlifeflyer]

1 minute ago, natdm said:

100% agree. I think one of the last flights I did to willmar was IMC the whole way and I was able to research airports, look at diagrams, find and switch frequencies, look at NOTAMS, runway analysis, etc, al on the 650 and G500 (the old one). Felt great, and also felt right. The iPad was just chilling on the next seat. 

While I can do all that, I choose to use my EFB for most non-navigation tasks. I’m about 50/50 on the frequency thing. The ones I worry about are tasks that are regularly assigned by ATC like amending the flight plan you mentioned.

I spoke with an instructor from a university flight school while their student was taking the IR checkride. “If they pass, is your student ready to fly IFR solo tomorrow.” “No,” was the answer without hesitation. It wasn’t about IMC. 

To some degree it can’t be helped. The rating has always been a gateway but in the day of simpler avionics there was so much less to learn for avionics proficiency. The VOR/HSI knowledge test questions are far more difficult than anything you might do with them in flight. But with sophistication comes so much more to learn. No way to really test all that in the confines of a practical test. And CFIIs end up teaching to the test - KISS for efficiency.

[natdm]

13 minutes ago, midlifeflyer said:

The rating has always been a gateway but in the day of simpler avionics there was so much less to learn for avionics proficiency.

Sad but true. As long as you can show the 101 basics you'd pass. Even when I bought my plane and it had two 430's, I didn't get much from the ferry pilot either. It's really up to you to make sure you know your avionics, and the risks of going up while not knowing what to do when thrown a curveball. 

As mentioned before, AZ will overheat my iPad on departure, and has. I didn't want to get flustered and bust a Bravo because I was staring down at the 650 with question marks floating around my head, or have a traffic conflict. Obviously the first thing is to always fly the plane. Something better would be to prevent confusion as best as possible in the first place. I prefer the iPad, for sure -- ForeFlight is amazing. I do what I can on the 650/355/760 for the days when the iPad dies or overheats.

[Slick Nick]

3 hours ago, midlifeflyer said:

Described as “providing situational awareness for a contact approach” sounds very different from “rolling your own instrument approach and betting your life that a 3 degree descent will keep you clear of terrain and obstacles you can’t see.” Which is what it kinda sounded like originally.

So, a question. In the US a contact approach requires that  an IAP exists for the airport (even if you are not using it). Not so in Canada?

I never said any of that. You are making an awful lot of assumptions. A contact approach requires intimate local knowledge of the surrounding terrain, especially when it comes to assuring terrain and obstruction clearance on your vertical descent path.

In Canada, you are still required to have a published approach to the airport, but if that happened to only be an NDB with a procedure turn and circling minima, doing a contact approach straight in to the runway instead was orders of magnitude more safe. Flying is all about risk mitigation. Do what makes the most sense. 

[MikeOH]

1 hour ago, Slick Nick said:

I never said any of that. You are making an awful lot of assumptions. A contact approach requires intimate local knowledge of the surrounding terrain, especially when it comes to assuring terrain and obstruction clearance on your vertical descent path.

In Canada, you are still required to have a published approach to the airport, but if that happened to only be an NDB with a procedure turn and circling minima, doing a contact approach straight in to the runway instead was orders of magnitude more safe. Flying is all about risk mitigation. Do what makes the most sense. 

In reference to using the OBS feature on GPS here is exactly what you said:

"I remember doing that almost 15 years ago now in the old King Airs and 99’s up north to airports that had no approaches. We affectionately called it the “Mexican ILS:”  OBS the runway, and use the 3:1 rule to get you down through the soup. Worked like a hot damn!"

THAT does NOT sound even remotely the same as a contact approach after using an NDB to legally descend through an IMC layer.  You even specifically stated you did this "to airports that had no approaches". 

[midlifeflyer]

2 hours ago, Slick Nick said:

I never said any of that. You are making an awful lot of assumptions. A contact approach requires intimate local knowledge of the surrounding terrain, especially when it comes to assuring terrain and obstruction clearance on your vertical descent path.

In Canada, you are still required to have a published approach to the airport, but if that happened to only be an NDB with a procedure turn and circling minima, doing a contact approach straight in to the runway instead was orders of magnitude more safe. Flying is all about risk mitigation. Do what makes the most sense. 

Of course a contact approach requires intimate knowledge of the surrounding terrain. 

I was stating the impression your first post made, not quoting what you said, which was

15 hours ago, Slick Nick said:

OBS the runway, and use the 3:1 rule to get you down through the soup. Worked like a hot damn!

I think I even said it was the impression this post left and not a quote. Based on @eman1200's response, I wasn't the only one to whom it sounded like you were creating your own IAP.  Sorry if the mistaken impression bothers you.

 

[eman1200]

39 minutes ago, midlifeflyer said:

...Based on @eman1200's response, I wasn't the only one to whom it sounded like you were creating your own IAP.  Sorry if the mistaken impression bothers you.

 

hhhmmm, what did I say?  

[midlifeflyer]

1 hour ago, eman1200 said:

hhhmmm, what did I say?  

Oops. It was @MikeOH.

[Slick Nick]

4 hours ago, MikeOH said:

In reference to using the OBS feature on GPS here is exactly what you said:

"I remember doing that almost 15 years ago now in the old King Airs and 99’s up north to airports that had no approaches. We affectionately called it the “Mexican ILS:”  OBS the runway, and use the 3:1 rule to get you down through the soup. Worked like a hot damn!"

 

THAT does NOT sound even remotely the same as a contact approach after using an NDB to legally descend through an IMC layer.  You even specifically stated you did this "to airports that had no approaches". 

Don’t think in terms of cloud layers. It has everything to do with visibility. I suppose I could have been more clear by saying “straight in approaches” but I didn’t think the mere idea of giving yourself a nice approach reference would cause so much.. Controversy. 

The OBS function is a great tool to have when the situation warrants. Give it a try sometime and you’ll see it works really well!

Edited August 27 by Slick Nick

[MikeOH]

5 hours ago, Slick Nick said:

Don’t think in terms of cloud layers. 

You said, "to get you down through the soup" and now you claim "It has everything to do with visibility"

I'll let all the gentle readers decide for themselves if that description was merely 'clear broth' or 'pea' soup when you flew these "ILS approaches"

[Slick Nick]

1 minute ago, MikeOH said:

You said, "to get you down through the soup" and now you claim "It has everything to do with visibility"

I'll let all the gentle readers decide for themselves if that description was merely 'clear broth' or 'pea' soup when you flew these "ILS approaches"

Give it a rest man, now you’re just splitting hairs… “the soup” is a metaphor for IMC conditions. I didn’t come up with the term, I’m sure it harks back to the dawn of aviation. 

Back to contact approaches for a moment, would you rather have no guidance at all, or at the very least some sort of runway centerline when conducting a contact type of approach? I hate to break it to you, but especially at underserved remote airports here in the great white north, you simply can’t just fly radar vectors from ILS beam to ILS beam. It takes some airmanship, skill, and solid decision making to get in sometimes. More so “back in the day” before GNSS approaches were mainstream as they are today. 

[MikeOH]

6 minutes ago, Slick Nick said:

Give it a rest man, now you’re just splitting hairs… “the soup” is a metaphor for IMC conditions. I didn’t come up with the term, I’m sure it harks back to the dawn of aviation. 

Back to contact approaches for a moment, would you rather have no guidance at all, or at the very least some sort of runway centerline when conducting a contact type of approach? I hate to break it to you, but especially at underserved remote airports here in the great white north, you simply can’t just fly radar vectors from ILS beam to ILS beam. It takes some airmanship, skill, and solid decision making to get in sometimes. More so “back in the day” before GNSS approaches were mainstream as they are today. 

I'm not splitting hairs...you said, "DOWN THROUGH". Yeah, let's talk contact approaches: they REQUIRE visual contact with the ground, 1 mile visibility, and clear of clouds. So, now you're going to backpedal that you exercised "solid decision making" in using GPS OBS just to provide 'lateral guidance', only 'advisory' of course (sarcasm), and had solid ground contact the whole time?  Sounds waaay different than, "We affectionately called it the “Mexican ILS:”  OBS the runway, and use the 3:1 rule to get you down through the soup. Worked like a hot damn!" to me, anyway.

[MB65E]

I’d like to press and hold “CLR” now thanks! 

Now back to Mike’s original post! Which I hope generates more professional responses. 

What I would like to learn better on the GNS 530 is once you load an approach and cruising along. How can you do a destination change in the flight plan page, or change approaches with out having to wipe out the current fix. 
 

Maybe for any Collins guys, like a Direct Previous function?  I remember loading an approach on the ground for a near by airport. Taking off then having the controller switch approaches which could have changed some of the initial waypoints. 
I’ve mitigated this in the past by not even loading an approach I was wasn’t actually cleared for. 

I mean with out turning the box off. 

-Matt

[midlifeflyer]

8 hours ago, MB65E said:

What I would like to learn better on the GNS 530 is once you load an approach and cruising along. How can you do a destination change in the flight plan page, or change approaches with out having to wipe out the current fix. 

Can you give a specific scenario? With real places and something that needs to be changed. In a theoretical sense, It sounds simple, but I’m probably missing something. 

Change destination - put in the new destination at the end if the flight plan and go. Or insert it if that makes more sense.

Change approach - tap PROC and put in the new one.

Why would you need to wipe out anything, especially the current active waypoint? Any cleanup, whether necessary or optional, comes later.

i did this video some time ago changing the destination and approach in a GTN. Is that what you want to do with the 530?

 

[natdm]

8 hours ago, MB65E said:

What I would like to learn better on the GNS 530 is once you load an approach and cruising along. How can you do a destination change in the flight plan page, or change approaches with out having to wipe out the current fix. 

One of the more valuable things you could learn how to do is to create a new flight plan while having the current one still activating it, and then activating that plan when you're ready to go. A good example would be when you can't make the airport due to minimums, you're in the MAP hold, and you get instructions for a new plan. Adding these stops to the current one, IMO, is messy and a lot better to keep the hold activated for that FPL, and create a new one with the stops/waypoints mentioned by the controller. Then activate that when you're ready to go. The 430/530 and 650/750 have this feature.

[midlifeflyer]

2 hours ago, natdm said:

One of the more valuable things you could learn how to do is to create a new flight plan while having the current one still activating it, and then activating that plan when you're ready to go. A good example would be when you can't make the airport due to minimums, you're in the MAP hold, and you get instructions for a new plan. Adding these stops to the current one, IMO, is messy and a lot better to keep the hold activated for that FPL, and create a new one with the stops/waypoints mentioned by the controller. Then activate that when you're ready to go. The 430/530 and 650/750 have this feature.

Just to clarify: the second flight plan is created and stored  in the Flight Plan Catalog. And if you want to include an approach, in the GNS, you do not use the PROC key because the PROC key is dedicated to the current flight plan. Instead you use the MENU key.

If you saw my post in the other thread about my "GPS Tsks Pilots Don't Know How to Do", it's the extra credit one (#7).

[MB65E]

I’ll try and brainstorm how it happened. 
I remember being on the ground at Oxnard, loading an approach to a nearby airport at CMA. We changed the approach, then ultimately the destination. All I remember is I needed to turn the GNS off to clear the destination. 

I’ll try loading the last fix as the new airport next time in the FLT Plan, but that wouldn’t give access to its approaches. 
 

Even with Collins, new airports are required to input in the Destination with a new flight plan. Even then, one still needs to be in Heading mode. 
 

again sorta un common, well mitigated, but frustrating. 
 

-Matt

[Rick Junkin]

I don't know if this is still available on the Garmin website, and it's from 2008 so not even close to the current OFP for the 430/530, but this is the syllabus I used to learn the GNS 430 way back when. The useful parts are the scenarios/functions identified in each of the lessons which still provide a relevant exercise framework for learning how to operate the current OFP. Hopefully useful to someone.

GNS430W_SampleTrainingSyllabusandFlightLessons.pdf

 

[midlifeflyer]

 

4 hours ago, MB65E said:

I’ll try and brainstorm how it happened. 
I remember being on the ground at Oxnard, loading an approach to a nearby airport at CMA. We changed the approach, then ultimately the destination. All I remember is I needed to turn the GNS off to clear the destination. 

I’ll try loading the last fix as the new airport next time in the FLT Plan, but that wouldn’t give access to its approaches. 
 

Even with Collins, new airports are required to input in the Destination with a new flight plan. Even then, one still needs to be in Heading mode. 
 

again sorta un common, well mitigated, but frustrating. 
 

-Matt

Mentioning a Collins explains a bit. I've never used one but from the little I know it would basically require you to start from scratch.  Not necessary with the GNS, although there is one gotcha. Garmin doesn't like multiple approaches in the same flight plan. One consequence is that while it's easy to change the approach to the same destination, you need to clear the currently loaded approach to change both destination and load an approach to it. As usual there are a couple of ways to do this. With time to spare, clear both the approach and the destination. But at least clear the current approach. You can always remove the old destination later.

Here's a video in which I try to simulate what you are describing: I am starting on the ground with a flight plan from OXR to CMA with the CMA RNAV 26Y loaded. I'll change the destination to VNY and load the ILS Y 16R. I'll do it "wrong" to show the problem and then do it by removing the approach (not bothering with the original destination).

The video is 2.5 minutes and that includes doing it wrong first. As usual, doing it on the PC trainer with mouse clicks takes much longer than doing it with the real unit. No audio - this was a down and dirty capture.

I'm not sure what the autopilot mode has to do with it.

 

[MB65E]

That was excellent!! Thanks a bunch! That’s exactly what happened!

So removing the approach and adding airports at the end of the flight plan! 
got it!

-Matt
 

[midlifeflyer]

6 hours ago, MB65E said:

That was excellent!! Thanks a bunch! That’s exactly what happened!

So removing the approach and adding airports at the end of the flight plan! 
got it!

-Matt
 

Yeah. Removing the approach is not necessary (and may not even be desirable) in many scenarios, but it will always free up the flight plan.