Garmin 530 question

[Paul Tomblin]

Our club just got a 530 for one of our planes, and so before I fly it I'm
spending a lot of time with Garmin's simulator. So one of the flights I
do a lot is here (KROC) to Ottawa (CYOW) and back.

When I fly from Ottawa, I always get the OTTAWA ONE departure, which means
I put ASHTN and REEDO in my handheld GPS flight plan. But since the
manual tells me that I can select depature procedures in the 530, I
thought I could leave them off my flight plan on the 530 and have the
procedure loaded. But at least in the simulator, I have no such luck - I
can't select this departure procedure. Is this a limitation of the
simulator, or does the 530 not allow you to select departure procedures if
they're classified as "vector"?

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Of course, I also got weird looks when I said that, as a kid, I watched the
toast brown in a toaster to see whether it browned at a linear or exponential
rate. -- Jeff Davis

[Sam Spade]

Paul Tomblin wrote:

> Our club just got a 530 for one of our planes, and so before I fly it I'm
> spending a lot of time with Garmin's simulator. So one of the flights I
> do a lot is here (KROC) to Ottawa (CYOW) and back.
>
> When I fly from Ottawa, I always get the OTTAWA ONE departure, which means
> I put ASHTN and REEDO in my handheld GPS flight plan. But since the
> manual tells me that I can select depature procedures in the 530, I
> thought I could leave them off my flight plan on the 530 and have the
> procedure loaded. But at least in the simulator, I have no such luck - I
> can't select this departure procedure. Is this a limitation of the
> simulator, or does the 530 not allow you to select departure procedures if
> they're classified as "vector"?
>
If it is purely a vector departure; i.e., "fly xxx heading for vectors
to en route fix" then the 530 won't have those. Why should it? All you
do is fly an initial heading for vectors.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Sam Spade > said:
>Paul Tomblin wrote:
>> can't select this departure procedure. Is this a limitation of the
>> simulator, or does the 530 not allow you to select departure procedures if
>> they're classified as "vector"?
>>
>If it is purely a vector departure; i.e., "fly xxx heading for vectors
>to en route fix" then the 530 won't have those. Why should it? All you
>do is fly an initial heading for vectors.

Well, it's vectors to several specific courses - for instance the way I go
it's vectors to intercept the R-199 from YOW somewhere between ASHTN and
REEDO. So it would be useful to have the GPS put ASHTN and REEDO in the
procedure.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
When C++ is your hammer, everything looks like a thumb.
-- Steven M. Haflich

[Sam Spade]

Paul Tomblin wrote:

> In a previous article, Sam Spade > said:
>
>>Paul Tomblin wrote:
>>
>>>can't select this departure procedure. Is this a limitation of the
>>>simulator, or does the 530 not allow you to select departure procedures if
>>>they're classified as "vector"?
>>>
>>
>>If it is purely a vector departure; i.e., "fly xxx heading for vectors
>>to en route fix" then the 530 won't have those. Why should it? All you
>>do is fly an initial heading for vectors.
>
>
> Well, it's vectors to several specific courses - for instance the way I go
> it's vectors to intercept the R-199 from YOW somewhere between ASHTN and
> REEDO. So it would be useful to have the GPS put ASHTN and REEDO in the
> procedure.
>

Garmin has no way of knowing which of many possible waypoints the vector
will take you to. So, you have to line select the waypoints and TF legs
appropriate to the vector. On the other hand, with a structured SID,
with very specific transitions, then Garmin has it all there; i.e., the
three elements: The SID, the runway, and the transition.

If a vector SID were to have structured, fix transitions published on
the source document, then Garmin would include those transitions in the
database.

[Chuck]

Talking with a friend yesterday re currency. He said that you can
count approaches made in VMC with out hood. I said no, you need hood
and safety pilot. He said recent change made it ok in VMC without
hood.

Anyone heard of this?

Chuck

[Jose]

> Talking with a friend yesterday re currency. He said that you can
> count approaches made in VMC with out hood. I said no, you need hood
> and safety pilot. He said recent change made it ok in VMC without
> hood.
>
> Anyone heard of this?

Nope. And it doesn't make sense.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Roy Smith]

Chuck > wrote:
>Talking with a friend yesterday re currency. He said that you can
>count approaches made in VMC with out hood. I said no, you need hood
>and safety pilot. He said recent change made it ok in VMC without
>hood.

Unless you can show me something official from the FAA, I say your
friend has no idea what he's talking about.

[Mark Hansen]

On 04/24/06 08:36, Chuck wrote:
> Talking with a friend yesterday re currency. He said that you can
> count approaches made in VMC with out hood. I said no, you need hood
> and safety pilot. He said recent change made it ok in VMC without
> hood.
>
> Anyone heard of this?
>
> Chuck
>

Hello, Chuck.

I think your friend is wrong. Have a look at CFR 61.57 (c), wherein
it states:

Instrument experience. Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section,
no person may act as pilot in command under IFR or in weather conditions
less than the minimums prescribed for VFR, unless within the preceding 6
calendar months, that person has:

1) For the purpose of obtaining instrument experience in an aircraft
(other than a glider), performed and logged under actual or simulated
instrument conditions, either in flight in the appropriate category
of aircraft for the instrument privileges sought or in a flight
simulator or flight training device that is representative of the
aircraft category for the instrument privileges sought—

(i) At least six instrument approaches;

(ii) Holding procedures; and

(iii) Intercepting and tracking courses through the use of navigation
systems.

There are some exceptions in paragraph (e) which probably don't apply to
you or your friend, but you can look them up to make sure.

Can your friend show you the basis on which he makes this claim?

--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

[Matt Whiting]

Chuck wrote:
> Talking with a friend yesterday re currency. He said that you can
> count approaches made in VMC with out hood. I said no, you need hood
> and safety pilot. He said recent change made it ok in VMC without
> hood.
>
> Anyone heard of this?

No. Without some evidence of this, I think your friend is
hallucinating. :-)

Matt

[Wizard of Draws]

On 4/24/06 5:32 PM, in article , "Matt
Whiting" > wrote:

> Chuck wrote:
>> Talking with a friend yesterday re currency. He said that you can
>> count approaches made in VMC with out hood. I said no, you need hood
>> and safety pilot. He said recent change made it ok in VMC without
>> hood.
>>
>> Anyone heard of this?
>
> No. Without some evidence of this, I think your friend is
> hallucinating. :-)
>
> Matt

....And probably not safe to fly with.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino

Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com

More Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

[John R. Copeland]

"Chuck" > wrote in message ups.com...
>
> Talking with a friend yesterday re currency. He said that you can
> count approaches made in VMC with out hood. I said no, you need hood
> and safety pilot. He said recent change made it ok in VMC without
> hood.
>
> Anyone heard of this?
>
> Chuck
>

The FAA actually proposed that change, perhaps a decade or so ago,
but it was scorned by pilots, and the proposal was withdrawn.
I believe the FAA thinking was that practicing the procedures per se
was the important thing, more so than simply demonstrating
the elemental ability to fly an airplane by reference only to instruments.

[Jose]

> The FAA actually proposed that change, perhaps a decade or so ago,
> but it was scorned by pilots, and the proposal was withdrawn.
> I believe the FAA thinking was that practicing the procedures per se
> was the important thing, more so than simply demonstrating
> the elemental ability to fly an airplane by reference only to instruments.

Got a link to the proposal? I cannot imagine that the FAA, despite what
I think of them, would ever entertain this.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[John R. Copeland]

"Jose" > wrote in message om...
>> The FAA actually proposed that change, perhaps a decade or so ago,
>> but it was scorned by pilots, and the proposal was withdrawn.
>> I believe the FAA thinking was that practicing the procedures per se
>> was the important thing, more so than simply demonstrating
>> the elemental ability to fly an airplane by reference only to instruments.
>
> Got a link to the proposal? I cannot imagine that the FAA, despite what
> I think of them, would ever entertain this.
>
> Jose

No, I have no link, and yes, your response is similar to many others.

[jmk]

Jose wrote:
> > The FAA actually proposed that change, perhaps a decade or so ago,
> > but it was scorned by pilots, and the proposal was withdrawn.
> > I believe the FAA thinking was that practicing the procedures per se
> > was the important thing, more so than simply demonstrating
> > the elemental ability to fly an airplane by reference only to instruments.
>
> Got a link to the proposal? I cannot imagine that the FAA, despite what
> I think of them, would ever entertain this.

I'd have to dig out a bunch of old AVSIG archives. Basically it
started when someone asked the definition of "approach in actual" -
i.e. at what point can you break out and still count it as an approach
for currency purposes. Went to the chief counsel for a ruling. They
came back and said that the ONLY approaches you could count was those
in which you went all the way to minimums in IMC.

Well, everyone yelled -- what do you mean I can't count the approach if
I break out at 201 feet AGL!!! So back it went. The *new*
interpretation that came out was "Any instrument approach on an IFR
flight plan counts for currency, no clouds required." That one was
also laughed off the table - You could fly for 20 years, never see
either a hood or a cloud or a simulator, and still be instrument
current. But officially that interpretation did exist for several
years, until the latest re-write (which would seem to clarify the
requirement for clouds or hood or simulator).

Ironically, it STILL doesn't tell you how much "clouds" you have to
have to count the approach. <G>

[Jose]

> So back it went. The *new*
> interpretation that came out was "Any instrument approach on an IFR
> flight plan counts for currency, no clouds required." That one was
> also laughed off the table

That's what I'd like to see - I could use a good laugh every now and then.

> Ironically, it STILL doesn't tell you how much "clouds" you have to
> have to count the approach. <G>

Well, each cloud is different - the "what if I break out for ten seconds
halfway down the approach and then go back in the clag?" questions can
go on forever and still not cover everything.

I figure if I have to depend on the instruments to keep the greasy side
down for most of the way, especially near the end, then I'm counting it.
If I don't break out until the DH for SOME class of aircraft, I'm
counting it. If I can use outside references to keep upright, then even
though I'm using instrument navigation and below VMC, I'm not counting
it as an instrument approach for currency.

I wish that the FAA wouldn't feel the need to answer the question like a
lawyer, but instead, give us their guidelines for how they think, so
that we can make our own decisions utilizing their criteria, and be
reasonably certain we'll reach the same conclusion.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Stan Gosnell]

(Paul Tomblin) wrote in
:

>
> Well, it's vectors to several specific courses - for instance the way
> I go it's vectors to intercept the R-199 from YOW somewhere between
> ASHTN and REEDO. So it would be useful to have the GPS put ASHTN and
> REEDO in the procedure.
>
Put them (everything) in a stored route.

--
Regards,

Stan

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin