GPS vs ADF

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

I actually posted this in another aviation newsgroup in which I actively post
all the time but didn't get a reply... I assume because of the crash in
Manhattan got everybody's attention. That being said, I'm still hoping for some
insight from the more recently trained.


==== cut begins ====
I'm still a little confused how I'm expected to legally fly an ILS approach that
uses a NDB as its IAF with a GPS on board instead of an ADF. (For example, the
ILS Runway 2 approach into KUZA (Rock Hill, SC)). The rental aircraft I have
access to these days all come with GPS, which is very nice, but I still want my
ADF for the little airports I sometimes fly into.

Feel free to educate me... I was out of flying for 15 years and the technology
passed me by. The last time I was flying regularly LORAN was just coming to
aircraft, and everybody was flying ILS, NDB, and VOR approaches. I took an IPC
to get my instrument currency up to date but we used the older equipment with
which I was already familiar. I'm comfortable enough setting up a Garmin 430 to
navigate to another airport but that's about the limits of what I can do with
one. Don't have a clue about GPS approaches....



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Dave S]

Mort.. welcome back into the air.

First off.. I am assuming that the Garmin 430 or other GPS is certified
for use in approaches IN YOUR INSTALLATION.. that usually means a couple
of specifics when installed and configured, and also a current database.
When you power the box up it will indicate if you are able to use it for
VFR navigation only. In the case of the 430, I cant rightfully think of
why someone would by a $10,000 box and not have it installed to its
fullest capability..

anyways.. You can use an IFR certified GPS LEGALLY to substitute for an
ADF or DME if the navaid's physical location is in the supplied database
(user made waypoints dont meet this requirement). So as long as you have
an IFR GPS, with current database, it would substitute where an
approach has "ADF" or "DME" required on the plate. I am not referring to
NDB approaches, but keep in mind that in many many instances, NDB and
other approach paths have "overlay" approaches that are GPS procedures..
so chances are if there is an NDB approach into someplace, there is
likely also a GPS/RNAV approach into there as well. My information is a
little dated here, so if there is a more correct version, someone will
surely update this thread.

Most of my GPS use has been with king products with minimal time behind
the Garmin.. did safety pilot a few times with a guy using dual 430's..
Pretty much in your scenario, with the ILS approach, with an ADF for the
IAF.. one possible way to tackle this is to have the Direct To set to
the ADF location/identifier. Then set the Nav to the ILS frequency, set
the panel CDI to indicate NAV instead of GPS.. and fly the needles..

The needles will give you your ILS info.. the GPS in the stack will give
you distance and bearing to the IAF (NDB).. and the moving map will show
you a pretty purple line going to your IAF. I do not recall if the 430
has ILS approaches "overlaid" in its database for GPS situational
awareness. If this is the case, selecting the ILS approach on the GPS
flight plan would provide GPS guidance that would automatically sequence
you past the ADF in question.. and probably cut the workload. You'd
still fly the ILS needles in either case, regardless of how you dial the
GPS in.

There is lots of good reading on AOPA's website that is archived over
the years on issues like this.. Find you an instructor who is savvy with
the new boxes and go play for a bit.. or find a pilot who is really
savvy and have him be your safety pilot and again.. go play..

There is also a free software download you can get from Garmin
(www.garmin.com) that is a "trainer" for their 400/500 product line that
can get you more familiar with it. The manuals are also available for
download for free if I remember correctly. Do some homework now and save
some money later.

Its a brave new world out there, Mort..
Dave (RN too)

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
> I actually posted this in another aviation newsgroup in which I actively post
> all the time but didn't get a reply... I assume because of the crash in
> Manhattan got everybody's attention. That being said, I'm still hoping for some
> insight from the more recently trained.
>
>
> ==== cut begins ====
> I'm still a little confused how I'm expected to legally fly an ILS approach that
> uses a NDB as its IAF with a GPS on board instead of an ADF. (For example, the
> ILS Runway 2 approach into KUZA (Rock Hill, SC)). The rental aircraft I have
> access to these days all come with GPS, which is very nice, but I still want my
> ADF for the little airports I sometimes fly into.
>
> Feel free to educate me... I was out of flying for 15 years and the technology
> passed me by. The last time I was flying regularly LORAN was just coming to
> aircraft, and everybody was flying ILS, NDB, and VOR approaches. I took an IPC
> to get my instrument currency up to date but we used the older equipment with
> which I was already familiar. I'm comfortable enough setting up a Garmin 430 to
> navigate to another airport but that's about the limits of what I can do with
> one. Don't have a clue about GPS approaches....
>
>
>

[Thomas Borchert]

RN,

> . I'm comfortable enough setting up a Garmin 430 to
> navigate to another airport but that's about the limits of what I can do with
> one. Don't have a clue about GPS approaches....
>

Well, you need one to substitute the ADF ;-)

Mainly, read the 430 manual part about loading and acitivating approaches. What
you would do is to activate the NDB approach to the airport in question. After
that, the 430 will guide you through the approach since the approach is in its
database. The CDI slaved to the GPS will give the indications as if there was a
VOR in place of the NDB - in principle (there are some differences in the
details). This together with the moving map (and the track indication) makes it
vastly easier to fly an NDB approach that way than with an ADF.

This all pertains to an IFR certified installation.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote:

> I actually posted this in another aviation newsgroup in which I actively post
> all the time but didn't get a reply... I assume because of the crash in
> Manhattan got everybody's attention. That being said, I'm still hoping for
> some
> insight from the more recently trained.
>
>
> ==== cut begins ====
> I'm still a little confused how I'm expected to legally fly an ILS approach
> that
> uses a NDB as its IAF with a GPS on board instead of an ADF.

http://www.faa.gov/ATPubs/AIM/

from chapter 1:

f. Use of GPS in lieu of ADF and DME

1. Subject to the restrictions below, operators in the U.S. NAS are authorized
to use GPS equipment certified for IFR operations in place of ADF and/or DME
equipment for en route and terminal operations. For some operations there is no
requirement for the aircraft to be equipped with an ADF or DME receiver, see
subparagraphs f(b)(7) and (8) below. The ground-based NDB or DME facility may be
temporarily out of service during these operations. Charting will not change to
support these operations.

(a) Operations allowed:

(1) Determining the aircraft position over a DME fix. GPS satisfies the 14 CFR
Section 91.205(e) requirement for DME at and above 24,000 feet mean sea level
(MSL) (FL 240).

(2) Flying a DME arc.

(3) Navigating to/from an NDB/compass locator.

(4) Determining the aircraft position over an NDB/compass locator.

(5) Determining the aircraft position over a fix defined by an NDB/compass
locator bearing crossing a VOR/LOC course.

(6) Holding over an NDB/compass locator.

NOTE-
This approval does not alter the conditions and requirements for use of GPS to
fly existing nonprecision instrument approach procedures as defined in the GPS
approach overlay program.

(b) Restrictions

(1) GPS avionics approved for terminal IFR operations may be used in lieu of ADF
and/or DME. Included in this approval are both stand-alone and multi-sensor
systems actively employing GPS as a sensor. This equipment must be installed in
accordance with appropriate airworthiness installation requirements and the
provisions of the applicable FAA approved AFM, AFM supplement, or pilot's guide
must be met. The required integrity for these operations must be provided by at
least en route RAIM, or an equivalent method; i.e., Wide Area Augmentation
System (WAAS).

(2) For air carriers and operators for compensation or hire, Principal
Operations Inspector (POI) and operations specification approval is required for
any use of GPS.

(3) Waypoints, fixes, intersections, and facility locations to be used for these
operations must be retrieved from the GPS airborne database. The database must
be current. If the required positions cannot be retrieved from the airborne
database, the substitution of GPS for ADF and/or DME is not authorized.

(4) The aircraft GPS system must be operated within the guidelines contained in
the AFM, AFM supplement, or pilot's guide.

(5) The Course Deviation Indicator (CDI) must be set to terminal sensitivity
(normally 1 or 1 1/4 NM) when tracking GPS course guidance in the terminal area.
This is to ensure that small deviations from course are displayed to the pilot
in order to keep the aircraft within the smaller terminal protected areas.

(6) Charted requirements for ADF and/or DME can be met using the GPS system,
except for use as the principal instrument approach navigation source.

(7) Procedures must be established for use in the event that GPS integrity
outages are predicted or occur (RAIM annunciation). In these situations, the
flight must rely on other approved equipment; this may require the aircraft to
be equipped with operational NDB and/or DME receivers. Otherwise, the flight
must be rerouted, delayed, canceled or conducted VFR.

(8) For TSO-C129/129A users, any required alternate airport must still have an
approved instrument approach procedure other than GPS that is anticipated to be
operational and available at the estimated time of arrival, and which the
aircraft is equipped to fly. If the non-GPS approaches on which the pilot must
rely require DME or ADF, the aircraft must be equipped with DME or ADF avionics
as appropriate.

NOTE-
Coincident with WAAS commissioning, the FAA will begin removing the Inverse A
Icon NA (Alternate Minimums Not Authorized) symbol from select RNAV (GPS) and
GPS approach procedures so they may be used by approach approved WAAS receivers
at alternate airports. This does not change the above alternate airport
requirements for users of GPS TSO-C129/129A, Airborne Supplemental Navigation
Equipment Using the Global Positioning System (GPS), receivers.

(c) Guidance. The following provides general guidance which is not specific to
any particular aircraft GPS system. For specific system guidance refer to the
AFM, AFM supplement, pilot's guide, or contact the manufacturer of your system.

(1) To determine the aircraft position over a DME fix:

[a] Verify aircraft GPS system integrity monitoring is functioning properly and
indicates satisfactory integrity.

[b] If the fix is identified by a five letter name which is contained in the GPS
airborne database, you may select either the named fix as the active GPS
waypoint (WP) or the facility establishing the DME fix as the active GPS WP.

NOTE-
When using a facility as the active WP, the only acceptable facility is the DME
facility which is charted as the one used to establish the DME fix. If this
facility is not in your airborne database, you are not authorized to use a
facility WP for this operation.

[c] If the fix is identified by a five letter name which is not contained in the
GPS airborne database, or if the fix is not named, you must select the facility
establishing the DME fix or another named DME fix as the active GPS WP.

NOTE-
An alternative, until all DME sources are in the database, is using a named DME
fix as the active waypoint to identify unnamed DME fixes on the same course and
from the same DME source as the active waypoint.

CAUTION-
Pilots should be extremely careful to ensure that correct distance measurements
are used when utilizing this interim method. It is strongly recommended that
pilots review distances for DME fixing during preflight preparation.

[d] If you select the named fix as your active GPS WP, you are over the fix when
the GPS system indicates you are at the active WP.

[e] If you select the DME providing facility as the active GPS WP, you are over
the fix when the GPS distance from the active WP equals the charted DME value
and you are on the appropriate bearing or course.

(2) To fly a DME arc:

[a] Verify aircraft GPS system integrity monitoring is functioning properly and
indicates satisfactory integrity.

[b] You must select, from the airborne database, the facility providing the DME
arc as the active GPS WP.

NOTE-
The only acceptable facility is the DME facility on which the arc is based. If
this facility is not in your airborne database, you are not authorized to
perform this operation.

[c] Maintain position on the arc by reference to the GPS distance in lieu of a
DME readout.

(3) To navigate to or from an NDB/compass locator:

NOTE-
If the chart depicts the compass locator collocated with a fix of the same name,
use of that fix as the active WP in place of the compass locator facility is
authorized.

[a] Verify aircraft GPS system integrity monitoring is functioning properly and
indicates satisfactory integrity.

[b] Select terminal CDI sensitivity in accordance with the AFM, AFM supplement,
or pilot's guide if in the terminal area.

[c] Select the NDB/compass locator facility from the airborne database as the
active WP.

[d] Select and navigate on the appropriate course to or from the active WP.

(4) To determine the aircraft position over an NDB/compass locator:

[a] Verify aircraft GPS system integrity monitoring is functioning properly and
indicates satisfactory integrity.

[b] Select the NDB/compass locator facility from the airborne database as the
active WP.

NOTE-
When using an NDB/compass locator, that facility must be charted and be in the
airborne database. If this facility is not in your airborne database, you are
not authorized to use a facility WP for this operation.

[c] You are over the NDB/compass locator when the GPS system indicates you are
at the active WP.

(5) To determine the aircraft position over a fix made up of an NDB/compass
locator bearing crossing a VOR/LOC course:

[a] Verify aircraft GPS system integrity monitoring is functioning properly and
indicates satisfactory integrity.

[b] A fix made up by a crossing NDB/compass locator bearing will be identified
by a five letter fix name. You may select either the named fix or the
NDB/compass locator facility providing the crossing bearing to establish the fix
as the active GPS WP.

NOTE-
When using an NDB/compass locator, that facility must be charted and be in the
airborne database. If this facility is not in your airborne database, you are
not authorized to use a facility WP for this operation.

[c] If you select the named fix as your active GPS WP, you are over the fix when
the GPS system indicates you are at the WP as you fly the prescribed track from
the non-GPS navigation source.

[d] If you select the NDB/compass locator facility as the active GPS WP, you are
over the fix when the GPS bearing to the active WP is the same as the charted
NDB/compass locator bearing for the fix as you fly the prescribed track from the
non-GPS navigation source.

(6) To hold over an NDB/compass locator:

[a] Verify aircraft GPS system integrity monitoring is functioning properly and
indicates satisfactory integrity.

[b] Select terminal CDI sensitivity in accordance with the AFM, AFM supplement,
or pilot's guide if in the terminal area.

[c] Select the NDB/compass locator facility from the airborne database as the
active WP.

NOTE-
When using a facility as the active WP, the only acceptable facility is the
NDB/compass locator facility which is charted. If this facility is not in your
airborne database, you are not authorized to use a facility WP for this
operation.

[d] Select nonsequencing (e.g., "HOLD" or "OBS") mode and the appropriate course
in accordance with the AFM, AFM supplement, or pilot's guide.

[e] Hold using the GPS system in accordance with the AFM, AFM supplement, or
pilot's guide.

(d) Planning. Good advance planning and intimate knowledge of your navigational
systems are vital to safe and successful use of GPS in lieu of ADF and/or DME.

(1) You should plan ahead before using GPS systems as a substitute for ADF
and/or DME. You will have several alternatives in selecting waypoints and system
configuration. After you are cleared for the approach is not the time to begin
programming your GPS. In the flight planning process you should determine
whether you will use the equipment in the automatic sequencing mode or in the
nonsequencing mode and select the waypoints you will use.

(2) When you are using your aircraft GPS system to supplement other navigation
systems, you may need to bring your GPS control panel into your navigation scan
to see the GPS information. Some GPS aircraft installations will present
localizer information on the CDI whenever a localizer frequency is tuned,
removing the GPS information from the CDI display. Good advance planning and
intimate knowledge of your navigation systems are vital to safe and successful
use of GPS.

(3) The following are some factors to consider when preparing to install a GPS
receiver in an aircraft. Installation of the equipment can determine how easy or
how difficult it will be to use the system.

[a] Consideration should be given to installing the receiver within the primary
instrument scan to facilitate using the GPS in lieu of ADF and/or DME. This will
preclude breaking the primary instrument scan while flying the aircraft and
tuning, and identifying waypoints. This becomes increasingly important on
approaches, and missed approaches.

[b] Many GPS receivers can drive an ADF type bearing pointer. Such an
installation will provide the pilot with an enhanced level of situational
awareness by providing GPS navigation information while the CDI is set to VOR or
ILS.

[c] The GPS receiver may be installed so that when an ILS frequency is tuned,
the navigation display defaults to the VOR/ILS mode, preempting the GPS mode.
However, if the receiver installation requires a manual selection from GPS to
ILS, it allows the ILS to be tuned and identified while navigating on the GPS.
Additionally, this prevents the navigation display from automatically switching
back to GPS when a VOR frequency is selected. If the navigation display
automatically switches to GPS mode when a VOR is selected, the change may go
unnoticed and could result in erroneous navigation and departing obstruction
protected airspace.

[d] GPS is a supplemental navigation system in part due to signal availability.
There will be times when your system will not receive enough satellites with
proper geometry to provide accurate positioning or sufficient integrity.
Procedures should be established by the pilot in the event that GPS outages
occur. In these situations, the pilot should rely on other approved equipment,
delay departure, reroute, or discontinue IFR operations.

g. Equipment and Database Requirements

1. Authorization to fly approaches under IFR using GPS avionics systems requires
that:

(a) A pilot use GPS avionics with TSO- C129, or equivalent, authorization in
class A1, B1, B3, C1, or C3; and

(b) All approach procedures to be flown must be retrievable from the current
airborne navigation database supplied by the TSO-C129 equipment manufacturer or
other FAA approved source.

(c) Prior to using a procedure or waypoint retrieved from the airborne
navigation database, the pilot should verify the validity of the database. This
verification should include the following preflight and in-flight steps:

(1) Preflight:

[a] Determine the date of database issuance, and verify that the date/time of
proposed use is before the expiration date/time.

[b] Verify that the database provider has not published a notice limiting the
use of the specific waypoint or procedure.

(2) Inflight:

[a] Determine that the waypoints and transition names coincide with names found
on the procedure chart. Do not use waypoints, which do not exactly match the
spelling shown on published procedure charts.

[b] Determine that the waypoints are generally logical in location, in the
correct order, and that their orientation to each other is as found on the
procedure chart, both laterally and vertically.

NOTE-
There is no specific requirement to check each waypoint latitude and longitude,
type of waypoint and/or altitude constraint, only the general relationship of
waypoints in the procedure, or the logic of an individual waypoint's location.

[c] If the cursory check of procedure logic or individual waypoint location,
specified in [b] above, indicates a potential error, do not use the retrieved
procedure or waypoint until a verification of latitude and longitude, waypoint
type, and altitude constraints indicate full conformity with the published data.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Ross Richardson[_2_]]

Dave S wrote:
> Mort.. welcome back into the air.
>
> First off.. I am assuming that the Garmin 430 or other GPS is certified
> for use in approaches IN YOUR INSTALLATION.. that usually means a couple
> of specifics when installed and configured, and also a current database.
> When you power the box up it will indicate if you are able to use it for
> VFR navigation only. In the case of the 430, I cant rightfully think of
> why someone would by a $10,000 box and not have it installed to its
> fullest capability..
>
> anyways.. You can use an IFR certified GPS LEGALLY to substitute for an
> ADF or DME if the navaid's physical location is in the supplied database
> (user made waypoints dont meet this requirement). So as long as you have
> an IFR GPS, with current database, it would substitute where an
> approach has "ADF" or "DME" required on the plate. I am not referring to
> NDB approaches, but keep in mind that in many many instances, NDB and
> other approach paths have "overlay" approaches that are GPS procedures..
> so chances are if there is an NDB approach into someplace, there is
> likely also a GPS/RNAV approach into there as well. My information is a
> little dated here, so if there is a more correct version, someone will
> surely update this thread.
>
> Most of my GPS use has been with king products with minimal time behind
> the Garmin.. did safety pilot a few times with a guy using dual 430's..
> Pretty much in your scenario, with the ILS approach, with an ADF for the
> IAF.. one possible way to tackle this is to have the Direct To set to
> the ADF location/identifier. Then set the Nav to the ILS frequency, set
> the panel CDI to indicate NAV instead of GPS.. and fly the needles..
>
> The needles will give you your ILS info.. the GPS in the stack will give
> you distance and bearing to the IAF (NDB).. and the moving map will show
> you a pretty purple line going to your IAF. I do not recall if the 430
> has ILS approaches "overlaid" in its database for GPS situational
> awareness. If this is the case, selecting the ILS approach on the GPS
> flight plan would provide GPS guidance that would automatically sequence
> you past the ADF in question.. and probably cut the workload. You'd
> still fly the ILS needles in either case, regardless of how you dial the
> GPS in.
>
> There is lots of good reading on AOPA's website that is archived over
> the years on issues like this.. Find you an instructor who is savvy with
> the new boxes and go play for a bit.. or find a pilot who is really
> savvy and have him be your safety pilot and again.. go play..
>
> There is also a free software download you can get from Garmin
> (www.garmin.com) that is a "trainer" for their 400/500 product line that
> can get you more familiar with it. The manuals are also available for
> download for free if I remember correctly. Do some homework now and save
> some money later.
>
> Its a brave new world out there, Mort..
> Dave (RN too)
>
> Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
>
>> I actually posted this in another aviation newsgroup in which I
>> actively post all the time but didn't get a reply... I assume because
>> of the crash in Manhattan got everybody's attention. That being said,
>> I'm still hoping for some insight from the more recently trained.
>>
>>
>> ==== cut begins ====
>> I'm still a little confused how I'm expected to legally fly an ILS
>> approach that
>> uses a NDB as its IAF with a GPS on board instead of an ADF. (For
>> example, the
>> ILS Runway 2 approach into KUZA (Rock Hill, SC)). The rental aircraft
>> I have
>> access to these days all come with GPS, which is very nice, but I
>> still want my
>> ADF for the little airports I sometimes fly into.
>>
>> Feel free to educate me... I was out of flying for 15 years and the
>> technology
>> passed me by. The last time I was flying regularly LORAN was just
>> coming to
>> aircraft, and everybody was flying ILS, NDB, and VOR approaches. I
>> took an IPC
>> to get my instrument currency up to date but we used the older
>> equipment with
>> which I was already familiar. I'm comfortable enough setting up a
>> Garmin 430 to
>> navigate to another airport but that's about the limits of what I can
>> do with
>> one. Don't have a clue about GPS approaches....
>>
>>
>>
Be careful with the DIRECT TO command. I have KLN 89/B and it will not
enter the approach mode from Direct to. You must be on a flight plan
(e.g., from some point TO some point). Then you can select the approach.
Like Dave said, many NDB approaches have a GPS overlay. But what is
really nice is the GPS only "T" approaches. Very easy and no reversal turn.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[Doug[_1_]]

Yup, I miss listenin' to the Hog Report and checkin' out whatever
Elmer's Hardware had on sale at those small Wyomin' towns, with the
local AM station tuned into the ADF, when cummin in fer a landin'. By
guppy, them were the gud ol' days fer sure....

[Mark Hansen]

On 10/13/06 01:58, Thomas Borchert wrote:
> RN,
>
>> . I'm comfortable enough setting up a Garmin 430 to
>> navigate to another airport but that's about the limits of what I can do with
>> one. Don't have a clue about GPS approaches....
>>
>
> Well, you need one to substitute the ADF ;-)
>
> Mainly, read the 430 manual part about loading and acitivating approaches. What
> you would do is to activate the NDB approach to the airport in question. After
> that, the 430 will guide you through the approach since the approach is in its
> database. The CDI slaved to the GPS will give the indications as if there was a
> VOR in place of the NDB - in principle (there are some differences in the
> details). This together with the moving map (and the track indication) makes it
> vastly easier to fly an NDB approach that way than with an ADF.
>
> This all pertains to an IFR certified installation.
>


Perhaps I'm missing something here, but it sounds like you're talking about
using the GNS 430 in GPS mode to fly the NDB approach, which is not allowed.

You can use the GPS as a substitute for the NDB, but not when the NDB is
the primary navigational station for the approach.

Now, if the airport has a GPS overlay associated with the NDB approach, you
can fly that using the GPS (in GPS mode).



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

[Thomas Borchert]

Mark,

> Perhaps I'm missing something here, but it sounds like you're talking about
> using the GNS 430 in GPS mode to fly the NDB approach, which is not allowed.
>

You are correct.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Sam Spade]

Mark Hansen wrote:

>
> Now, if the airport has a GPS overlay associated with the NDB approach, you
> can fly that using the GPS (in GPS mode).
>
>
>

As a matter of FAA policy "or...GPS" will not be removed from an NDB
with straight-in minimums until an RNAV approach with straight-in
minimums is published to the same runway end.

[Sam Spade]

Ross Richardson wrote:
> Dave S wrote:
>
>> Mort.. welcome back into the air.
>>
>> First off.. I am assuming that the Garmin 430 or other GPS is
>> certified for use in approaches IN YOUR INSTALLATION.. that usually
>> means a couple of specifics when installed and configured, and also a
>> current database. When you power the box up it will indicate if you
>> are able to use it for VFR navigation only. In the case of the 430, I
>> cant rightfully think of why someone would by a $10,000 box and not
>> have it installed to its fullest capability..
>>
>> anyways.. You can use an IFR certified GPS LEGALLY to substitute for
>> an ADF or DME if the navaid's physical location is in the supplied
>> database (user made waypoints dont meet this requirement). So as long
>> as you have an IFR GPS, with current database, it would substitute
>> where an approach has "ADF" or "DME" required on the plate. I am not
>> referring to NDB approaches, but keep in mind that in many many
>> instances, NDB and other approach paths have "overlay" approaches that
>> are GPS procedures.. so chances are if there is an NDB approach into
>> someplace, there is likely also a GPS/RNAV approach into there as
>> well. My information is a little dated here, so if there is a more
>> correct version, someone will surely update this thread.
>>
>> Most of my GPS use has been with king products with minimal time
>> behind the Garmin.. did safety pilot a few times with a guy using dual
>> 430's..
>> Pretty much in your scenario, with the ILS approach, with an ADF for
>> the IAF.. one possible way to tackle this is to have the Direct To set
>> to the ADF location/identifier. Then set the Nav to the ILS frequency,
>> set the panel CDI to indicate NAV instead of GPS.. and fly the needles..
>>
>> The needles will give you your ILS info.. the GPS in the stack will
>> give you distance and bearing to the IAF (NDB).. and the moving map
>> will show you a pretty purple line going to your IAF. I do not recall
>> if the 430 has ILS approaches "overlaid" in its database for GPS
>> situational awareness. If this is the case, selecting the ILS approach
>> on the GPS flight plan would provide GPS guidance that would
>> automatically sequence you past the ADF in question.. and probably cut
>> the workload. You'd still fly the ILS needles in either case,
>> regardless of how you dial the GPS in.
>>
>> There is lots of good reading on AOPA's website that is archived over
>> the years on issues like this.. Find you an instructor who is savvy
>> with the new boxes and go play for a bit.. or find a pilot who is
>> really savvy and have him be your safety pilot and again.. go play..
>>
>> There is also a free software download you can get from Garmin
>> (www.garmin.com) that is a "trainer" for their 400/500 product line
>> that can get you more familiar with it. The manuals are also available
>> for download for free if I remember correctly. Do some homework now
>> and save some money later.
>>
>> Its a brave new world out there, Mort..
>> Dave (RN too)
>>
>> Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
>>
>>> I actually posted this in another aviation newsgroup in which I
>>> actively post all the time but didn't get a reply... I assume because
>>> of the crash in Manhattan got everybody's attention. That being
>>> said, I'm still hoping for some insight from the more recently trained.
>>>
>>>
>>> ==== cut begins ====
>>> I'm still a little confused how I'm expected to legally fly an ILS
>>> approach that
>>> uses a NDB as its IAF with a GPS on board instead of an ADF. (For
>>> example, the
>>> ILS Runway 2 approach into KUZA (Rock Hill, SC)). The rental
>>> aircraft I have
>>> access to these days all come with GPS, which is very nice, but I
>>> still want my
>>> ADF for the little airports I sometimes fly into.
>>>
>>> Feel free to educate me... I was out of flying for 15 years and the
>>> technology
>>> passed me by. The last time I was flying regularly LORAN was just
>>> coming to
>>> aircraft, and everybody was flying ILS, NDB, and VOR approaches. I
>>> took an IPC
>>> to get my instrument currency up to date but we used the older
>>> equipment with
>>> which I was already familiar. I'm comfortable enough setting up a
>>> Garmin 430 to
>>> navigate to another airport but that's about the limits of what I can
>>> do with
>>> one. Don't have a clue about GPS approaches....
>>>
>>>
>>>
> Be careful with the DIRECT TO command. I have KLN 89/B and it will not
> enter the approach mode from Direct to. You must be on a flight plan
> (e.g., from some point TO some point). Then you can select the approach.
> Like Dave said, many NDB approaches have a GPS overlay. But what is
> really nice is the GPS only "T" approaches. Very easy and no reversal turn.
>
With a Garmin 400/500 so long as the approach is loaded, going direct-to
some fix prior to the FAF will not adversely affect approach sequencing.

[Michael[_1_]]

> I'm still a little confused how I'm expected to legally fly an ILS approach that
> uses a NDB as its IAF with a GPS on board instead of an ADF. (For example, the
> ILS Runway 2 approach into KUZA (Rock Hill, SC)). The rental aircraft I have
> access to these days all come with GPS, which is very nice, but I still want my
> ADF for the little airports I sometimes fly into.
>
> Feel free to educate me... I was out of flying for 15 years and the technology
> passed me by. The last time I was flying regularly LORAN was just coming to
> aircraft, and everybody was flying ILS, NDB, and VOR approaches. I took an IPC
> to get my instrument currency up to date but we used the older equipment with
> which I was already familiar. I'm comfortable enough setting up a Garmin 430 to
> navigate to another airport but that's about the limits of what I can do with
> one. Don't have a clue about GPS approaches....

Some people refer to IFR GPS as "flexible," meaning it can do many
different things. Some refer to is as "a frustrating piece of crap,"
because they find it so hard to make it do any one particular thing. I
find that the user interfaces on GPS units are very intuitive and
obvious - as long as you have a graduate degree in engineering and
several years experience working with computerized instrumentation.
Describing IFR GPS as flexible is a lot like saying a drowning victim
has moist skin. It's technically true, but you're not impressed.

There are lots of ways to accomplish what you want - that is, to use an
IFR GPS instead of an ADF to fly an ILS approach where the IAF and MAP
is a LOM. If you're used to doing it the old fashioned way, then the
method that will make sense to you will be the one that all the people
who actually like and understand IFR GPS will consider the least
desirable (and it's one I probably would not use myself unless I was
unfamiliar with the available GPS). Here goes:

Use exactly the keystrokes you would use to make the IFR GPS point to
the airport (meaning the direct-to function). However, instead of
dialing in KUZA for the airport, dial in RALLY (the intersection that
marks the LOM).

To fly the approach:

Go direct to RALLY as you would to an airport. When the distance from
RALLY reads close to zero (say less than 0.5 nm) turn outbound and
track the LOC outbound, and when ready perform the PT. Proceed as with
a normal ILS. The GPS will probably give you numeric absolute bearing
to RALLY just as an ADF would, only better, and also distance to RALLY.

To fly the missed approach:

Upon starting your climbing turn to the left, do the same direct-to you
did before (you should not need to dial in RALLY again, so probably
just direct-to and enter or the equivalent - two keystrokes - will be
required) and fly direct to RALLY. Make the teardrop entry as normal,
and use the LOC for guidance on the inbound leg.

There are other ways to do this. Many other ways. IFR GPS is very
flexible and powerful. With a 430, you can get a diagram of the
approach to come up, get guidance to the IAF, lines to follow for your
PT, and automatic switching to LOC mode when established inbound as
well as automatic sequencing for the missed approach with a visual
depiction of the hold and prompting for the correct entry. But the
basic method I gave you will always work with any GPS, and will seem
natural to someone who is used to flying steam gauges.

Michael

[Ron Natalie]

Michael wrote:

> Some people refer to IFR GPS as "flexible," meaning it can do many
> different things.

I like my GPS, and I am an engineer...but what's really the key to
me is the moving map. You can take away my autopilot, but the
you'll get the map when you pry it out of my cold dead fingers :-)

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Michael wrote:
> Upon starting your climbing turn to the left, do the same direct-to you
> did before (you should not need to dial in RALLY again, so probably
> just direct-to and enter or the equivalent - two keystrokes - will be
> required) and fly direct to RALLY. Make the teardrop entry as normal,
> and use the LOC for guidance on the inbound leg.
>
> There are other ways to do this. Many other ways. IFR GPS is very
> flexible and powerful. With a 430, you can get a diagram of the
> approach to come up, get guidance to the IAF, lines to follow for your
> PT, and automatic switching to LOC mode when established inbound as
> well as automatic sequencing for the missed approach with a visual
> depiction of the hold and prompting for the correct entry. But the
> basic method I gave you will always work with any GPS, and will seem
> natural to someone who is used to flying steam gauges.


That was exactly the information I was looking for. Thank you for taking the
time to post it.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Sam Spade]

Michael wrote:

> Some people refer to IFR GPS as "flexible," meaning it can do many
> different things. Some refer to is as "a frustrating piece of crap,"
> because they find it so hard to make it do any one particular thing. I
> find that the user interfaces on GPS units are very intuitive and
> obvious - as long as you have a graduate degree in engineering and
> several years experience working with computerized instrumentation.
> Describing IFR GPS as flexible is a lot like saying a drowning victim
> has moist skin. It's technically true, but you're not impressed.
>
x

Some folks with a lot of professional flying experience find some of
this stuff quite flexible and useful. Sure don't have to be an
engineer. But, it is sure equipment specific. I am proficient in the
use of the Garmin 530 but that took some time.

I wouldn't even attempt to use any other panel mount without a similar
amount of learning and practice. I also find using the 530 in a single
pilot environment without an autopilot to be a excessive knob twisting,
bad human-factors situation.

[Michael[_1_]]

Sam Spade wrote:
> Some folks with a lot of professional flying experience find some of
> this stuff quite flexible and useful.

And I do as well.

> Sure don't have to be an engineer.

I'm not sure that's true. I find that those without an engineering
background find it counterintuitive and need a lot of time to get used
to it. At least that has been my experience teaching people to use
their 430's, 530's, etc.

> But, it is sure equipment specific. I am proficient in the
> use of the Garmin 530 but that took some time.

How much time did it take to become proficient in the use of other
navigation equipment, once the basic instrument rating was attained?

> I wouldn't even attempt to use any other panel mount without a similar
> amount of learning and practice.

Which took how long? I've heard estimates in the 10-40 hour range.

> I also find using the 530 in a single
> pilot environment without an autopilot to be a excessive knob twisting,
> bad human-factors situation.

So let's see. You find that you need a significant amount of learning
and practice to use one particular make of GPS, that much of this won't
carry over to another make, and that even after you have learned to use
it, the workload required to use it single pilot without autopilot to
be excessive. I'm not surprised.

I find it to be quite flexible and useful, and without those caveats -
I find the workload of a 530 to be quite low, and the learning curve to
be quite short. Of course I have a graduate degree in engineering and
significant experience designing and using computerized equipment.

It didn't have to be that way. If it were up to me, GPS approaches
would be designed the same way as on-field VOR-DME approaches without a
FAF. You have the MAP/holding fix and a radial. You select the MAP,
put the unit in OBS mode, select the radial, and fly the standard
approach with PT in a manner familiar to every instrument rating holder
out there. If you need stepdown fixes, you add them. The interface to
the essential unit functionality could thus be standard and familiar.
But it wasn't done that way.

Michael

[B A R R Y[_1_]]

Michael wrote:
>
> I'm not sure that's true. I find that those without an engineering
> background find it counterintuitive and need a lot of time to get used
> to it. At least that has been my experience teaching people to use
> their 430's, 530's, etc.
>

What was the average age of the person you were teaching?

[Michael[_1_]]

B A R R Y wrote:
> > I'm not sure that's true. I find that those without an engineering
> > background find it counterintuitive and need a lot of time to get used
> > to it. At least that has been my experience teaching people to use
> > their 430's, 530's, etc.
>
> What was the average age of the person you were teaching?

About average for the pilot-owner. That is to say, maybe 45.

Younger people always learn faster.

The interesting thing is that the ones who did have significant
relevant experience (I'm thinking a couple of engineers here) got it
instantly. The others needed a lot of work.

Michael

[Sam Spade]

Michael wrote:
> Sam Spade wrote:
>
>>Some folks with a lot of professional flying experience find some of
>>this stuff quite flexible and useful.
>
>
> And I do as well.
>
>
>>Sure don't have to be an engineer.
>
>
> I'm not sure that's true. I find that those without an engineering
> background find it counterintuitive and need a lot of time to get used
> to it. At least that has been my experience teaching people to use
> their 430's, 530's, etc.
>
>
>>But, it is sure equipment specific. I am proficient in the
>>use of the Garmin 530 but that took some time.
>
>
> How much time did it take to become proficient in the use of other
> navigation equipment, once the basic instrument rating was attained?

Well, I got my instrument rating in 1958. ;-)
>
>
>>I wouldn't even attempt to use any other panel mount without a similar
>>amount of learning and practice.
>
>
> Which took how long? I've heard estimates in the 10-40 hour range.

Around 10 hours using the Garmin trainer integrated with MSFS.
>
>
>>I also find using the 530 in a single
>>pilot environment without an autopilot to be a excessive knob twisting,
>>bad human-factors situation.
>
>
> So let's see. You find that you need a significant amount of learning
> and practice to use one particular make of GPS, that much of this won't
> carry over to another make, and that even after you have learned to use
> it, the workload required to use it single pilot without autopilot to
> be excessive. I'm not surprised.

Yes, I am a retired airline pilot who, after a lot of early G/A
experience, got used to a far better human-factors environment in
airline flight operations.
>
> I find it to be quite flexible and useful, and without those caveats -
> I find the workload of a 530 to be quite low, and the learning curve to
> be quite short. Of course I have a graduate degree in engineering and
> significant experience designing and using computerized equipment.

A lot of it has to do with a trained mind that could be in disciplines
other than engineering.
>
> It didn't have to be that way. If it were up to me, GPS approaches
> would be designed the same way as on-field VOR-DME approaches without a
> FAF. You have the MAP/holding fix and a radial. You select the MAP,
> put the unit in OBS mode, select the radial, and fly the standard
> approach with PT in a manner familiar to every instrument rating holder
> out there. If you need stepdown fixes, you add them. The interface to
> the essential unit functionality could thus be standard and familiar.
> But it wasn't done that way.

You are thinking too much in light aircraft terms. All this stuff is
designed for the airlines, who own the FAA.

[Thomas Borchert]

Michael,

> I find that those without an engineering
> background find it counterintuitive and need a lot of time to get used
> to it.
>

If I may: So what? Who says things in life have to be easy or
"intuitive"? A GPS does very complex things. So it is complex to use. Is
any of those people you teach really of the opinion that a CDI or an ADF
are more "intutitive" than a moving map? Yeah, right...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[B A R R Y[_1_]]

Michael wrote:
> B A R R Y wrote:
>>> I'm not sure that's true. I find that those without an engineering
>>> background find it counterintuitive and need a lot of time to get used
>>> to it. At least that has been my experience teaching people to use
>>> their 430's, 530's, etc.
>> What was the average age of the person you were teaching?
>
> About average for the pilot-owner. That is to say, maybe 45.
>
> Younger people always learn faster.

I wasn't so much leaning that way, but more toward the video game
generation and folks who don't know the "old" way.

I teach technicians how to use high-tech test gear, and the folks who
have all kinds of experience with analog gear covered with discrete
switches always take longer to learn than the "new" folks, even though
the more experienced folks understand what they're testing and why.

I find that the older folks often try to relate the new device back to
the old tools, while the younger ones don't have anything to relate to,
so they accept things at face value. After modifying the teaching
method to NOT relate as much to the older methods, I find the more
experienced folks learning much faster.

[Michael[_1_]]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> > I find that those without an engineering
> > background find it counterintuitive and need a lot of time to get used
> > to it.
>
> If I may: So what? Who says things in life have to be easy or
> "intuitive"?

Wow, you sound like an engineer.

Who says it has to be easy or intuitive? Well, the customer. He's the
one who matters. In the software industry (at least the successful
parts of it) software is tested by intended end-users. When the
software doesn't behave the way they expect, you don't retrain them -
you rewrite the software. Of course the developers always bitch about
this, but it's not a grey area. The customers are right and the
developers are wrong. Unfortunately, in this FAA-driven environment,
the customer doesn't matter.

> A GPS does very complex things. So it is complex to use.

I said the same thing when I was told to make the doppler non-invasive
flowmeter simple to use. I was told that it wasn't acceptable, and to
make it easy to use. Seven years later, it's still the industry
leader. You CAN make a device that does complex things easy and
intuitive to use. It's just a lot of work.

> Is
> any of those people you teach really of the opinion that a CDI or an ADF
> are more "intutitive" than a moving map? Yeah, right...

Yes. They are. But not to an engineer.

Michael

[Thomas Borchert]

Michael,

> Wow, you sound like an engineer.

Not quite.

>
> Unfortunately, in this FAA-driven environment,
> the customer doesn't matter.

You got that right.

> You CAN make a device that does complex things easy and
> intuitive to use. It's just a lot of work.

Yes, within limits. What I was trying to get at was that indeed many people
complain about very complex things being, well, complex. I tried to point
out that such is life - and that's what makes it so exciting. I feel there's
a trend to "dumb down" things in an increasingly complex world. And I'm not
a fan of that. I'm not trying to make excuses for bad interface design, not
at all. But in my experience, there are limits to what you can do in that
arena. Also, things simply change. To expect everything to remain the same
in life without any new stuff coming in is, well, not very smart.


> > Is
> > any of those people you teach really of the opinion that a CDI or an ADF
> > are more "intutitive" than a moving map? Yeah, right...
>
> Yes. They are. But not to an engineer.

Excuse me, but that's just not true. Anyone who has gone through instrument
training will tell you that an ADF is anything but intuitive. It's just
something a pilot may be more used to, that's all.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Jose[_1_]]

> What I was trying to get at was that indeed many people
> complain about very complex things being, well, complex.

The problem is when things are =unnecessarily= complex. This often
results from attempting to impose an inappropriate paradigm on the user
interface, or from some limitations on the hardware, or from an
ill-conceived idea of what "complex" means. (I have an answering
machine that has just one button. It is a pain in the ass to use. The
one that has ten buttons is lots simpler. Each button does one thing.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Sam Spade]

Jose wrote:
>> What I was trying to get at was that indeed many people complain about
>> very complex things being, well, complex.
>
>
> The problem is when things are =unnecessarily= complex. This often
> results from attempting to impose an inappropriate paradigm on the user
> interface, or from some limitations on the hardware, or from an
> ill-conceived idea of what "complex" means. (I have an answering
> machine that has just one button. It is a pain in the ass to use. The
> one that has ten buttons is lots simpler. Each button does one thing.
>
> Jose

Panel mount navigators are actually much more complex (and far less
capable) than FMS/LNAV systems on high-end biz jets and modern
airliners. This is the result of cost and panel space limitations in
small, light aircraft.

[Thomas Borchert]

Jose,

> The problem is when things are =unnecessarily= complex.
>

True.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[[email protected][_1_]]

Sam Spade wrote:
> Michael wrote:
>
> I wouldn't even attempt to use any other panel mount without a similar
> amount of learning and practice. I also find using the 530 in a single
> pilot environment without an autopilot to be a excessive knob twisting,
> bad human-factors situation.

*** A decent controller will know it too. "Turn left 270, direct CEDES
when able".
Key to comfort with the 430 for me was to get proficient at flying
pieces of flight
plans and approaches. ATC will "help" you by giving you shortcuts. At
SQL they
always give me "direct AMEBY", which is not an IAF. Or they will give
you a vector
to join an airway.

It's important to know how to do these things before blasting off
into IMC.
(Hint: [FPL][DIRECT] or [FPL][DIRECT][DIRECT] )

- Jerry Kaidor ( )

[Sam Spade]

wrote:


> It's important to know how to do these things before blasting off
> into IMC.
> (Hint: [FPL][DIRECT] or [FPL][DIRECT][DIRECT] )
>
>

I understand all that.

Nonetheless, there is far too much knob twisting required to enter or
modify a flight plan, etc, for one person to do it and try to hand fly
the aircraft at the same time.

Something has to give; either a proper lookout for traffic in VMC or
spatial orientation during IMC.

[Ron Natalie]

Sam Spade wrote:

> Nonetheless, there is far too much knob twisting required to enter or
> modify a flight plan, etc, for one person to do it and try to hand fly
> the aircraft at the same time.
>
Less knob twisting on the 480. Once you're at a known place, the
possible Airways out are on hot keys and the exit points from those
airways are easily scrolled up.