required eqipment for ifr

I was looking at starting my ifr training and realized the 172s in the
club I blelong to don't have DMEs. Is that required for IFR flight? I
noticed alot of checkpoints and such are distance from navaid.

Thanks
Mark

the 172s in the
club I blelong to don't have DMEs.
Is that required for IFR flight?


Nope. If you are not using those checkpints or doing DME-required approaches,
you don't need DME. Many intersections are also identified by dual VORs, but
you don't (legally) even need two VORs (except for certain approaches - the
requirement is on the plate), you just tune one, then tune the other, to check
your position.

Jose



--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"Mark" wrote:
I was looking at starting my ifr training and realized the 172s in the
club I blelong to don't have DMEs. Is that required for IFR flight?

No.

I noticed alot of checkpoints and such are distance from navaid.

Some procedures require DME or (GPS substitute).
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Mark" wrote:
I was looking at starting my ifr training and realized the 172s in the
club I blelong to don't have DMEs. Is that required for IFR flight? I
noticed alot of checkpoints and such are distance from navaid.

The vast majority of planes people do IFR training in do not have DME,
because there is no requirement to have DME to fly IFR in general(*).
You need DME above flight level mumble-something (240?), and you need
DME to fly approaches with DME in the title or a note saying "DME
required". Some approaches will allow lower minimums if you have DME.

Other than that, in the en-route environment, the vast majority of fixes
are defined by both DME and VOR-VOR crosses. If you don't have DME, you
just have to tune in the other VOR and work the cross-fix. Granted, DME
makes it more convenient, but it's hardly necessary.

Of course, GPS is turning this all on its ear.

My advice to you is to concentrate on the basics. First, make sure you
have BAI (Basic Attitude Instruments) down so cold you can hold heading,
altitude, and airspeed to better than PTS requirements while reading a
chart and having a heated argument with your instructor about politics,
sports, or the releative merits of the Beach Boys vs. The Grateful Dead.

In smooth air, you should be able to hold +/- 2 degrees, +/- 20 feet,
and +/- 2 kts for 5 minutes at a time, and 5 degrees, 50 feet, and 5 kts
indefinately. Once you can do that, you're ready to move on. If you
still have to think about holding heading, altitude, and airspeed,
you're not ready for more complex stuff.

Once you've got BAI mastered, then move on to the fun stuff like
navigation, holding, and approaches. Moving onto the fun stuff too fast
is probably the single biggest (and most common) mistake you can make in
your instrument training.

Once you've learned to do everything with 2 VOR receivers, it's easy to
add in DME later.

The more interesting question today is not whether you have DME, but
whether you have GPS. You will have to demonstrate 3 kinds of
approaches on your checkride. Traditionally, this has meant a VOR, an
NDB, and an ILS. Today, it's more and more becoming a VOR, a GPS, and
an ILS. As much as I'm a sucker for tradition, I just can't justify to
myself wasting any time practicing NDB approaches when the time could be
much more profitably spend learning the GPS. The trick is to make sure
you don't get so spoiled by the GPS that you can't fly with VOR alone.

(*) This is a US-centric view of the universe, and is not true in some
other parts of the world.

I just can't justify to
myself wasting any time practicing NDB approaches when the time could be
much more profitably spend learning the GPS. The trick is to make sure
you don't get so spoiled by the GPS that you can't fly with VOR alone.

But many of us do not have a panel mount GPS.

All depends on the kind of approaches you have around you, here in las vegas,
I have no idea where the closest NDB approach is. my check ride was a ILS,
VOR and a VOR circle.




Roy Smith wrote:

"Mark" wrote:
I was looking at starting my ifr training and realized the 172s in the
club I blelong to don't have DMEs. Is that required for IFR flight? I
noticed alot of checkpoints and such are distance from navaid.

The vast majority of planes people do IFR training in do not have DME,
because there is no requirement to have DME to fly IFR in general(*).
You need DME above flight level mumble-something (240?), and you need
DME to fly approaches with DME in the title or a note saying "DME
required". Some approaches will allow lower minimums if you have DME.

Other than that, in the en-route environment, the vast majority of fixes
are defined by both DME and VOR-VOR crosses. If you don't have DME, you
just have to tune in the other VOR and work the cross-fix. Granted, DME
makes it more convenient, but it's hardly necessary.

Of course, GPS is turning this all on its ear.

My advice to you is to concentrate on the basics. First, make sure you
have BAI (Basic Attitude Instruments) down so cold you can hold heading,
altitude, and airspeed to better than PTS requirements while reading a
chart and having a heated argument with your instructor about politics,
sports, or the releative merits of the Beach Boys vs. The Grateful Dead.

In smooth air, you should be able to hold +/- 2 degrees, +/- 20 feet,
and +/- 2 kts for 5 minutes at a time, and 5 degrees, 50 feet, and 5 kts
indefinately. Once you can do that, you're ready to move on. If you
still have to think about holding heading, altitude, and airspeed,
you're not ready for more complex stuff.

Once you've got BAI mastered, then move on to the fun stuff like
navigation, holding, and approaches. Moving onto the fun stuff too fast
is probably the single biggest (and most common) mistake you can make in
your instrument training.

Once you've learned to do everything with 2 VOR receivers, it's easy to
add in DME later.

The more interesting question today is not whether you have DME, but
whether you have GPS. You will have to demonstrate 3 kinds of
approaches on your checkride. Traditionally, this has meant a VOR, an
NDB, and an ILS. Today, it's more and more becoming a VOR, a GPS, and
an ILS. As much as I'm a sucker for tradition, I just can't justify to
myself wasting any time practicing NDB approaches when the time could be
much more profitably spend learning the GPS. The trick is to make sure
you don't get so spoiled by the GPS that you can't fly with VOR alone.

(*) This is a US-centric view of the universe, and is not true in some
other parts of the world.

Roy Smith wrote:

As much as I'm a sucker for tradition, I just can't justify to
myself wasting any time practicing NDB approaches when the time could be
much more profitably spend learning the GPS. The trick is to make sure
you don't get so spoiled by the GPS that you can't fly with VOR alone.

It's certainly time well spent to *really* learn the GPS. But a good NDB
approach, or hold, is quite satisfying. Given the choice of which to
carry, I'd pick the GPS. But if I have the NDB, I'll use it.

- Andrew

Andrew Gideon wrote:
It's certainly time well spent to *really* learn the GPS. But a good NDB
approach, or hold, is quite satisfying. Given the choice of which to
carry, I'd pick the GPS. But if I have the NDB, I'll use it.

The question is not whether there is greater than zero value in NDB.
It's clear that there is. As for satisfaction, well yes, I agree that
there is satisfaction in mastery of almost any skill. That's why I
learned how to work a sextant. Am I ever going to use that skill for
real? Hardly, but it sure is satisfying to spend half an hour working a
round of sights and getting a nice tight fix (say, under a mile probable
error).

The question is whether it's worth investing the time it takes to master
it. Especially when that time could be spent mastering a tool which
provides such a vastly greater amount of information, utility, safety,
etc. It's pretty much a zero sum game. If you spend an hour working on
one thing, that's one hour less you get to spend on something else.

Of course, if the student *wants* to learn how to fly NDB approaches, I
see nothing wrong with teaching them, as an optional part of the
curriculum. I just don't see the point of making it required.

My club recently voted to get rid of all our ADFs. We'll keep them in
the planes as long as they work, but won't spend any more money fixing
them when they break.

On 14 Dec 2003 23:32:04 GMT, (Teacherjh)
wrote:


the 172s in the
club I blelong to don't have DMEs.
Is that required for IFR flight?


Nope. If you are not using those checkpints or doing DME-required approaches,
you don't need DME. Many intersections are also identified by dual VORs, but
you don't (legally) even need two VORs (except for certain approaches - the
requirement is on the plate), you just tune one, then tune the other, to check

Now that's fun. I had one instructor fail every radio in the plane
but one VOR receiver. (naturally it was the one that didn't have
RNAV/DME) Then I had to intercept the radial, do the procedure turn,
do the hold, with at least 4 times around, then do the approach.
Oh...and it was all partial panel which meant timed turns as well.
At least it was a "flip flop" dual channel radio.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair?)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Return address modified due to dumb virus checkers

your position.

Jose

On 15 Dec 2003 01:17:01 GMT, (Hankal) wrote:

I just can't justify to
myself wasting any time practicing NDB approaches when the time could be
much more profitably spend learning the GPS. The trick is to make sure
you don't get so spoiled by the GPS that you can't fly with VOR alone.

But many of us do not have a panel mount GPS.

Just make sure you are proficient with what ever the plane you fly for
the test has in it. Last I knew NDB was required, (but they may not
be any more) but I found them to be quite easy and could never figure
out the fuss.

The only problem in figuring out GPS navigation, or approaches is the
lack of standardization between manufacturers and trying to enter way
points while bouncing around. It can be very trying if you are not
very familiar with the unit in the plane.

As to panel mount...I fly my hand held and make sure it agrees with
the RNAV in the airplane. The RNAV is primary, but there is nothing
to prevent me from flying the hand held.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair?)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Return address modified due to dumb virus checkers.