NTSB final report on Hendrick crash

Jim Macklin wrote:
He had a GPS, but as a high time commuter pilot in a BE1900,
he didn't know how to use it. Their GPS was not current for
IFR, but they were using it. When they crossed the LOM, the
GPS autocycled to the MAP WPT and the crew just did a turn
about a point and flew at the IAP altitude past the airport
and died.

I'm not familiar with the KLN 90B but fly a Garmin 300XL which I believe
is of similar vintage and function. In addition, my single CDI is wired
so that it would auto-connect to the NAV radio when tuned to a LOC signal.

Using the Garmin on such an approach to function in place of the ADF and
DME, I would have programmed it similarly. However, flying the
approach would require switching it from 'auto-sequence' to 'hold' just
before passing BALES for the holding pattern turn. That would keep
BALES as the next waypoint. Once inbound to BALES, I would have
switched it to auto=sequence.

Does the KLN 90B function similarly? That is, is there a Hold switch?

MauleDriver

"Maule Driver" wrote:

Using the Garmin on such an approach to function in place of the ADF and
DME, I would have programmed it similarly. However, flying the approach
would require switching it from 'auto-sequence' to 'hold' just before
passing BALES for the holding pattern turn. That would keep BALES as the
next waypoint. Once inbound to BALES, I would have switched it to
auto=sequence.

Does the KLN 90B function similarly? That is, is there a Hold switch?

Yes. It has an OBS mode.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Maule Driver wrote:


Jim Macklin wrote:

He had a GPS, but as a high time commuter pilot in a BE1900, he didn't
know how to use it. Their GPS was not current for IFR, but they were
using it. When they crossed the LOM, the GPS autocycled to the MAP
WPT and the crew just did a turn about a point and flew at the IAP
altitude past the airport and died.

I'm not familiar with the KLN 90B but fly a Garmin 300XL which I believe
is of similar vintage and function. In addition, my single CDI is wired
so that it would auto-connect to the NAV radio when tuned to a LOC signal.

Using the Garmin on such an approach to function in place of the ADF and
DME, I would have programmed it similarly. However, flying the
approach would require switching it from 'auto-sequence' to 'hold' just
before passing BALES for the holding pattern turn. That would keep
BALES as the next waypoint. Once inbound to BALES, I would have
switched it to auto=sequence.

Does the KLN 90B function similarly? That is, is there a Hold switch?

I can't speak for a KLN 90B, but we have an 89B in our club Arrow. It
doesn't have a hold switch, but if I understand your description above
of the Garmin hold function, it sounds like the OBS function on the
King. You must put the unit in OBS mode prior to making a course
reversal for a procedure turn. You then switch back to auto sequence
mode when approaching the FAF.

I haven't yet flown enough with the GPS to feel comfortable using it for
an approach in actual. I'm not flying enough these days to stay
proficient with it and I find that if I don't fly it at least once a
month, I forget the subtleties.

I think a moving map GPS would be the cat's meow, but the 89B style are
terrible, in my opinion. I can go a year between flying an ILS or VOR
approach and still do a credible approach the first time. I just had an
ICC last Friday and I hadn't flown an approach in more than a year. I
was a little rough on the first VOR approach, but the second one was
spot on as were the two ILS I then flew.

The GPS is just not intuitive at all to use and takes way too much
set-up, cross-checking and effort in my opinion. It is amazing how
complicated they made these devices given how simple a typical ILS or
VOR approach is.


Matt

On 11/13/06 14:24, Matt Whiting wrote:
Maule Driver wrote:


Jim Macklin wrote:

He had a GPS, but as a high time commuter pilot in a BE1900, he didn't
know how to use it. Their GPS was not current for IFR, but they were
using it. When they crossed the LOM, the GPS autocycled to the MAP
WPT and the crew just did a turn about a point and flew at the IAP
altitude past the airport and died.

I'm not familiar with the KLN 90B but fly a Garmin 300XL which I believe
is of similar vintage and function. In addition, my single CDI is wired
so that it would auto-connect to the NAV radio when tuned to a LOC signal.

Using the Garmin on such an approach to function in place of the ADF and
DME, I would have programmed it similarly. However, flying the
approach would require switching it from 'auto-sequence' to 'hold' just
before passing BALES for the holding pattern turn. That would keep
BALES as the next waypoint. Once inbound to BALES, I would have
switched it to auto=sequence.

Does the KLN 90B function similarly? That is, is there a Hold switch?

I can't speak for a KLN 90B, but we have an 89B in our club Arrow. It
doesn't have a hold switch, but if I understand your description above
of the Garmin hold function, it sounds like the OBS function on the
King. You must put the unit in OBS mode prior to making a course
reversal for a procedure turn.

To be precise, you need to put it into OBS mode before you reach the
holding/FA fix. If you reach the fix first, the box will assume you are
proceeding inbound and will auto-sequence to the next fix.


You then switch back to auto sequence
mode when approaching the FAF.

I haven't yet flown enough with the GPS to feel comfortable using it for
an approach in actual. I'm not flying enough these days to stay
proficient with it and I find that if I don't fly it at least once a
month, I forget the subtleties.

I think a moving map GPS would be the cat's meow, but the 89B style are
terrible, in my opinion. I can go a year between flying an ILS or VOR
approach and still do a credible approach the first time. I just had an
ICC last Friday and I hadn't flown an approach in more than a year. I
was a little rough on the first VOR approach, but the second one was
spot on as were the two ILS I then flew.

The GPS is just not intuitive at all to use and takes way too much
set-up, cross-checking and effort in my opinion. It is amazing how
complicated they made these devices given how simple a typical ILS or
VOR approach is.

Agree 100%. Each vendor seems to have it's own way of doing things too,
making it hard to transition from one to the other. I suppose I'll get
used to them after a few years...



Matt



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

The GPS is just not intuitive at all to use and takes way too much
set-up, cross-checking and effort in my opinion. It is amazing how
complicated they made these devices given how simple a typical ILS or
VOR approach is.


Agree 100%. Each vendor seems to have it's own way of doing things too,
making it hard to transition from one to the other. I suppose I'll get
used to them after a few years...


No disrespect intended.. but once you learn how to use one King.. you
can use em all.. the "switchology" is common across the entire product
line. Nav page 1 is the same across the entire line.. Nav page 5 is the
moving map.. Flight Plan 0 is the active flight plan, The VOR page,
Airport page, NDB pages.. they all have similar functions and data
across the entire product line.

Get the manual and sit there on the ground and play with it.. or "take
it home" with take home mode.. Once you have the skills and confidence
to use your box to its full potential you will be amazed at how "easy"
it seems.. or next time you go flying with another pilot.. let them
fly.. and you just mess with the box.. and get used to it.

Its not as pretty as a Garmin GNS or GNX box, but its still pretty capable.

Dave

Dave S wrote:


The GPS is just not intuitive at all to use and takes way too much
set-up, cross-checking and effort in my opinion. It is amazing how
complicated they made these devices given how simple a typical ILS or
VOR approach is.



Agree 100%. Each vendor seems to have it's own way of doing things too,
making it hard to transition from one to the other. I suppose I'll get
used to them after a few years...


No disrespect intended.. but once you learn how to use one King.. you
can use em all.. the "switchology" is common across the entire product
line. Nav page 1 is the same across the entire line.. Nav page 5 is the
moving map.. Flight Plan 0 is the active flight plan, The VOR page,
Airport page, NDB pages.. they all have similar functions and data
across the entire product line.

That is why he said each vendor, not each model. Yes, all Kings are
much the same as are the few Garmin's I've used. I find the Garmin's a
little more intuitive than the King, but the King is certainly capable
as you say, just not as easy to learn.

As an example, conside the hold/OBS discussion. If I'm autosequencing
an approach and need to do a hold for approach entry, having a function
called "hold" seems intuitive to me. Or I can think of it as putting a
"hold" on the autosequence. However, calling that function OBS doesn't
make nearly as much intuitive sense. Small things like that separate
good human factors design from run-of-the-mill design as with King.

Yes, when I was flying the King a lot, I got pretty used to it. The
trouble is how fast you forget all of the nuances. 6 months and I'm
nearly back to ground zero trying to remember whether the outer or inner
ring is needed or when to hit cursor, etc. Whereas, I can go awar from
a VOR or ILS system for 6 months and come back and fly one approach and
I'm pretty comfortable again.

It is a matter of degree, but I think the GPS systems could have been
much better designed.


Matt

On 11/14/06 03:48, Matt Whiting wrote:
Dave S wrote:


The GPS is just not intuitive at all to use and takes way too much
set-up, cross-checking and effort in my opinion. It is amazing how
complicated they made these devices given how simple a typical ILS or
VOR approach is.



Agree 100%. Each vendor seems to have it's own way of doing things too,
making it hard to transition from one to the other. I suppose I'll get
used to them after a few years...


No disrespect intended.. but once you learn how to use one King.. you
can use em all.. the "switchology" is common across the entire product
line. Nav page 1 is the same across the entire line.. Nav page 5 is the
moving map.. Flight Plan 0 is the active flight plan, The VOR page,
Airport page, NDB pages.. they all have similar functions and data
across the entire product line.

That is why he said each vendor, not each model. Yes, all Kings are
much the same as are the few Garmin's I've used. I find the Garmin's a
little more intuitive than the King, but the King is certainly capable
as you say, just not as easy to learn.

As an example, conside the hold/OBS discussion. If I'm autosequencing
an approach and need to do a hold for approach entry, having a function
called "hold" seems intuitive to me. Or I can think of it as putting a
"hold" on the autosequence. However, calling that function OBS doesn't
make nearly as much intuitive sense. Small things like that separate
good human factors design from run-of-the-mill design as with King.

As another example, when I'm flying toward the IAF for a procedure,
which happens also to be the FAF (and sometimes even the MAHP, etc.)
the King always selects the fix that is latest in the procedure,
rather than the first one I would hit - and I have to manually change
it.

Yes ... I've read the manual and don't really need a technical explanation
as to *why* it does it this way - it simply doesn't make sense to me.
It is goofyness like this that make practice with the box so important
(because it is so counter-intuitive).

By the way, I can't take the unit home to practice (or even practice
in the plane while on the ramp) because these are club planes, and
they don't allow that. Also, there is no PC-based simulator (good
thinking B/K!).


Yes, when I was flying the King a lot, I got pretty used to it. The
trouble is how fast you forget all of the nuances. 6 months and I'm
nearly back to ground zero trying to remember whether the outer or inner
ring is needed or when to hit cursor, etc. Whereas, I can go awar from
a VOR or ILS system for 6 months and come back and fly one approach and
I'm pretty comfortable again.

It is a matter of degree, but I think the GPS systems could have been
much better designed.


Matt



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

Mark Hansen wrote:

By the way, I can't take the unit home to practice (or even practice
in the plane while on the ramp) because these are club planes, and
they don't allow that. Also, there is no PC-based simulator (good
thinking B/K!).

Same here ... club plane and no sim. I'll buy a Garmin given the chance.

Matt

Maule Driver wrote:


Jim Macklin wrote:


I'm not familiar with the KLN 90B but fly a Garmin 300XL which I believe
is of similar vintage and function. In addition, my single CDI is wired
so that it would auto-connect to the NAV radio when tuned to a LOC signal.

The NTSB indicated that the Pilot's CDI was set up to display NAV even
when GPS was selected on the annunciator. This is typically accomplished
using a multipole relay (like a NAT-80? i think) to enable the NAV
override - its not something switchable on the King Box, its done
downstream. (just fyi.. thats all)



Using the Garmin on such an approach to function in place of the ADF and
DME, I would have programmed it similarly. However, flying the
approach would require switching it from 'auto-sequence' to 'hold' just
before passing BALES for the holding pattern turn. That would keep
BALES as the next waypoint. Once inbound to BALES, I would have
switched it to auto=sequence.

Does the KLN 90B function similarly? That is, is there a Hold switch?

I believe the "OBS" button is used to suspend waypoint sequencing in the
King series, but not positive. Sounds like the guys had the ILS tuned,
which displayed on the CDI..

(armchair speculatio)
BUT had the waypoints entered manually in the GPS and then used the
flashing waypoint light in the PIC's scan to indicate when to step down
(cheating essentially...).. they'd prolly done it many times before
(without a PT).. and this time nobody bothered to look down onto the
center console and VERIFY which waypoint it was annunciating (let alone
fly the approach solely as published using LOC/NAV and DME indications)

The profile seems to indicate they flew the approach with descents one
waypoint out of sequence.. With the database being out of date, it
should not have permitted real GPS approach modes (including a GPS
overlay of the Loc/Vor approach.. so the crew had to have manually
entered the points on their flight plan.