Approach Timing

For those of you using handheld GPS's when you fly IFR:

Do you use the throttle to increase/decrease power to match the ground
speed to the approach speed table so the time is correct to the MAP?

Or,

Do you use the distance to the airport to determine/verify the MAP, even
though the time may not have expired?

No

Dave

john smith wrote:

For those of you using handheld GPS's when you fly IFR:

Do you use the throttle to increase/decrease power to match the ground
speed to the approach speed table so the time is correct to the MAP?

Or,

Do you use the distance to the airport to determine/verify the MAP, even
though the time may not have expired?

john smith wrote:

For those of you using handheld GPS's when you fly IFR:

Do you use the throttle to increase/decrease power to match the ground
speed to the approach speed table so the time is correct to the MAP?

A buddy of mine does this. Drives me nuts. He'll sit and screw with
the throttle to get 90 knots ground speed. I want to reach over there
and smack him upside the head. He makes himself so busy trying to fly a
certain groundspeed and he can't see that.

On 9/7/04 6:50 AM, john smith wrote the following:

For those of you using handheld GPS's when you fly IFR:

Do you use the throttle to increase/decrease power to match the ground
speed to the approach speed table so the time is correct to the MAP?

Or,

Do you use the distance to the airport to determine/verify the MAP, even
though the time may not have expired?


Either activity seems unnecessary to this relatively new IA pilot.
Maybe because I already have enough to do on an approach.

Option 1 also sounds like a good way to get dangerously slow if you have
a stiff tailwind.

Doesn't seem like the MAP is that important. So what if you are a bit
early or late when you decide you can't see where you're going? The
result is the same, or should be.

john smith wrote in news:Cgh%c.81922$cT6.12543
@fe2.columbus.rr.com:

For those of you using handheld GPS's when you fly IFR:

Do you use the throttle to increase/decrease power to match the ground
speed to the approach speed table so the time is correct to the MAP?

Or,

Do you use the distance to the airport to determine/verify the MAP, even
though the time may not have expired?


The MAP time is an indirect way to measure distance. If you can measure
distance directly, why would you still choose the indirect method?

Of course, since the handheld is not an IFR approved device, you will have
to exercise some caution during approaches. What I would recommend is, do
the timing as if you didn't have the GPS, and then verify that it agrees
with the MAP shown on the GPS when the clock winds down to zero.

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
. 158...
john smith wrote in news:Cgh%c.81922$cT6.12543
@fe2.columbus.rr.com:

For those of you using handheld GPS's when you fly IFR:

Do you use the throttle to increase/decrease power to match the ground
speed to the approach speed table so the time is correct to the MAP?

I really, really, really would recommend flying an airspeed under all
circumstances.

Do you use the distance to the airport to determine/verify the MAP, even
though the time may not have expired?

Legally your IFR approved clock for timed approaches and NDB for NDB
approaches are what you WILL use. Rationally if my clock or NDB disagreed
with my GPS and I had to make a choice I would trust the GPS.

Along the same GPS train of thought. Try (under VFR with safety pilot)
flying partial panel using "wet" compass and then fly same maneuvers using
the "pseudo" panel on your GPS. Which is easier? Which is more accurate?

I can understand the FAA wanting to avoid a free for all by regulating GPS
usage so carefully. But each pilot, if faced with conflicting data, needs to
decide which technology they trust their life to. The best way to do that is
lots of practice under VFR checking clock vs. GPS, NDB vs. GPS, VOR vs. GPS,
Localizer vs. GPS and make up your own mind.

Also if you are not a renter you might consider spending 15-20K for an IFR
certified GPS linked to your autopilot.

Cheers
Howard
C182P




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.754 / Virus Database: 504 - Release Date: 9/6/2004

Mitty writes:

[...] Doesn't seem like the MAP is that important. So what if you
are a bit early or late when you decide you can't see where you're
going? The result is the same, or should be.

Depending on how big "a bit" is, being late to "go missed" can put one
outside the airspace protected from obstructions.

- FChE

On 9/7/04 1:21 PM, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote the following:

Mitty writes:


[...] Doesn't seem like the MAP is that important. So what if you
are a bit early or late when you decide you can't see where you're
going? The result is the same, or should be.


Depending on how big "a bit" is, being late to "go missed" can put one
outside the airspace protected from obstructions.

- FChE

Point taken, but you can do rough math within "a bit" in your head I
think. Particularly with a ground speed readout on the GPS. Or
interpolate off the plate.

john smith wrote
For those of you using handheld GPS's when you fly IFR:

Do you use the throttle to increase/decrease power to match the ground
speed to the approach speed table so the time is correct to the MAP?

Absoutely not. It's a moronic way to do things. Only the Airbus
flight control system does anything of the sort.

Do you use the distance to the airport to determine/verify the MAP, even
though the time may not have expired?

I use the GPS to 'estimate' the winds and compute ground speed.
Because of this, my timing to the missed approach point is always
perfect .

Michael

Mitty wrote:
Doesn't seem like the MAP is that important.

On an instrument approach, it's the most important thing in the world.

So what if you are a bit
early or late when you decide you can't see where you're going?

You'd better study this a bit, because if you manage to get through
your IFR checkride without busting it a bit, this attitude may soon
make you dead a bit.