Rather, in a few years time (10?), we will all be flying only APVs and occasionally ILSes, i.e..: approaches with a “glideslope”, thereby mostly eliminating the risk of a premature descent.
boscomantico wrote:
Rather, in a few years time (10?), we will all be flying only APVs and occasionally ILSes, i.e..: approaches with a “glideslope”, thereby mostly eliminating the risk of a premature descent.
I agree.
With the aggressive build out of RNAV approaches with LPV minimums in the US, I have had no need to fly an ILS for the last 8 years other than for practice. The minimums are the same and LPV overlay almost every ILS in the country.
As of November 10, 2016, there are 3,748 Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) Localizer Performance with Vertical guidance (LPV) approach procedures serving 1819 airports. 1064 of these airports are Non-ILS airports. Currently, there are also 621 Localizer Performance (LP) approach procedures in the U.S. serving 463 airports. By comparison, there are only 1,559 ILS installations in the US, less than 42% of the number of LPV.
A_and_C wrote:
No system is foolproof and you can invent scenarios to fit both points of view on a this issue but to switch DME stations and not check the ident of the final approach aid is pushing human fallibility to the boarderline of negligence.
The lengths you will go to in order to avoid conceding even a small point…
To be frank what you said above is BS. You ident the radio nav aids before arrival into the high workload DME arc….you don’t then re-ident the localizer DME while on the arc..,
Starting to see some of your human factors here…with such an ego, I pity your first officers…
Anthony Q
In the situation you discribe you are flying an off airport DME ARC to intercept the Loc ?
You then intercept the LOC and change DME to the LOC DME and don’t listen to the ident ?
Have I got his correct ?
My suggestion as to the safest way to fly this with one DME was to use the off airport DME to check the validity of the GPS substitution for the off airport DME then using the GPS for the ARC tune and ident the LOC & LOC/DME. If you can get the whole thing set up and indented before you start the ARC all well & good but the ARC is a fairly low workload time to get the final approach aid idented, rather than flying the ARC using the off airport DME and then having to tune & ident the LOC/DME some point after intercepting the LOC.
I find it very difficult to find any BS or human factors issues with this, there is next to no chance of getting the GPS DME substitution wrong as you check it aganst the distance from the DME station that has been indented, the ARC is flown by GPS, perhaps not officially within the European rules but it is the part of the aproach that is going to have the greatest clearance above the ground with the biggest allowance for lateral error and the LOC & DME for the high risk part of the approach can be set up at a relitivly low workload part of the arrival to the airfield.
If being pedantic about checking the radio aids are all tuned, indented and the correct waypoints are set in the RNAV system is having a big ego then I put my hand’s up to it.
A_and_C wrote:
You then intercept the LOC and change DME to the LOC DME and don’t listen to the ident ?Have I got his correct ?
No. Both DME stations have been indented prior to arrival into the arc… you are not changing anything except selecting Nav 1 or Nav 2 as DME source….providing you remembered to select Remote on the DME receiver…btw there are many examples of dual DME stations associated with procedural approaches, not just DME arcs…
But you have managed to obfuscate my point which was simply that there are also opportunities for human error with conventional nav aids and that use of DME instead of GPS Subtitution does not eliminate the possibility of human error… Arguably not confirming the location of the waypoint being referenced for GPS distance measurement is also “borderline negligence”…
Starting to see some of your human factors here…with such an ego, I pity your first officers…
I have not deleted any posts yet but the above is a personal attack so any more posts like this will be deleted whole.
Yes, sorry…. personal criticism should be indirect only….my bad
personal criticism should be indirect only
No. EuroGA is not a place for any personal criticism. Take that elsewhere – the internet is big. Read the Guidelines
Anthony Q
OK we will stick to the DME issue, in none of the airlines airlines I have flown for would you pass your IR renewal using the procedure you have outlined above.
Once you tune the DME away from a station you are required to ident it when you return to he station, fortunately the avionic system on the more modern aircraft is capable of automatically listening to the DME and decoding the morse code ( usually ) and presenting the ident on the Nav display but sometimes you end up having to listen to the audio.
I do now understand why you have been so insistent that errors can creep into DME tuning (as they can) but I apply the standards of the airlines I have worked for and by & large these are designed to trap the errors by constant checking clearly you chose not to apply these procedures and it is unlikely to result in a tuning error with modern serial tuned remote DME’s but the bottom line is no airline that I have flown for would let their crews make an approach unless the DME had been indented after tuning.
Oh and by the way my first officers would be the first to pick me up if I failed to follow the company procedures on indenting radio aids….. as they should.
A_and_C wrote:
in none of the airlines airlines I have flown for would you pass your IR renewal using the procedure you have outlined above.
I did an IR renewal one year, where the DME became unavailable shortly before arrival in the hold. I thought it was the examiner simulating a failure so I asked him if he had done anything and he said no. Spoke to ATC who confirmed there was a problem, something to do with some engine run-up tests on the airfield which sounded weird. Anyway, the examiner asked me “what are you going to do” and I replied “fly a timed outbound leg instead” (it was an NDB approach). He immediately said “why aren’t you going to use the GPS”, and expected me to know how to do this. Note that we didn’t have the GPS overlay loaded, as we had agreed the approach would be flown without.
A_and_C wrote:
I apply the standards of the airlines I have worked for and by & large these are designed to trap the errors by constant checking
And if you applied the same checking standards for GPS waypoint programming when using GPS-for-DME substitution, then you would pick up any errors in the same way. So your argument still doesn’t hold.
