I think this threat is relevant to the discussion of whether RNAV training is needed or not. 
I think this threat is relevant to the discussion of whether RNAV training is needed or not
Well, it leads to a Type Rating (or whatever name you want to give to mandatory training) for every different type of IFR GPS… nothing less.
An alternative acceptable means of compliance could be the possession of a suitably impenetrable piece of consumer IR hardware e.g. the jailbreaking of an Ipad and configuring it to remove the OS and app update nags 
I am not entirely kidding… there is a 93.765% correlation between people who cannot drive a car with a manual gearbox and who cannot pass the IR test (I know of one guy who spent 7 figures learning that).
One problem, as often raised here, is what do you do about somebody who has just a PPL and wants to rent a plane equipped with this kit and fly his bird from Shoreham to Le Touquet, which is basically along the coast to Seaford and then right a bit or, if you don’t like water, fly along the coast to Dover and then turn right a bit more. So this could not go into a PPL. And if you put it into the IR, which would be logical…
C. 2002, I went on a “Honeywell GPS” course, all day, basically on the KLN94. It ran it on a desktop sim rig, and everything I learnt I forgot by the next day.
There should be a solution but already we have a fair list of boxes which would need to be covered i.e. GNS430, GNS530, GTN650, GTN750, IFD440, IFD540, G1000. They are all a bit different. That is perhaps 5 days of classroom time, or more if you are not an IT anorak accustomed to bizzare user interfaces. And unless the student actually owns the box he will never remember it. And if he owns the box he can ask on EuroGA and practice it himself
Just my opinion but there is a reason why nothing is being done about it.
chrisparker wrote:
Shameless plug: I’ve just renewed my FI so I could fly with you if you’re in my area (Fairoaks)
The reason that the sequencing in the route section is to the destination airport is that most clearance limits are the airport and the route essentially ends at the clearance limit. It requires an approach clearance to fly the approach. Normal sequencing isn’t to the airport and then to the first fix on the approach, but this is what the GPS will do if you load an approach and don’t take any other action. The action most pilots take is to activate the approach. This changes the point being navigated to from the route to the first fix on the approach.
Many pilots load and activate the approach at the time the clearance is issued and prior to that point are navigating the route or on vectors. I prefer to load the approach when I have listened to the ATIS. Usually at this point it is obvious what approach will be in use. I select the fix to join the approach based on which one makes most sense for my direction of travel. This gets me ahead of the game where I am prepared to fly the expected approach at the expected beginning point. In the mean time, my route is unchanged and I am still navigating on it, often direct to the destination airport. Then when I am cleared for the approach, I follow the controller instructions on where to join it. Often this is via vectors in the terminal area, followed by a direct to one of the fixes on the approach I have already loaded. If I am cleared to the first fix on the approach, I can activate the approach or just do a direct to the first fix, same-o same-o. If the clearance is to a different fix to join the approach, but it is in the approach procedure I have loaded, I just find the fix in the approach procedure and go direct to it. If it is a totally different approach or using a different IAF than the one I have loaded, then I have to reload the approach and activate it. If it is a vector to final, I just fly headings and activate the leg ending at the FAF or select Activate VTF. I prefer the former method as it leaves me all the options if I am subsequently cleared to a fix, while the latter requires a reload of the approach procedure. Deleting the airport from the route has some drawbacks, particularly if you need to select a different approach and I would not recommend using this technique.
All the above assumes that the route is followed by an approach that has been loaded from the database, that is two segments an enroute segment and an approach segment. There is more involved if you also add a SID and or a STAR to the route, as there will be up to four segments in the flightplan. The departure segment, the enroute segment, the arrival segment, and the approach segment. It is useful to understand what happens to the flightplan and how sequencing between the segments occurs for all of these, but this is a subject for a different post. BTW, the place to learn this stuff is on the ground and using a trainer and not in the air under the pressure of needing to understand what the GPS/Autopilot are doing now. :)
The “best” technique depends slightly on whether you use the GPS for fuel / ETA calculation.
I tend to set up the route as filed using the expected arrival and approach and take out the “interim” destination airport. This gives me the most accurate ETA and fuel calculations. I prefer that and accept the drawback of the approach change.
I’d be interested to know what you can instruct.
I haven’t approached an ATO yet so as a freelance instructor I can only instruct SE Complex Differences training – VP Prop, EFIS, Super/Turbocharger, Retractable Undercarriage, Tailwheel, Single Power Lever and High Performance plus the dual training for SEP revalidation. I’m also an IRI but I think I have to be working for an ATO in order to teach Instrument flying for the IR.
I’m going to talk to the school at Fairoaks and offer to help when they’re short of instructors.
Well, it leads to a Type Rating (or whatever name you want to give to mandatory training) for every different type of IFR GPS… nothing less.
No, it doesn’t because most of the issues discussed are consequences of the underlaying certification requirements and so will be the same no matter what the make or model of GPS unit.
I’m also an IRI but I think I have to be working for an ATO in order to teach Instrument flying for the IR
No, the CB IR specifically allows for certain hours to be flown “outside” an ATO.
No, the CB IR specifically allows for certain hours to be flown “outside” an ATO.
Thanks for that. Looks like I can instruct for the CBIR as well!
I have this from one expert:
The applicant can count P1 time under IFR using a IR(R) or IMC rating, with instruction given by a independent FI or IRI up top a specified maximum. An ATO is then required to assess any credits and conduct the balance of training up to test standard.
