Agreed, but most PA28s already have a perfectly good DME. Hen-and-egg is a good analogy but the issue is global. I have recently undertaken commissioning calibration of a brand new NDB (including approach) in a country which could be described as Second World (i.e. not outrageously backward).
It is time to realise that GPS should be looked upon as just another system, not the only system.
PS. Other calibration work I have done recently includes a significant number of new en-route DME stations within Continental Europe. It would appear that Europe still likes DME. :)
I’m not a fan of the combined ILS/LOC plates. Aside from the clutter it creates the potential for ambiguity about which one is being flown. As opposed to picking one, briefing it and committing to it.
And why on earth does the Jep plate not show the (deadly) terrain in the profile view? Almost as bad, the terrain to the north is hidden under the notes box.
It is exactly these more challenging/dangerous approaches where Jep should be adding value over the free/national versions.
I am wondering whether one reason why ILS or even NDB approaches are still being deployed is because an airfield with only a GPS approach cannot be used as an alternate – which is the case at least in France. I cannot remember having seen any such requirement in EASA OPS, so maybe it will become a thing of the past when EASA OPS comes into force their summer.
It is time to realise that GPS should be looked upon as just another system, not the only system.
Well yes, obviously, but another disagree on the message behind that.
For me, there is such a fundamental difference between GPS on the one hand and ILS, VOR, DME, NDB on the other. One is very powerful and versatile (endless applications for it), the others are very very limited in their capabilties. I wouldn’t mention them in one sentence. Totally different. Therefore, IMHO, GPS should be very primary and all the rest should be just backup nowadays. Unfortunately, the approach infrastructure in Europa does not (yet) reflect this.
I am wondering whether one reason why ILS or even NDB approaches are still being deployed is because an airfield with only a GPS approach cannot be used as an alternate .
No real factor IMHO. Anywhere in Central Europe, one is always within 50 or max 100 miles from an ILS equipped airport. When I can’t get in to my planned destination (usually due to weather), I would never fly to the nearest airfield in order to fly an NDB approach.
It’s just that innovation (strange to use this word in the context of GPS…) takes a terrible amount of time to take over in aviation. Well, it depends… as we know, in the US, there are no more NDB approaches and almost no VOR approaches. LPV is everwhere.
as we know, in the US, there are no more NDB approaches and almost no VOR approaches
It took me 5 seconds to find some
and finally the one I did my FAA IR at:
so there might be hundreds if not thousands of NDB approaches, and more VOR approaches, in the USA.
LPV is everywhere
On a random search of US GPS approaches, I would say 50% are LPV
Anyway, Dundee doesn’t have a GPS approach. It has the gold standard – an ILS – which even the oldest IFR aircraft can fly, and if it has an autopilot it can fly it hands-off all the way to the DA (legally) and all the way to the tarmac (in reality; might break the gear in truly zero-zero conditions). This accident happened because they didn’t fly it correctly.
I’m not a fan of the combined ILS/LOC plates. Aside from the clutter it creates the potential for ambiguity about which one is being flown. As opposed to picking one, briefing it and committing to it.
I think it’s because if you get the flag on the GS you are supposed to continue and fly the LOC version. At least on the JAA IR checkride, you are/were not supposed to go around if still above the LOC minima. AOC ops manuals may differ of course, and I would go around myself unless this was a last-resort out-of-fuel scenario.
Please keep this thread on topic. Dundee is not in the USA.
boscomantico wrote:
Well yes, obviously, but another disagree on the message behind that.
There is no ‘message behind that’.
Let me cast my last thoughts. I spend my working days flight calibrating ILS, VOR, NDB, Radar, MLAT etc as well as validating GNSS approach and departure procedures. As part of this we accurately ascertain our position using Differential GPS (basically GBAS) and military spec independent airborne GPS. This ordinarily gives us a positional accuracy of 20mm; yes 0.02m. I understand GPS, I use GPS and, rather perversely, GPS is the mechanism by which we baseline the accuracy of ground based systems. Experience has shown me that complete reliance on the GPS data is a recipe for disaster. I’ve seen incorrect databases, signal dropouts, interference/jamming (it is not a myth) and various other failures. I’ve even seen two GPS units disagree. You previously said
In the days of ubiquitous GPS, we shouldn’t any longer use the workaround of using distances to certain navaids to define a point in space.
I completely and utterly disagree. Putting all eggs in one basket (GPS, VOR or whatever) is probably the very worst thing any pilot can do. Perhaps the biggest single problem with GPS is that it relies upon the pilot inputting the correct FPL requirements. This presents a single point of failure as far too many pilots fail to cross-check their inputted FPL against their desired route. They punch-in the route and follow the magenta.
PS. Don’t muddy the waters with comments about NDB approaches. This aircraft was meant to be flying an ILS having used the NDB for positioning to FAF. The harsh reality is that the pilot seems to have used exactly the same NDB location for positioning but chose the GPS as his guidance to that specific point in space. He most probably would have survived if there was no GPS on board and he had actually flown the procedure using NDB.
Putting all eggs in one basket (GPS, VOR or whatever) is probably the very worst thing any pilot can do
Well, then you must certainly be completely against GPS approaches, because are totally 100% reliant on GPS, and there is no “cross-checking” with other types of navaids whatsoever.
here is a single point of failure as far too many pilots fail to cross-check their inputted FPL against their desired route. They punch-in the route and follow the magenta.
Same to you: don’t muddy the water. That’s totally a different thing. Never did I say one needn’t check the plausibility of indications on GPS units. Goes without saying.
Most probably would have survived if there was no GPS on board and he had actually flown the procedure using NDB.
Probably. That’s why I said that being required to mix different navigational sources for different bits of information during one single approach is no good. Had he used a GPS-only approach, he would probably not have crashed either.
why do we persist in talking about the approach aids, when this crash, as stated by the only poster on this whole thread who knew that plane, and the pilot, said it was more a human factors issue, than an approach aid one?
we have gone off on a tangent about the desirability of GPS approaches, when we should be trying to understand why a reasonable pilot, with a functioning plane, flew into the ground.
Thats the best way to learn from this accident. Otherwise, it really doesn’t matter what approach aids were used, even a super accurate GPS one still need the soft squiggly pink thing to interpret it. Humans have a large number of ingenious ways to do things wrongly, and trying to stop them by changing the approach aids completely misses the point.
Maybe it’s because it’s easier to think in technical terms, and find a technical fix. Logical, simple, but wrong. Psychology is weird.
