Suppose you have to do an IR profcheck with a G1000 aircraft and need to fly the INKET1B departure (see below), how does an examinator expect you to fly it?
I’m asking because with the G1000 there is more than one way to do it.
You could:
1. load the SID procedure, put GPS on the CDI and follow the magenta line. This works and is quite precise ;-)
2. Like #1 but add the VOR’s and ADF as bearing pointers on the HSI.
3. Show NAV1 on the CDI and ADF + NAV2 as a bearing pointer. This is the least precise way to do it ;-)
4. Like #3 but use the Actual Track / Desired track numbers on the top of the screen to fly the GPS track pretending that you are using the raw data ;-)
GPS is integrated so heavily in the G1000, that it makes me figure how to fly without it.
A trivial job, like displaying NAV1 and NAV2 on two CDI’s (possible with any IFR conventional cockpit), is not possible on the G1000.
On a test I would do 2. In real life 1.
I would ask the examiner (or an instructor who knows the examiner from a direct experience of tests) how he expects you to fly it.
This is a “classical” IFR procedure, based on navaids, and therefore the only “classical” way to fly it is with the navaids. GPS not permitted at all.
That was the case in the UK in 2012 when I did my initial JAA IR (GPS and autopilot were permitted for enroute nav). It was the case in the FAA IR in 2006, too (no GPS whatsoever, everything hand flown, no autopilot, and almost the entire test was on partial panel (AI obscured)).
But times are changing, so it’s worth a check. I would expect at least the NDB to be disregarded as an enroute navaid, though I would expect it to be tuned in.
And, unless the examiner has burnt the entire book, definitely tune in and identify all navaids.
Having recently done my EASA initial IR after years using an FAA IR, I had the opportunity to discuss the difference between real life and tests with my examiner. I would suggest you do the same, they will clarify exactly what they expect. I found my examiner to be extremely helpful and he wanted me to do well.
Edited to add:
But still EASA have rules and you have to do it a certain way to comply with the rules! The examiner has certain discretion in how he does the test, but he has to see you perform all the tasks.
Echo the above, ask/discuss with the examiner. I did my initial IR in a G1000 equipped aircraft and the examiner and I discussed it, I blatantly told him that if he wasn’t there I would be doing it with GPS and he said what he would get me to do was to fly the SID conventionally with everything loaded in the G1000 and then I could do the STAR etc however I wanted.
GPS not permitted at all.
Care to post the law that says that?
AFAIK you can use what you want (including sextants) as long as you display the raw sensors (i.e. VOR, ADF in this case) and cross check that their reading is within limits.
I guess I’d fail the IR revalidation if I didn’t setup GPS for such a procedure…
My initial IR examiner was very pragmatic about this – we had a good discussion before the exam on exactly how he wanted me to fly each segment. There was no holiness about GPS or no GPS, but he did want me to demonstrate I could manage without it.
I actually made life difficult for myself when ATC gave me a different point to join the airway when I was half way there – ended up doing some “mental RNAV” using the ADF to figure it out. Afterwards he told me I could have just gone direct on the GPS…
My EASA Licence tells me I am an instrument examiner. :)
For a revalidation/renewal I would happily accept all of the options listed above. Most smartie points would go to the pilot who selected option 2 (accuracy, redundancy, back-up, cross check etc). Least smartie points would go to option 3 as the pilot clearly did not utilise the equipment to the maximum potential. Clearly I would expect the GPS database to be current etc.
Care to post the law that says that?
Actually, in 2005, I researched airspace equipment requirements for Europe, for this writeup, and found that Switzerland did have one: you could use an IFR approved GPS installation in place of an ADF, for enroute navigation 
I guess Switzerland, not being EU, could do what it wanted. Also, in 2011, one Swiss pilot (not on here AFAIK) told me that his IR test, in 2011, ignored the ADF and VOR and was done wholly with GPS. Anyway, this is history. The initial IR test guidelines are changing all the time.
there is no European reg permitting GPS substitution for ADF etc
But flying according to GPS data while monitoring the ADF is not actually “substituting”. You are still using the ADF for navigation which is the important thing.
OTOH on a flight test, the examiner might want to see that you are able to fly on raw data.
