Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

IFR
Goto page Previous 1, 2

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

apilot2(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 2:37 pm Post subject: IFR

The only thing you will have to learn in your own aircraft is any new

equipment beyond what you used for the checkride, and to determine

what speeds and power settings work for the different phases of

descent, climb, holding, approach, which you have to determine in any

airplane. All planes made since about 1975 have a standard T

instrument layout of steam gauges. If you choose to go to EFIS, that

will just be learning a different presentation, but you need to know

the standard steam gauges for your backup. You need to be proficient

at flying the plane with a single gyro, compass, airspeed and

altimeter, without all the glass panel gizmos. If you can't do that,

how are you going to survive when you have one of those gizmos release

the smoke they contain and you have to shutdown your full electrical

system because you don't have the ability to crawl beneath the panel

and fly the airplane too and you only know that fire follows smoke?? E

bus means nothing if you have an electrically generated puff of smoke

in the cockpit and are in the soup. Just keep that in mind when

designing redunancy if you plan on flying IFR. Do you really want to

be testing electrical circuits to see which one generated the smoke

while trying to fly partial panel, solo?

On 12/21/06, Chris Johnston <CJohnston(at)popsound.com> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   

 My approach to the whole IFR thing was basically that I will have to

 re-learn IFR operations in my aircraft, because it will be so different

 from how I trained.  I'll have to get used to the EFIS, and cockpit

 resource management in general, then wrangle an instructor to do an IPC

 with me, and see what areas I need help in.



 cj

 #40410

 fuse

 www.perfectlygoodairplane.net

owl40188(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 3:35 pm Post subject: IFR

In light of this discussion I am attaching my current panel configuration for informational purposes.  Its probably going to still change quiet a bit but the layout is probably close.  I think the location of the instuments allows the pilot to use either a standard 6 pack or the EFIS tubes.  I actually prefer a standard 6 pack in a lot of situations but want the HITS capability of the EFIS.  The airplane will have a vacuum system and an EFIS.

  

 Niko

 40188

 ---

n523gn-30.jpg

Description:

Filesize:

33.4 KB

Viewed:

165 Time(s)

CJohnston(at)popsound.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 3:51 pm Post subject: IFR

Aaah...  I sense an upcoming heated discussion about what constitutes

acceptable backup systems for IFR.  I definitely appreciate the gravity

(pun intended) of the situation, and what's at stake, but I'll stay out

of it. I think I can have enough fun perusing the archives on the

subject!   



I guess the original question was is there a bunch of old IFR junk that

you can skip over if you are flying a technically advanced aircraft?  My

admittedly limited experience sez nope.  With the possible exception of

the ADF.  Unless you want to listen to an AM radio station! (but you

still have to get those questions right on the written)



Remember, I'm a low time pilot, and the ink is still drying on my IFR

ticket.  I don't really know anything.  These are just things I think.



cj

#40410

fuse

www.perfectlygoodairplane.net



--

Tim(at)MyRV10.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 4:20 pm Post subject: IFR

Not bad, Niko, but I think you'll actually come to like the EFIS

better than the 6-pack for the references you can get.  If it

were me, I'd flip them so the 6 pack is either low or to the right,

and center up your EFIS on your side of the plane so it's  right

in front of you.   I know you're trying to recreate a total

steam gauge set, but given what you have in the EFIS, I'd use

that more, and ditch the VSI and Turn Coordinator completely.

Even if all heck breaks loose, you can get by without those

2, although admittedly they do have useful purposes...but

if the steam gauges are your "backup", then it's not worth

duplicating those functions.  On the other hand, if the EFIS

is your "backup", and you're adamant about that, then I'd

say you should ditch one of the screens, or just use it as

a full-screen map page.



Actually, the best thing for you since it looks like you're

on the fence about trusting that you'll like an EFIS, is

to get out and get in someone's plane with a GRT system

and fly behind it.  You may be put at ease knowing that it

actually works pretty well.  From a steam gauge replacement

point of view, today's EFIS's really do a great job at

taking over for a 6-pack.   From an approach/terrain/weather

and more extended EFIS/MFD function point of view, then you

have to decide if the more expensive EFIS's are what you

need or not.  The GRT stuff though is great in that it gives

you a lot for a little.



Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying

do not archive

Niko wrote:

[quote] In light of this discussion I am attaching my current panel 

 configuration for informational purposes.  Its probably going to still 

 change quiet a bit but the layout is probably close.  I think the 

 location of the instuments allows the pilot to use either a standard 6 

 pack or the EFIS tubes.  I actually prefer a standard 6 pack in a lot of 

 situations but want the HITS capability of the EFIS.  The airplane will 

 have a vacuum system and an EFIS.

  

 Niko

 40188

 

 ---

LIKE2LOOP(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 6:01 pm Post subject: IFR

In a message dated 12/21/06 5:23:02 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  apilot2(at)gmail.com writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  Fact is    the ONLY backup to GPS today is the conventional VOR/DME/ILS system, and that    will continue for years into the future.

	


 

      Does any one have current info on just how long  the VOR system will be supported?  I think it was going to expire in 2007,  2-3 years ago the VOR system got a life extension to when???   This must be published info somewhere??

  

   Locally the PHK VOR got taken out with the dual hurricanes and is  NOT scheduled to get replaced.  I would expect very few VOR major  repairs with the FAA budget woes, only standard maintenance.    I  would want to know more about VOR longevity before I build my panel, unless i  was ready to buy NOW.   Is this good thinking?  I agree with Tim,  learn them all, they are on the written test. And if it is in the plane you test  in you do need to know how to use it.  I also think 3 types of approaches  are currently required for IFR  flight exam.  The three depend on your  equipment.  Is that correct?

  

 Steve

  

 do not archive

  [quote][b]

rene(at)felker.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 6:39 pm Post subject: IFR

Maybe not to current, but it is info.  

   

http://www.faa.gov/asd/briefings/05-19-03_transition_strategy.ppt#7  

     

Rene'  

801-721-6080  

  

   

--

Rick S.

Joined: 12 Feb 2006
Posts: 347
Location: Las Vegas

Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 7:03 pm Post subject: IFR

Steve,



I can see VOR and DME...not ILS.



just a pennys worth...



Rick S.

40185

_________________
Rick S.
RV-10
40185

Rick S.

Joined: 12 Feb 2006
Posts: 347
Location: Las Vegas

Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 7:25 pm Post subject: IFR

CJ wrote: "Remember, I'm a low time pilot, and the ink is still drying on my IFR

ticket.  I don't really know anything.  These are just things I think."



Grasshopper you are wise beyond your years and your humble opinion of yourself is refreshing...



Now why do you jump out of airplanes and BASE jump??????



Rick S.

40185



do not archive

_________________
Rick S.
RV-10
40185

Rick S.

Joined: 12 Feb 2006
Posts: 347
Location: Las Vegas

Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 7:29 pm Post subject: IFR

And you don't know nothing CJ?? Your well on your way young man.



CJ wrote:



"Hey Jeff - 



I'm with you about not cluttering your head with "non-useful" or

outdated instrument flight training, and to a certain extent trying to

train for the IFR environment that you'll be flying in - ie: super

modern GPS with LPV approaches and EFIS systems that talk to the NAV and

provide ILS needles on the display etc.  the reality is that you have to

know ALL of the stuff.  I'm talking ADF OBS CDI DME arcs - everything.

First of all, it's all going to be on the knowledge test (written), and

second of all, the aircraft you'll be training in (unless you finish

your build and train in your own aircraft) will most likely have a

couple nav/coms, CDI/OBS, maybe even an ADF, and a slightly older IFR

GPS like a KLN94 if it has one at all.  and if the aircraft has it,

you'll be expected to know how to navigate with it.  The rule as it was

explained to me is that for your checkride, you have to show proficiency

with all the installed equipment.  A friend of mine just got his IFR

ticket, and he didn't have to do any GPS approaches.  Why?  No IFR GPS

in the plane.  Also, to a certain extent, it helps to understand the

evolution of some of the equipment and know how to use it.  not sure

why.

_________________
Rick S.
RV-10
40185

etekberg(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 6:03 am Post subject: IFR

What exactly do you disagree with?

 As I stated, CAT 1 like minimums are available with LPV when the runway supports it (that means appropriate lighting, obstruction clearance, etc. - no ILS is required).  The FAA is ramping LPV approach creation; they are working their way to thousands of LPV approaches (remember LPV is not your typical GPS approach at this point in time).  Saying the typical GPS approach is going to remain crappy for a LONG time depends upon your definition of LONG.  If long means anything more than a few years - you are dead wrong. 

 And where did I state to fly GPS only?  I said to use GPS/NAV/COM as primary (maybe you forgot the NAV/COM part?)  and have an adaquate backup VOR/ILS system in case of primary failure.  And just for the record, the FAA has not determined what will be the GPS/WAAS backup will be yet.  I don't expect VORs nor DMEs to be going anywhere for at least 1~2 decades. 

 Eric

 do not archive

 On 12/21/06, Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com (apilot2(at)gmail.com)> wrote: [quote]--> RV10-List message posted by: "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com  (apilot2(at)gmail.com)>

I would disagree with that assessment. You will not get CAT I minimums

without ILS approach clearances, approach lighting and runway

lighting. Most runways that don't have ILS don't have the clear zones, 

the approach lighting nor the runway lighting and markings. Most GPS

approaches are going to remain at non-precision minimums in the range

of 400-800 ft and 3/4 to 1 mile vis for a LONG time. Tim is right.

Learn the IFR system as it exists. Flying GPS only, will only diminish 

your skills and ability to navigate when the GPS loses lock, system

crashes, loses power, etc. Fact is the ONLY backup to GPS today is the

conventional VOR/DME/ILS system, and that will continue for years into

 the future.

On 12/21/06, Eric Ekberg <etekberg(at)gmail.com (etekberg(at)gmail.com)> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   My 2 cents:

 Get a WAAS capable GPS/NAV/COM and have a backup NAV/COM.  If you get an

 > audio panel you'll get a marker beacon receiver thrown in with it (although

 	  Quote: 	
		   they are going the way of the dodo also).  A big FAA goal is the publishing

 of LPV approaches (WAAS equivalent to CAT 1 - when runway supports it). 

 They aren't a big deal at this moment in time, but they will be soon.  If

 GPS fails you'll have VOR/ILS (backup NAV/COM) for fallback.

 Also you should have in-cockpit weather (Garmin 396 or 496 is the cheapest 

 current method).

 Of course with one engine and no ice protection I wouldn't call it a hard

 IFR setup.

 Eric

 do not archive

 On 12/21/06, Jeff Carpenter < jeff(at)westcottpress.com (jeff(at)westcottpress.com)> wrote:

 > --> RV10-List message posted by: Jeff Carpenter <jeff(at)westcottpress.com (jeff(at)westcottpress.com) >

 > >

 	  Quote: 	
		   > I'd like to expand this thread a bit to get some feedback on what I'd

 > call Modern IFR equipment and the resulting training that's

 > appropriate for using it.

 > 

 > I've got about 250 hours, but haven't flown in over seven years.  In

 > many ways, I'll be starting over as I prepare to fly my RV-10.

 > Instrument navigation, for me, was never more than triangulating off 

 > of a couple of VORs and perhaps getting some useful information off

 > of a DME if the plane I was renting was so equipped.

 >

 > I plan to get back up to speed by getting my instrument rating. 

 > Starting over, I imagine that there are entire IFR systems I can do

 > without... and not further clutter my head with "old fashioned"

 > information.

 >

 > To what extent can I equip my plane without those things, still have 

 > safe alternatives should the gps system fail and avoid spending time

 > instrument training for systems I won't be using?

 >

 	  Quote: 	
		   -- Please Support Your Lists This Month -- 

 Gifts!)

 Contribution link below to find out more about

 Incentive Gifts provided

 * The Builder's Bookstore www.buildersbooks.com

  www.kitlog.com

 Contribution Web Site

 http://www.matronics.com/contribution

 your generous support!

 Admin.

 - The RV10-List Email Forum - 

 to browse

 Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,

 much more:

 http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

  [quote][b]

apilot2(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 8:10 am Post subject: IFR

What I disagree with is the concept that there will be thousands of

LPV approaches where there is no ILS today. Sure, the minimums are

approved, but have you looked at what is required for a precision

approach, regardless of the guidance? It isn't just designing an

approach. You have to spend the money to ensure an obstacle free

approach path, install approach lighting and runway lighting that

doesn't exist today, to CAT 1 ILS standards. Without that, you will be

limited to non-precision minimums. That is a fact. There is no big

budget to pay for all that runway and approach lighting improvement.

Unless the individual airports find a way to pay for it, it simply is

not going to happen in less than a decade.



On 12/22/06, Eric Ekberg <etekberg(at)gmail.com> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   What exactly do you disagree with?



 As I stated, CAT 1 like minimums are available with LPV when the runway

 supports it (that means appropriate lighting, obstruction clearance, etc. -

 no ILS is required).  The FAA is ramping LPV approach creation; they are

 working their way to thousands of LPV approaches (remember LPV is not your

 typical GPS approach at this point in time).  Saying the typical GPS

 approach is going to remain crappy for a LONG time depends upon your

 definition of LONG.  If long means anything more than a few years - you are

 dead wrong.

etekberg(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 9:21 am Post subject: IFR

I somewhat agree with the intent of what you just said there.  But just to get some facts straight, there will be lots of LPV approaches where there are no ILSs today (they just won't be 200 feet approaches though). 

  

 But back to the intent, I don't think you are considering all the facts.  Have you thought about those airports that may have the other infrastructure, but only 1 ILS system?  In order to have an approach at both ends of the runway (pre-GPS/WAAS) you need two ILSs.  With LPV you don't.  Opposite runway ends and other runways become prime candidates I would think. 

  

 Are you aware that the typical ILS system requires the ground terrain at the airport to be straight and somewhat level?  The traditional ILS reflects off the ground.  I say traditional because there are other types of ILSs.  If there are hills or mountains or other obstructions, they are much more difficult if not impossible to implement.  LPV approaches have none of those concerns.  What about these type airports that have the money, but not the terrain? 

  

 Also, ILS systems are expensive for the airport and require significant maintenance for the airport.  LPV approaches are maintenance free and significantly reduce the cost of the approach to the airport.  I would think that will mean more approaches for middle-income airports. 

  

 Regardless, even if we assume that all low minimum LPV approaches will only be ILS overlays, the bottom line question is: how is my equipment recommendation poor?  It in no way precludes the use of ILS.

  

 Eric

 do not archive



 

 On 12/22/06, Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com (apilot2(at)gmail.com)> wrote: [quote]--> RV10-List message posted by: "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com  (apilot2(at)gmail.com)>



What I disagree with is the concept that there will be thousands of

LPV approaches where there is no ILS today. Sure, the minimums are

approved, but have you looked at what is required for a precision 

approach, regardless of the guidance? It isn't just designing an

approach. You have to spend the money to ensure an obstacle free

approach path, install approach lighting and runway lighting that

doesn't exist today, to CAT 1 ILS standards. Without that, you will be 

limited to non-precision minimums. That is a fact. There is no big

budget to pay for all that runway and approach lighting improvement.

Unless the individual airports find a way to pay for it, it simply is

not going to happen in less than a decade. 



On 12/22/06, Eric Ekberg <etekberg(at)gmail.com (etekberg(at)gmail.com)> wrote:

[quote] What exactly do you disagree with?



 As I stated, CAT 1 like minimums are available with LPV when the runway 

 supports it (that means appropriate lighting, obstruction clearance, etc. -

 no ILS is required).  The FAA is ramping LPV approach creation; they are

 working their way to thousands of LPV approaches (remember LPV is not your 

 typical GPS approach at this point in time).  Saying the typical GPS

 approach is going to remain crappy for a LONG time depends upon your

 definition of LONG.  If long means anything more than a few years - you are  [quote][b]

apilot2(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 9:48 am Post subject: IFR

Yes, I'm well aware of what an ILS takes....(I used to be a controller

at an airport with a Cat II approach). Just because a runway has an

ILS at one end, doesn't mean it is good for a precision approach at

the other end.  The glide slope requirements are what you are talking

about, not localizer. Costs for maintenance are a lot more than just

the transmitter. Runway and approach lighting and required backup

generators are major expenses that will also be required. That isn't

going to happen at airports without commercial service. Without them,

it is pretty unlikely the FAA is going to approve an approach to less

than 400 ft and 3/4 mi. And any sane pilot wouldn't want to fly them.

Adding a WAAS capable IFR certified unit to any panel is going to cost

you $10K, which many folks are not going to spend unless their mission

need calls for frequent use of LPV approaches. Only one WAAS certified

receiver is available today, two more in maybe 6 months. Existing ILSs

will be around for a long time, as will many of the VORs. WAAS is

about 5 yrs behind schedule now, LAAS has no realistic timetable, and

it is what you REALLY want to fly a precision GPS approach.

But back to the original discussion. We are talking about equipment

for a 250 hour pilot without an instrument rating, who is going to go

get his rating. Such a pilot has a long ways to go before they are

ready to shoot LPV approaches to minimums in real weather when they

really need to get down. That sort of pilot IMHO is best served to get

their rating with conventional equipment, then decide what is the

right level of equipment, rather than relying on advice of pilots who

have totally different mission profiles, skills and needs. It isn't

hard to pick up the GPS skills, it is much harder to go the other

direction, to transition from glass cockpit to steam gauges and VOR.

On 12/22/06, Eric Ekberg <etekberg(at)gmail.com> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   I somewhat agree with the intent of what you just said there.  But just to

 get some facts straight, there will be lots of LPV approaches where there

 are no ILSs today (they just won't be 200 feet approaches though).

 But back to the intent, I don't think you are considering all the facts.

 Have you thought about those airports that may have the other

 infrastructure, but only 1 ILS system?  In order to have an approach at both

 ends of the runway (pre-GPS/WAAS) you need two ILSs.  With LPV you don't.

 Opposite runway ends and other runways become prime candidates I would

 think.

 Are you aware that the typical ILS system requires the ground terrain at the

 airport to be straight and somewhat level?  The traditional ILS reflects off

 the ground.  I say traditional because there are other types of ILSs.  If

 there are hills or mountains or other obstructions, they are much more

 difficult if not impossible to implement.  LPV approaches have none of those

 concerns.  What about these type airports that have the money, but not the

 terrain?

 Also, ILS systems are expensive for the airport and require significant

 maintenance for the airport.  LPV approaches are maintenance free and

 significantly reduce the cost of the approach to the airport.  I would think

 that will mean more approaches for middle-income airports.

 Regardless, even if we assume that all low minimum LPV approaches will only

 be ILS overlays, the bottom line question is: how is my equipment

 recommendation poor?  It in no way precludes the use of ILS.

 Eric

 do not archive

 On 12/22/06, Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com> wrote:

 > 

 >

 >

 > What I disagree with is the concept that there will be thousands of

 > LPV approaches where there is no ILS today. Sure, the minimums are

 > approved, but have you looked at what is required for a precision

 > approach, regardless of the guidance? It isn't just designing an

 > approach. You have to spend the money to ensure an obstacle free

 > approach path, install approach lighting and runway lighting that

 > doesn't exist today, to CAT 1 ILS standards. Without that, you will be

 > limited to non-precision minimums. That is a fact. There is no big

 > budget to pay for all that runway and approach lighting improvement.

 > Unless the individual airports find a way to pay for it, it simply is

 > not going to happen in less than a decade.

 >

 > On 12/22/06, Eric Ekberg <etekberg(at)gmail.com> wrote:

 > > What exactly do you disagree with?

 > >

 > > As I stated, CAT 1 like minimums are available with LPV when the runway

 > > supports it (that means appropriate lighting, obstruction clearance,

 etc. -

 > > no ILS is required).  The FAA is ramping LPV approach creation; they are

 > > working their way to thousands of LPV approaches (remember LPV is not

 your

 > > typical GPS approach at this point in time).  Saying the typical GPS

 > > approach is going to remain crappy for a LONG time depends upon your

 > > definition of LONG.  If long means anything more than a few years - you

 are

 	  Quote: 	
		   -- Please Support Your Lists This Month --

 Gifts!)

 Contribution link below to find out more about

 Incentive Gifts provided

 * The Builder's Bookstore www.buildersbooks.com

 www.kitlog.com

 Contribution Web Site

 http://www.matronics.com/contribution

 your generous support!

 Admin.

 - The RV10-List Email Forum -

 to browse

 Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,

 much more:

 http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

 	  Quote: 	
		   >

CJohnston(at)popsound.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 10:04 am Post subject: IFR

Don't worry.  If I had something to toot my horn about, you'd hear it

loud and clear!  About aircraft construction, IFR flight or regs, or

piloting in general, there's waaaay more qualified people than me on

this list to provide answers.  Risk assessment is something of a hobby

for me, and when calculating risk, I've found it important to qualify

the source of a piece of information - ie: direct experience, indirect

experience, etc.  My least favorite thing is "conventional wisdom".  I

can never seem to nail down sources for that kind of info.  So when I

add a drop of personal experience into such a wealth of actual knowledge

and actual experience, it's important for me to qualify it.



Now, ask me about BASE jumping, skydiving, or canopy piloting and I'll

give you all the qualified answers you want! (see attached pictures!)



cj

#40410

fuse

www.perfectlygoodairplane.net

do not archive



--

PerrineBaseSmal.jpg

Description:

Filesize:

49.24 KB

Viewed:

127 Time(s)

SkydiveSmall.jpg

Description:

Filesize:

32.48 KB

Viewed:

130 Time(s)

Tiger&Lionssmall.jpg

Description:

Filesize:

38.69 KB

Viewed:

152 Time(s)

swoopsmall.jpg

Description:

Filesize:

25.59 KB

Viewed:

164 Time(s)

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2
Page 2 of 2

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum