Different is not The Same

Having logged waaay more than six approaches and several holding patterns in the last six months, I was current and legal to fly under instrument flight rules (IFR). The problem is that current & legal does not guarantee a pilot is proficient. 14 CFR 61.51(g)(2) permits an instrument instructor to log instrument time, holding patterns, and instrument approaches flown by their students in instrument meteorological conditions and that helps instructors stay current at a low cost. Unfortunately, there's a big difference between watching someone fly an aircraft and actually flying the aircraft yourself. When it comes to maintaining proficiency, instructors are in the same boat as any other pilot: It takes time, effort, practice and money to maintain your flying chops.

Pressure Cooker

For a professional pilot, recurrent simulator training and proficiency checks are an opportunity to learn, practice, and be evaluated. Or to become unemployed! Recurrent training and proficiency checks create a pressure to perform and a certain level of stress is a good thing. For GA pilots and flight instructors, the only pressure to perform that we may experience is usually self-imposed. To keep myself in the game and feeling challenged, I hire another instructor to give me an instrument proficiency check every six months. During those flights I am just like any other pilot: I pay for the aircraft, the fuel, and the instructor. I feel the stress, make some mistakes (hopefully not too many), and listen to a post-flight critique. And as Dr. ATP recently wrote, I'm not looking for an easy pass.

The tasks for an instrument proficiency check are defined in the Instrument Rating Practical Test Standards, along with the tolerances for satisfactory performance. The FAA has produced a nice document called Instrument Proficiency Check (IPC) Guidance to help focus the mind of pilot and instructor. Most any instrument instructor worth his or her salt can recite the tasks to be demonstracted for an IPC from memory, but actually performing these tasks to the stated tolerances is a different story.

• Holding procedures
• Recovery from Unusual Flight Attitudes
• Intercepting & Tracking Navigational Systems & DME Arcs
• Nonprecision Approach (NPA)
• Precision Approach (PA)
• Missed Approach
• Circling Approach
• Landing from a Straight-in or Circling Approach
• Loss of Primary Flight Instrument Indicators

Change is Good

Back in January 2010, the FAA made some welcome changes to the Instrument Rating Practical Test Standards. For one, RNAV approaches with LPV minima and a DH of 300' or less now meet the requirements of a precision approach. This clears up some of the problems with earlier versions of the PTS that specified an RNAV approach with LPV minima as a non-precision approach. And the old concept of partial panel has been reworked to better account for glass panel aircraft - what Garmin calls reversionary mode.

Last week, I scheduled time with Jim (a currently furloughed airline pilot who is also a flight instructor) to put me through the paces and evaluate my performance. We came up with a plan of action that included all of the tasks, but left some room for spontaneity: I wasn't sure exactly what routings I'd get, when I might be instructed to hold, when we'd do unusual attitude recoveries, and so on.

"Cross JUPAP at or above three thousand seven hundred, cleared RNAV Y 27L ..."

During the flight I did my best to stay ahead and relaxed, something I encourage pilots I train to strive for. Hey, everyone performs better when they are relaxed. I used the bits of onboard automation when it made sense, but I also did a lot of hand flying, too. Also had a chance to show to Jim a trick I discovered for quickly setting up reversionary mode. Afterward, I was relishing the brutally honest debriefing. I'd made a couple of gaffes, but Jim thought things looked pretty good. This made we wonder if he was going easy on me, but he insisted he wasn't, offering "I could make some stuff up, if you want."

Proficiency on a Budget

If you think it's expensive to mimic part 121 or 135 recurrent training, it is. It's also an investment in your safety as well as the safety of those who fly with you. And there are ways to reduce the expense. In 2009, changes were made to 14 CFR 61.57(c)(1)(i), (ii), and (iii): An authorized instructor is no longer required to be present when an instrument pilot uses an approved flight training device (FTD) or flight simulator to log instrument approaches and holding procedures for currency. The pilot using the FTD must have not exceeded the 6 calendar month currency limit, but this is good news for pilots who want to stay current without breaking the bank: An hour in an FTD is probably one-third the cost of a flight in an actual aircraft.

I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that without an authorized instructor present to create realistic scenarios and provide the voice of air traffic control, this type of FTD activity is more likely to keep you legal than proficient. Still, many FTDs allow you to program random equipment malfunctions, which can make the training more spontaneous and challenging. Alternate the non-instructional use of a FTD with proficiency flights in an actual aircraft (with a safety pilot or instructor) and you've got the best of both worlds: A plan to stay proficient that is also cost-effective.

If you've been feeling stale or uninspired, you can always hook up with another pilot and split some flight time. It may take some time to find another pilot with whom you feel simpatico, but you can save some money and get another perspective by critiquing one another's performance. There are pilots who pass the check ride and then do the minimum required to stay legal, but we should all bristle at the suggestion that piloting skills will inevitably deteriorate after the check ride. Sure you have to be up for the challenge and ready to spend some cash, but you can't put a price on the rewarding feeling you get when you know you've done your best.

Quick Look: G1000 PC Trainer V9.03

Here's a quick review of Garmin's new G1000 PC trainer Cessna Nav III version 9.03 with Synthetic , albeit a bit later than promised. I ordered this software over a week ago, but Garmin sent me the old version. After sleuthing around on the Garmin website, I uncovered a support phone number and explained the problem. The correct version was on the way, but that would take a few more days. So a friend loaned me his CD (he got the correct version on the first try) and I installed it on both my PC and my MacBook under VMWare Fusion. Both installations are running Windows XP. The next day, my CD arrived.

The G1000 PC trainer can be launched in one of two ways: As a single window (either MFD or PFD) or in a dual-screen mode. This new version seems to launch more quickly on both my PC and under latest version of VMWare Fusion. One change in version 9.03 is that reversionary mode seems to be automatically selected in the single-screen mode. I checked the pull-down menu and reversionary mode was not selected, so I tried cycling it on and off. No change. This was not the behavior in the previous version of the PC trainer.



So I exited the application and launched the dual-screen version. Since my PC has two graphics cards and two monitors, I positioned the PDF on one screen and the MFD on the other. Powering on the PFD, it looks the same as earlier version for the first few seconds. Then the SV kicks in. Here's I've positioned the aircraft just south of Mount Diablo, near SALAD intersection.



Below, notice the autopilot is activated which displays the magenta command bars and the yellow airplane symbol. With SV, an additional green Flight Path Marker is displayed at ground speeds above 30 knots as is a white horizon line. The FPM depicts the approximate projected path of the aircraft, accounting for wind speed and direction. Point the FPM where you want to go and the plane will go there, within the limits of the aircraft and the laws of physics. In this shot, I've pointed the FPM at the radio tower on top of Mt. Diablo. The FPM seemed pretty accurate and I got terrain warnings as I got closer to the tower, but you gotta admit the PFD display is getting pretty crowded. And we haven't even added pathways to the mix.







In classic Garmin fashion, the SV options are buried - you access then by pressing the PFD softkey on the PFD (hey, it's their terminology, not mine!). Next press the SV softkey and you'll see four options: SYN TERR - toggle SV on and off, PATHWAY - toggles on the 3D perspective of desired route, HRZN HDG - toggles the display of heading along the horizon, APTSIGNS - toggles airport marker. Here's a shot that shows the heading displayed along the white horizon line and the airport sign for Livermore (KLVK).



The pathway display is most helpful on departure, arrival, and approach, but one huge drawback is climbs and descents (except on a glideslope or glidepath) are not depicted, at all.




Granted, my processor has a clock speed 1.8Ghz and 2.0Ghz is recommended for dual-screen mode with two monitors, but the PFD exhibited some weird behavior. The heading would abruptly shift left about 15 degrees and back every 5 seconds or so. After a few cycles of this behavior, the autopilot would disengage. The good news is that I didn't see this problem in the single-screen version (though I was restricted to reversionary mode). Another problem in dual-screen mode was that to pause the application, I needed to select this from the pull-down menu on the MFD - most of the time. The behavior wasn't completely repeatable, so I suspect this is a bug.

One thing I forgot to mention is that you can now enter the baro min (minimum descent altitude or decision height) when you load an approach. You can still access baro min through the timer softkey (which always struck me as odd), but this new approach loading scheme is a much more logical approach. I hope this gets added to no-SV G1000 systems as an software update.

Too bad that Garmin doesn't provide a more efficient way to acquire and upgrade this product, but it's not a bad deal for US$24.95 (plus shipping). And Garmin deserves high marks for making this sort of product available since it gives people a low-cost way to practice using the product without burning any gas. I don't think the two G1000 C172 owners I know will be springing for the US$10,000 upgrade, so this simulator is a relatively inexpensive way to learn about the latest developments. Check it out!

Simulated Flight

I spend more time instructing in simulators these days and am fortunate to have access to three very capable devices. Many pilots (myself included) complain that a simulator just doesn't fly like a real aircraft, but time spent in a simulator can save you money. First, there's no fuel bill. Simulators can also save you time because training scenarios can be set-up quickly and, here's the important part, you can pause the simulation, discuss the desired responses, and practice the scenario repeatedly to learn and ingrain the desired responses. And time is money, after all.

Time in an approved simulator with an instructor can be recorded in your logbook and in about an hour, you can knock out six approaches and a holding pattern to keep you instrument current. Depending on the type of simulator, you may log the time toward most any certificate from private to ATP as long as you are receiving instruction from an authorized instructor. The simulators I use are even qualified to be used to complete an instrument proficiency check.

Before you sit down at the controls, you and your instructor need a clear idea of what you wish to accomplish in the simulator. As with any instructional flight, there should be a plan and a pre-flight discussion of that plan. Without a plan, your simulator time will tend to be haphazard, the effectiveness of your training may fall short of your expectations, and you won't get your money's worth. At the completion of your simulator session, there should be a debrief and an objective review of your performance.

Simulator time is a great way want to get acquainted with high-performance and complex aircraft as well as for learning high-altitude operations. In the US, regulations allow you to obtain a high-performance, complex, and high-altitude endorsement from an authorized instructor based on ground instruction and time spent in an approved simulator with a flight model that is representative of the type of endorsement you seek. For each of these endorsements, training will focus on learning the appropriate procedures for normal, abnormal, and emergency operations. 14 CFR Part 61 specifically defines the areas that must be covered for a high-altitude endorsement. Interestingly, you can't earn a tailwheel endorsement in a simulator and based on my time in conventional gear aircraft and the current state of simulation devices, this seems about right.

More and more pilots learn multi-engine operations in an approved simulator prior to training in a multi-engine aircraft and the savings can be significant. Instead of spending over $230 a hour and burning a lot of fuel, you can spend about 25% of that and learn the basics in a simulator. For multi-engine training, the Practical Test Standards (private, commercial, or ATP) will spell out the maneuvers, takeoffs, landings and emergency procedures you'll need to cover. You can experience multi-engine emergencies in a simulator, like engine failure on takeoff at Vmc, that may be too risky to simulate during training in a real aircraft. For many of the maneuvers, it's best to have a simulator with a 180 degree field of view.

For pilots seeking an instrument rating, having access to a simulator has become de rigeur. For practicing instrument procedures by yourself, most any simulator (including non-approved simulators) will do, though you won't be able to log the time. And just as when using an approved simulator, it helps to have a plan or you're likely to end up just messing around.

Learning instrument procedures in a simulator with an authorized instructor allows you to pause the simulation to discuss questions. Pausing the simulation can also give you a chance to catch your breath and regroup, which increases your capacity to learn. With just a few mouse clicks you can practice almost any approach most anywhere in the world. If you've never flown a Simplified Directional Facility (SDF) or Localizer-type Directional Aid (LDA) approach, you can do it easily in a simulator.

Giving quality instruction in a simulator requires the instructor to have a thorough knowledge of the limitations of the particular simulator you'll be using. Nothing is worse than having a pilot wait while you try to work out a simulator glitch, but this sort of thing can and does happen. If it's any consolation, I even experienced such delays during recurrent training in a level D simulator.

A good simulator instructor will know how to set up weather scenarios and equipment failures in a realistic way. And for instrument training to be truly productive, your simulator instructor needs to know how to act like a controller, giving you accurate instructions and approach clearances. There's often more responsibilities for an instructor in a simulator than in a real aircraft

Autopilots are becoming standard equipment in new GA aircraft and more pilots are learning to rely on them to manage their workload when flying single-pilot, especially in instrument conditions. Autopilot usage in an important part of simulator training because it gives you time to concentrate on procedures and emergencies. Some GA pilots still tend to think of autopilot use as cheating, but it's really just a different kind of flying. To be a well-rounded and proficient pilot, you need to regularly practice hand-flying as well as managing the aircraft with the autopilot. If you practice one style of flying and exclude the other, your overall level of safety and flying skill will suffer.

My simulator training for the part 135 flying I used to do always followed a familiar pattern. The first session concentrated mostly on normal VFR maneuvers, takeoffs and landings, and instrument procedures. Of course there was always some funny business. For turbine engines, the engine never started normally the first time: A hot start and a hung start always seemed to occur as did the need for external power starts. These sorts of problems are rarely encountered in real life, if ever, which makes the simulator the perfect place to experience them. In subsequent simulator sessions, you could count on excrement hitting the oscillating device at every turn. Engine failures, blown tires, asymmetric flap extension, icing encounters, runway incursions, thunderstorms, partial panel approaches, and a variety of arcane aircraft systems failures.

When giving simulator training to GA pilots, I like to follow a similar pattern, starting with normal procedures and working up to more the more challenging stuff. One of my favorite scenarios is to have a pilot fly an instrument approach to an airport, have to execute the missed approach, and then while holding over a VOR, experience an engine failure. I choose a VOR near or right on an airport and set the weather to give the pilot a fighting chance. In such a situation, an autopilot can provide valuable assistance in maintaining a power-off descent at the best-glide speed. Another valuable scenario is engine failures and other abnormalities during the takeoff roll or just after takeoff. Pilots often comment that these scenarios really get the blood pumping, even though it's just a simulator.

So grab your PTS and/or your approach charts, find a good simulator and simulator instructor, and take your training up a notch. It's go time!

Get Out of Aspen

When instrument approaches go bad, it's often while the pilot is executing the missed approach procedure. Many pilots brief an instrument approach using what Jeppesen calls the Briefing Strip™ and most NACO approach charts have been modified to present a similar format. However you brief an approach, I recommend that you always be mentally prepared to execute the missed approach procedure rather than always assuming a landing will be assured.

Every missed approach procedure I've seen begins with the words Climb, Climbing, Immediate climb, or Immediate climbing, so first things first - climb and, if necessary, turn!

A common mistake pilots make is to climb too slowly instead of at their aircraft's best rate of climb. If you have terrain awareness capability on your aircraft, you best have it turned on. Climb at best rate until you don't see any red or yellow on your left on terrain awareness display, then switch to a less aggressive cruise climb. Depending on the vintage of your G1000, it may be savvy enough to know all about the missed approach procedure, including any required altitudes and heading changes. In any event, always comply with the missed approach procedure printed on the approach chart.

Flying the missed with the G1000 should be fairly simple. As you reach the missed approach point (MAP), a fly-over waypoint, the G1000 will suspend waypoint sequencing and the OBS soft key will change to SUSP. The moving map will display a dotted line representing the extended approach course from the MAP. I see many pilots try to fly the missed approach procedure with the G1000 by pressing the FLP (flight plan) key and scrolling to the next desired waypoint. This requires more head-down time while close to the ground - a particularly dangerous endeavor. It's simpler to just press the SUSP key and keep your eyes on the prize - your aircraft's climb pitch attitude, configuration, power setting, and any required heading changes. If you were flying a non-GPS approach, you will need to press the CDI key a couple of times to reselect the GPS as the navigation source.

In most cases, the GPS can be used to fly the missed approach procedure. Two exceptions that I know of (there may be others) are the Aspen LOC/DME E and VOR/DME or GPS C approaches. These approaches use a separate localizer dedicated solely for the missed approach procedure. Let's consider the Aspen LOC/DME E approach.








I can find no reference to a rule allowing GPS to be substituted for a localizer, so you'll need to be prepared to fly the missed approach using one of the navigation receivers set to the localizer. And while the G1000 will automatically set the VOR or localizer frequency for you in the #1 nav receiver when you load the approach, the second localizer frequency needed for the missed approach is not automatically loaded: You'll have to load the missed approach localizer frequency yourself.



Once you are within a 1.2 times deflection of the localizer course, within 15 miles of the final approach fix, and have a valid localizer frequency loaded, the G1000 will automatically switch the navigation source from the GPS to the localizer in nav 1. Note that the HSI needle changes from magenta (for GPS) to green (for VOR or Localizer).



Before you reach the MAP, I recommend that you have your heading bug synchronized with your current heading and the autopilot (if in use) set to heading mode. Notice all the red and yellow in the terrain display - your piloting skills need to be sharp or you may hit something sharp.




When you decide to execute the missed approach, set the autopilot for a climb and turn the heading bug to command a right turn to heading 300˚.


While George is climbing and turning to the desired heading, activate the localizer frequency for the missed approach. If necessary, adjust the heading bug to intercept the localizer backcourse and then activate the autopilot in nav mode. Even though I believe the GPS cannot legally be substituted for a localizer backcourse, I'd still recommend that you monitor the GPS-derived missed approach course.



If you haven't already purchased Garmin's latest G1000 simulator for your PC, consider doing so. Then sit down and practice this missed approach (or missed approaches at your home airport). Being proficient, especially with the missed approach procedure, is important for an instrument-rated pilot. You never know when you might need to Get Out of Aspen.

Everyone Has to Be Somewhere

Here's a fascinating exchange I heard while flying an aerial survey mission a while back.

Norcal: Mooney 123, use caution, several aircraft have reported numerous hang gliders in the vicinity of Mission Peak.

Mooney: Ah, what altitude are those hang gliders?

Norcal: Mooney 123, they don't show up on my radar, I have no idea.

Mooney: Ah, where is Mission Peak?

Norcal: Mooney 123 your current location is Mission Peak.

Several improvements have been made to the G1000 and to the G1000 simulator software. At this writing, the most recent Cessna airframe G1000 simulator is version 8.01 and it contains some very useful features. One is the new dual mode operation that allows you to display both the Primary Flight Display (PFD) and Multi-Function Display (MFD) simultaneously on your computer screen. You can also resize the screens, just in case you don't have a dual monitor setup. It seemed like just a matter of time for this to be offered.



Since the real G1000 has two computers (PFD and MFD) connected by ethernet, it was natural to assume that two simulator processes could be launched on one computer and interconnected using a local socket. This appears to be what Garmin did, but be advised that the computer horsepower to run this setup is not trivial. Choosing the TAWS option before starting up the simulator basically brought my machine to its knees: Red Xs appeared and disappeared on the PFD indicators and a voice would say "TAWS not available," then a few seconds later "TAWS available," then a few seconds later "TAWS not available" ... over and over. I'd recommend against selecting TAWS unless you have a seriously fast computer with a good deal of memory.

While shortcuts for the standard simulator are automatically created, you have to dig a bit to locate the BAT file that allows you to launch the dual-mode version.


The new version of the G1000 simulator allows you to experiment with the Garmin autopilot/flight director that Cessna chose to not make available on the lowly C172. It also lets you try out the new Victor airway-based flight planning. I'll provide an overview of this feature using the flight planning interface provided on the MFD. A similar, but simplified flight plan interface is provided on the PFD.

Assume you receive the following clearance:

Cessna 12345 is cleared to Reno, on departure, fly heading 310, radar vectors to V6, Squaw Valley, direct. Climb and maintain 5000 ..."

Start by entering the OAK VORTAC after the departure airport. This is important because you can't load an airway unless the preceding waypoint is either a VOR or an intersection on an airway. Then position the cursor on the empty line following the OAK VORTAC and press the Menu key.



A menu appears and you'll need to scroll (I recommend always scrolling with the big FMS knob by default) to the Load Airway menu item and press the Enter key.



Another menu will appear listing all the Victor airways and Jet routes associated with the OAK VORTAC. Select V6 and press Enter.



Yet another menu appears listing all the terminating waypoints for Victor 6. Select SWR (Squaw Valley) and press Enter.



One last dialog appears asking you to confirm that you want to load the airway. Like you'd go to all this trouble by mistake and not want to load the airway? Press Enter to confirm and the airway, along with all the changeover points on that airway, will be added to your flight plan. To help you decide which terminating waypoint to use, the map view next to the flight plan window changes to display the location of the terminating waypoint that you've highlighted.



Changeover points on an airway are often explicitly marked, but just as often they must be identified on a chart by subtle bends in an airway or by a halfway point between two VORs. The big time savings in the G1000's airway-based flight planning feature is that you don't have to stop to figure out changeover points using a paper chart, which is quite useful indeed.

Unfortunately, you can't select an airway, then select another intersecting airway: You must select the waypoint those two airways haven in common, load the first airway, then go through the whole process again for the next airway.

An aside, I find Garmin's use of confirmation dialogs to be both tedious and inconsistent. Frankly, when you're consumed in a classic, heat-of-battle-single-pilot-IFR crisis moment, these dialogs are real time wasters. You go through a bunch of knob twisting to load an airport or a waypoint and it asks you are you sure? But inadvertently press the small FMS knob instead of Enter (which I have seen pilots do countless times) and you're unceremoniously dumped out of whatever you were doing and all the letters you've painstakingly entered are destroyed. Garmin's whole large knob, small knob selection interface has to be one of the worst designs I've ever seen and they continue to propagate it forward when they implement new features, like checklists (which I'll talk about in a future post). But since it's what they provide, I guess we pilots have to hold our noses and just use it. Lucky for us, many of the G1000's other cool features makes it easier to take Garmin's silly user interface faux pas.

Airline Simulator

It's been a long while since I've posted, not so much due to my being busy. In fact, I've had more canceled flights in the last three weeks than I can recall in quite a while. Nothing out of the ordinary, just the usual stuff - aircraft out for maintenance, bad weather, pilots getting sick ...

As fate would have it, I should be interviewing with a couple of regional airlines in the next two weeks. Isn't everyone with a commercial pilot certificate, at least 400 hours of total time, and a pulse interviewing for an airline job? I'll have more details as they become available. Until then (in case you haven't already seen it), try this simulation created by Dennis Stricklin to see if you'd like an airline job:

Here is a home study simulator course for those who still hunger for the romance and adventure of airline and charter flying. It will all come back to you if you practice the following at home:

1. Stay out of bed all night.

2. Sit in your most uncomfortable chair, in a closet for nine or ten hours facing a four foot wide panoramic photo of a flight deck.

3. Have two or three noisy vacuum cleaners on high, out of sight but within hearing distance and operating throughout the night. If a vacuum cleaner fails, do the appropriate restart checklist.

4. Halfway through your nocturnal simulator course, arrange for a bright spotlight to shine directly into your face for two or three hours, simulating an eastbound flight into the sunrise.

5. Have bland, overcooked food served on a tray midway through the night.

6. Have cold cups of coffee delivered from time to time. Ask your spouse to slam the door frequently.

7. At the time when you must heed nature's call, force yourself to stand outside the bathroom door for a least ten minutes, transferring your weight from leg to leg, easing the discomfort. Don't forget to wear your hat.

8. Leave the closet after the prescribed nine or ten hours, turn on your sprinklers and stand out in the cold and "rain" for twenty minutes, simulating the wait for the crew car.

9. Head for your bedroom, wet and with your suitcase and flight bag. Stand outside the door till you wife gets up and leaves, simulating the wait you'd have while the maid makes up the hotel room.

10. When your spouse inquires, "Just what in the hell have you been doing?" just say "Recalling the allure of all night flying to romantic places" and collapse into bed.

11. If you are a purist, do this two nights in a row.

Flying the GNS480

Last week was a bit slow, which provided the perfect opportunity to fly a Piper Arrow that recently became available and is equipped with a CNX80 (which Garmin now calls the GNS480 since they acquired Apollo a few years back). I have given several hundred hours of dual instruction in the venerable Piper Arrow, but this was my first opportunity to fly RNAV approaches with vertical guidance in a real aircraft.

It was my first time flying an Arrow equipped with an air conditioner. We didn't need nor did we use the AC, but its presence required careful weight and balance considerations: With two pilots in the front seat, half fuel, and insufficient ballast in the baggage compartment, you're guaranteed to exceed the forward center of gravity limit in this aircraft because of the additional weight of the air conditioner compressor up front.

This flight allowed me to log some instrument approaches and a hold, so I brought along a friend to act as safety pilot. He flies for a major airline, but has been sitting at home on reserve for several weeks and was more than willing to perform safety pilot duties if it meant a chance to fly. I had experimented with the Garmin GNS480 simulator about a year ago, but hadn't really plumbed its depths. It was just an academic exercise at that time, but I was going to be spending actual dollars and burning real fuel on this flight. The threat of debt, poverty, or credit card interest is an amazing motivator and I spent about four hours in front of my computer creating flight plans, loading departure procedures, loading approach procedures, flying missed approaches, and going to an alternate destination. I couldn't afford to not have my mojo on this flight.



I don't want to start a debate, but I feel a brief sidebar on PC simulation is in order. I have a desktop PC that I use for running simulators, but for my day-to-day use I'm a Mac aficionado, though I'm more likely to be mistaken for John Hodgman (the guy on the left) than Justin Long. I've used a variety of computers from IBM mainframes, to Unix workstations (Sun, HP, et al.), PCs running many flavors of operating systems, and Macs. As I've gotten older, I have less patience for the care and feeding of PCs. So for me, using a Mac is a no-brainer since it requires less effort on my part. But when you want to run a simulator, like the Garmin GNS480 sim, you need a PC. Or do you?

In the pre-Intel Mac world, a product called VirtualPC was introduced. It still exists, if fact. I used VirtualPC in the past and the problem was the performance was abysmal. As a former software guy with operating system development experience, I found the fact that it worked at all to be an amazing achievement. Now if you have a newer Mac with an Intel processor, you have several options for running Windows.

One solution is to install Boot Camp, a free product you can download from Apple that allows you to create a separate disk partition, install Windows XP on that partition (you have to provide Windows XP software yourself), and re-boot your Mac into Windows. That's cool, but you are still in the world of either-or: If you want to switch back to MacOS, you have to reboot.

I think a better option is to use VMware Fusion, a soon-to-be released product currently in beta that lets you run Windows XP in a window under MacOS X (or Linux). This is just what I always wanted. I can run the few Windows XP apps I need to run and when I've had enough, I can close or minimize the window and make the unpleasantness go away. There's at least one other product out there that provides similar capability, but I'm very happy with VMware Fusion.



Meanwhile, back in the air ...

The plan was to depart Oakland, head east, do a practice RNAV RWY 30 approach at Byron, fly the published missed to a hold, then back to Oakland for a couple of RNAV RWY 27L approaches. Since both approaches have LNAV, LNAV/VNAV, and LPV minima defined, this would give me a chance to see which approach sensitivity I would get and what it is like to not know which minima you'll get until a few miles from the FAF.

Under the hood shortly after takeoff, I was working to adapt to the somewhat ponderous control feel of the Arrow. It was a bit of a shock after flying a Cirrus the day before, but adapt I did. The approach into Byron started with a couple of hiccups with Norcal. I made my approach request and they asked where I wanted to start the approach.



Not wanting to take all day (this was on my dime, after all), I asked for vectors to EKIYU and got the annoyed, bored response: "Where?" After repeating the waypoint name twice, the controller took the easy way out and said "proceed on your own navigation, report established on a segment of the approach, maintain VFR." Whatever ... I vectored myself to EKIYU, which happens to be essentially on top of the Tracy Airport, where the course sensitivity changed to LNAV/VNAV.

Look at the Jeppesen version of this approach chart and you'll see a note saying that WAAS NOTAM service is not available for Byron. On the FAA version of this chart, there's a small W in a black rounded square, which means the same thing. The FAA's IAP chart legend says:

... WAAS NOTAMs for vertical outages are not provided for this approach. Use LNAV minima for flight planning at these locations, whether as a destination or alternate. For flight operations at these locations, when the WAAS avionics indicate that LNAV/VNAV or LPV service is available, then vertical guidance may be used to complete the approach using the displayed level of service. Should an outage occur during the procedure, reversion to LNAV minima may be required. As the WAAS coverage is expanded, the [W symbol] will be removed.

So for the time being, you won't know in advance if WAAS will be available at airports like Byron. Oakland, however, does have WAAS NOTAM service and I'd not seen any NOTAMs for Oakland in my DUAT pre-flight briefing. Here's what a WAAS NOTAM looks like, in case you're wondering:

APC 03/010 APC WAAS LNAV/VNAV AND LPV MNM UNREL WEF
0703101359-0703101414

The approach into Byron was otherwise uneventful, though I got a bit low on the VNAV glideslope toward the end. This was due to some spirited, thermal updraft and downdraft activity combined with my mistake in putting in flaps 10 a bit too early - a habit I've gotten into with both the Cirrus and DiamondStar. Reacquainted with the Arrow's wing loading, power loading, and drag characteristics, I vowed to just put the gear down at the FAF on the next approach and save the flaps for later.



Then it was back to Oakland for an RNAV RWY 27L and I was pleased to see the course sensitivity LPV (localizer precision with vertical guidance). So what's it like to fly an LPV approach? It's pretty much like an ILS. You descend to the depicted altitude at the FAF, intercept the glideslope from below, then ride it down to the decision altitude defined for the approach. I did think the LPV gildeslope was just a bit more twitchy than a conventional ILS glideslope.




One big difference between the GNS480 and the Garmin GNS430 or GNS530 units is that you don't need to take any action to begin the missed approach procedure. There are no buttons to push, the GNS480 just starts telling you how to fly the missed. If you're circling or landing straight in, you'll ignore it anyway. I think this is a good design, but unfortunately the new WAAS-enabled GNS530/430W GPS receivers have kept the requirement that the pilot press the OBS button to re-enable waypoint sequencing after passing the missed approach point. A shame about that, really ...

I found I missed seeing the 10 second countdown for turn anticipation more than once. This might have been due to my higher workload as I was getting accustomed to the airplane or it could have been the placement of the unit in this aircraft's panel put it too far from my primary field of view. Or the sunlight could have been too bright and the screen too dim. When I reminded myself to be on the lookout, I found it a big improvement over the terse, few second turn warning that the Garmin 430/540 provide.

The flight planning and direct-to navigation features of the GNS480 are ... different. The unit knows about airways and this can make it easier to translate an IFR clearance to a GPS flight plan, but it's a bit of an acquired taste. Once you get used to it, the interface is logical and makes sense. The flight plan even allows you to enter an alternate airport - a big shortcoming in the Garmin 430/530 world where the last airport you enter in a flight plan is the one the unit thinks is your destination when it comes to loading approach procedures. I'll probably be doing more flights in this aircraft as an instructor, so yours truly will have to become proficient with yet another GPS.

Flying RNAV Departures

My apologies for the long break from blogging. This was due mostly to my getting sick and then having a spate of unplanned maintenance activities on my Jetta TDI. We're both now in fine fettle, thank you, though I'm a bit poorer than I'd like. These recent events have led me to offer some unsolicited testimonials:

Bauer's European Auto Repair in Berkeley - they actually understand diesel engines, they're friendly, and their prices are reasonable, and they don't treat you as if you're in league with the devil if you are using biodiesel.

Zicam Cold Remedy Rapid Melts - a homeopathic cold remedy recommended to me. I was skeptical until I tried it. While it doesn't make your cold go away, it turns the volume down on the symptoms and helps you get on with your life.

Mucinex - a time-release, tablet version of guaifenesin (a common active ingredient in cough syrups). It's better than cough syrup by a long shot.

Now on to the promised discussion of RNAV departure procedures. RNAV departures in the U.S. are designed primarily to simplify the delivery of IFR clearances in busy airspace, to provide obstacle clearance in remote areas where VOR reception is spotty due to terrain, or both. They come in a couple of flavors: Type A and Type B. Both types usually start with a heading or vector from the end of the departure runway to an RNAV fix. The differences between type A and B SIDs are largely incidental to the pilot flying with a 430W or 530W, but here they are for completeness:

First RNAV fix from the end of the departure runway:
Type A: approximately 10NM
Type B: "near" the departure end

RNAV accuracy required during 95% of the flight time:
Type A: +/-2NM
Type B: +/-1NM

Altitude Engagement:
Type A: no later than 2000 feet Height Above Airport
Type B: no later than 200 feet HAA

Equipment required (described in AC 90-100)
Type A - GPS, DME/DME, or DME/DME/IRU RNAV
Type B - GPS or DME/DME/IRU RNAV

There's really not a lot to flying a RNAV SID, as long as you do some preflight planning. The first task is to ensure that you can meet any required climb gradient specified on the chart. Consider the CHOIR ONE departure from Alturas, California.

And I shouldn't have to say this, but:

Don't use any of the charts, snippets, or other illustrations shown in this blog for navigation in a real aircraft.



This SID requires a minimum climb of 367 feet per nautical mile or 389 feet per nautical mile, depending on the departure runway, up to 11,000 feet. The climb gradient is expressed in feet per nautical mile because the procedure designers don't know how fast your particular aircraft is traveling in a climb. Here's a snippet from an old Klamath Falls VFR sectional showing the topography around Alturas.



Jepp charts are kind enough to calculate the required climb rate for you, translating the climb gradient into feet per minute for a range of different climb speeds. If you use FAA charts, you can use a table in the front part of the approach booklet to do the conversion or just use your calculator:

(398 feet/NM X 100 NM/hour)/60 minutes/hour = 648 feet/minute

This climb rate at altitudes above 6,000 feet MSL is beyond the capability of many single-engine GA aircraft, so check your aircraft's flight manual. If you're flying a multi-engine aircraft, of course you'll want to look at the single-engine rate of climb performance, just in case.

Next, you'll want to do either an FDE prediction and/or a RAIM prediction prior to departure. Power up you Garmin GPS, bring up the Auxiliary pages, find RAIM prediction, and tell the unit to do it's thing. Remember that RAIM prediction uses a satellite almanac to predict the number of satellites your GPS antenna should be able to see, but it is not a guarantee that the in-flight RAIM calculations that the receiver makes will always succeed. Translation? Your RAIM prediction could succeed, but you could still get a RAIM failure in flight (though it is unlikely).



Since a pre-flight RAIM prediction is so important, why does Garmin insist on burying this feature, requiring a bunch of knob twisting and button pushing?

For this example, we'll do a trip from Alturas to Reno, Nevada using the CHOIR ONE departure, then direct to a fix on the RNO RNAV 16R approach. Press the FPL button, press the small knob on the lower right to enter cursor mode, scroll to the empty space below KAAT, then turn the small knob to spell out KRNO for Reno.



Press the PROC button, then scroll with the big knob on the lower right, highlight SELECT DEPARTURE, and press ENT. Select CHOIR1 from the list, and press ENT.



On departure, you can use the terrain view to give you an idea of where the obstructions are located as you climb.



As you approach the second waypoint, the 530W will give you a 10 second countdown before you need to change heading.



As you approach CHOIR, you'll get the same 10 second countdown, then the unit will tell you to turn. As I've said before, this countdown and turn instruction are a huge improvement from the earlier 530/430 units where the prompt was so short lived that it was easy to miss. Turn when the unit tells you to turn and you'll fly by the waypoint and get established on the airway without overshooting.



In a future installment, I'll cover flying a STAR.

Flying LNAV Approaches

NOTE: For a more up-to-date discussion, see Understanding RNAV Approaches.

A while back, I took Garmin to task because it seemed their new WAAS-certified GPS units promised to increase pilot workload at a critical moment in flight - just before the final approach fix on an RNAV approach (like they listen to me!). Well, it might not be as bad as I first thought because these new units also provide some new features that could really help a pilot stay ahead of the game. Continuing where I left off with my previous post on FDE prediction, here's an example of flying the Byron RNAV RWY 30 approach using the new 400/500W Trainer software.

There are several new features in the 400/500 WAAS-certified unit, many of which are described in this Garmin document. Some of the features I find most useful don't seem to be mentioned.

One change involves the GPS status screen. Note that there are some new terms used, namely HFOM and VFOM. These stand for Horizontal Figure Of Merit and Vertical Figure Of Merit, which represent the 95% confidence in the horizontal and vertical accuracy. The Garmin 530W Pilot Handbook and Reference simply says that smaller numbers mean greater accuracy. EPU (Estimated Position Uncertainty) is more straightforward - it's the estimated horizontal position error in nautical miles. Lastly, the histogram bars that show the relative signal strength of each satellite will contain a D when that particular satellite has differential corrections (WAAS) applied. This is good stuff to know, but it only indirectly helps you fly an approach.

One annoyance is that when using the Trainer, the MSG annunciation is constantly displayed and when you press the MSG button you're warned to not use the simulator for navigation. This is important if you are using an actual 530W unit in simulator mode, but for the trainer software to display this message continuously it is pointless and annoying.

Back to the Byron RNAV RWY 30 approach, let's say you've loaded the approach and are being vectored to SHARR intersection (the initial approach fix). As you approach SHARR (a fly-by waypoint), you'll begin to see a curved path displayed which shows the path you'll fly if you follow the turn anticipation prompt provided by the 530W. I find this to be a huge improvement because it gives the pilot a visual cue as to the path they'll be flying and helps them visualize and prepare for the change in course.

The prompt for turn anticipation messages in the old 530 units lasted only a few seconds and unless you watched the display like a hawk, they was easy to miss. A new feature in the 430/530W is a 10 second countdown display prior to beginning a turn and prior to any waypoint passage. This message is much harder to miss and the countdown helps get the pilot in step with the approach.

A few miles outside of the final approach fix, note that the course sensitivity annunciation has changed from TERM to LNAV/+V. Now as I understand it, this annunciation is for approaches that have published LNAV/VNAV minima, but haven't yet been identified as such in the Jeppesen database that Garmin uses. The Byron RNAV RWY 30 approach has only LNAV and LPV minima, so I'm concluding that LNAV/+V is also used to provide advisory vertical guidance on approaches that have only LNAV minima. So LPV, LNAV/VNAV, and some LNAV approaches will all display vertical guidance and it's up to the pilot to note the annunciation (LPV, L/VNAV, or LNAV/+V) and descend to the appropriate minima. If the LNAV annunciation appears, they you won't receive any vertical guidance.




When vertical guidance is provided, the behavior similar to an ILS glideslope and you should intercept the glideslope from below, just like you would an ILS glideslope. You then descend using that guidance to the appropriate MDA or decision height. It appears from my use of the simulator that this vertical guidance is provided right down to the runway, so you'll need to know when to call it quits and level off if you don't have the required visual references to operate below the MDA or DH.



You can use the altitude button on the Trainer's simulated autopilot to descend on the advisory glideslope, keeping the needle centered. If you descend at too high a rate and you have selected to simulate a GPS unit with TAWS, you'll even get a terrain warning. Should you need to execute the missed approach, the unit's behavior is the same as in the old 430 or 530 units.

Next installment? LPV approaches with the 530W.