![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Roy Smith wrote:
In article , Sam Spade wrote: Roy Smith wrote: "Chris Quaintance" wrote: Hi Folks- Please forgive what is probably a simple question regarding GPS approaches. I am new the the /G world. I was out flying my 182P today to do some practice approaches. The airplane is equipped with a GNS480 and I have a Garmin 296 on the yolk. I was buzzing around NW of the Salinas airport on vectors and was told to expect the GPS13 approach as I requested. So far, so good. Fight plan entered into the 480 and the 296, approach loaded on both. Here's the approach: http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0701/00363G13.PDF NorCal cleared me direct EWTOF at 3200, cleared for the approach. When looking at the approach on both the 480 and the 296, it seemed to commence at UBBEP rather than EWTOF. Yeah, right, you got a bum clearance. I had a similar experience not long ago and wrote about it here (http://tinyurl.com/yt8vkn). It's pretty common. The problem is that while from the point of view of somebody sitting in a dark room watching blips move around a screen, it's a perfectly reasonable thing to have you do, the software in the GPS wants you to either start the approach from an IAF, or get vectors to final. It would be nice if controllers gave clearances that were flyable, but the often don't, and then you're struggling to figure out how to tell the GPS to do something it doesn't want to do. Roy, This handling is now approved and is no problem whatsoever with a Garmin 400 or 500. Is it with the 480? At least with the software rev we've got, it is. When you select an approach, the only things that come up in the menu are Vectors and all the IAFs. I believe you can fake it out by looking on the approach plate, figuring out which IAF you can select that gives you a route including the specified IF, load that up, then go into FPL mode, scroll down to the IF, and do -D- to that. That's a lot of fumbling, looking, and button-pushing to do at a busy time of the flight. Yes, but once you select one of the IAFs and it loads the approach into the active flight plan, aren't all of the waypoints then available for a direct-to operation? Matt |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
Matt Whiting wrote: Yes, but once you select one of the IAFs and it loads the approach into the active flight plan, aren't all of the waypoints then available for a direct-to operation? Yes, but it would still be a lot simplier if the IF just showed up in the initial menu. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
![]() I think this is the problem. I'd expect MOVER to be the first fix once the approach is loaded and I expand the approach in the flight plan view. I could then go Direct-to EWTOF quite easily and still be in proper sequence. However, the first fix is UBBEP. I replicated this behavior on the 480 sim, as well. How do I load the approach such that at least all of the fixes from the IAF (in this case MOVER) are there and ready to go? I can't seem to find a way to make this happen. I'd like it to either magically be there when the approach is loaded or at least allow me to select the applicable transition. No dice. Thanks, --Chris Mike Adams wrote: Sam Spade wrote: This handling is now approved and is no problem whatsoever with a Garmin 400 or 500. Is it with the 480? It works much the same on the 480. You have to put in the approach transition from the applicable IAF, MOVER in this case, Execute it, and then do a Direct-to EWTOF as a separate action. The only problem, mentally, is that you have to look on the chart to find the applicable transition that contains the waypoint you're looking for, rather than being able to select it directly on the approach menu. Mike |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Dave Butler wrote: When you selected the procedure from the database, it looks like the only IAF is MOVER, so you must have selected the approach starting from MOVER. So EWTOF should have been added to the flight plan (no?) and you should be able to select DIRECT EWTOF from the flight plan(?), rather from the NRST list. Then I think the 480 would have auto-sequenced you through the rest of the approach. snip EWTOF was nowhere to be found. You shouldn't have to "insert" it. It should have been added to the flight plan when you selected the approach starting from MOVER. Did you remember to EXECUTE the flight plan change? Did you EXPAND the flight plan to see all the waypoints? I think EWTOF/ECYON should have been there. Yes, I did execute the flight plan change and expand the plan to see the waypoints. Again, UBBEP was the first waypoint of the approach. I verified this behavior with the 480 sim. In the 480, they all commence with an IAF (not FAF). In the 296, I think only the FAF is shown on approaches. The 296 is only for situational-awareness, after all. You can have an output from the 480 that automatically copies the flight plan from the 480 to the 296. I do that with my 396. Then the 296/396 knows about all the same waypoints as the 480. Well, in my experience, the two approaches I referenced in my initial post commence with the FAF on the 480. We'll leave the 296 on the yoke out of it (even if there's yolk on my face!). So, either I'm doing something incorrectly whilst loading the approach, or there is some inconsistency or problem with these approaches and my setup. Interestingly enough, I was able to spend a very brief time behind a 530 today and it seemed to have "better" behavior in this regard. I easily was able to commence the approach (to a different airport) from a variety of fixes that were available on the plate. You might want to join the GNS480 users group at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gns480-users/ I have already done so. Thanks for the lead. Appreciate your time! --Chris |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Chris Quaintance wrote:
I think this is the problem. I'd expect MOVER to be the first fix once the approach is loaded and I expand the approach in the flight plan view. I could then go Direct-to EWTOF quite easily and still be in proper sequence. However, the first fix is UBBEP. I replicated this behavior on the 480 sim, as well. How do I load the approach such that at least all of the fixes from the IAF (in this case MOVER) are there and ready to go? I can't seem to find a way to make this happen. I'd like it to either magically be there when the approach is loaded or at least allow me to select the applicable transition. No dice. Huh, I get the choice of Vectors, MOVER, ISIFU, and SHOEY. Picking any other than VECTORS gives me the the EWTOF waypoint. Are you sure you selected something OTHER than vectors (and you did remember to EXEC it!) |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Mike Adams wrote:
Sam Spade wrote: This handling is now approved and is no problem whatsoever with a Garmin 400 or 500. Is it with the 480? It works much the same on the 480. You have to put in the approach transition from the applicable IAF, MOVER in this case, Execute it, and then do a Direct-to EWTOF as a separate action. The only problem, mentally, is that you have to look on the chart to find the applicable transition that contains the waypoint you're looking for, rather than being able to select it directly on the approach menu. Well in this case, they all have it except for Vectors. There is only one IAF (which there are two additional transitions leading to). |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
![]() On Jan 17, 6:08 am, Ron Natalie wrote: Huh, I get the choice of Vectors, MOVER, ISIFU, and SHOEY. Picking any other than VECTORS gives me the the EWTOF waypoint. Are you sure you selected something OTHER than vectors (and you did remember to EXEC it!) Aha! I spent some more time with the 480 simulator and seemed to have figured it out. I see now when you load the approach, the "Vectors" (top right) field can be changed at that point to (in this case) MOVER, ISIFU, and SHOEY. Just as you said! I thought that the VTF mode was selected after the approach was loaded. I didn't realize you can change that before it's loaded. Thanks for the clues, Ron! Now, a follow on question has surfaced. My flight plan in the 480 was merely KRHV to KSNS with no other waypoints. This was actually my clearance (radar vectors, direct). Now, in the sim, when I properly load the approach with MOVER as a starting point, I get a discontinuity. The flight plan, in it's XPND form, is KRHV, discontinuity, (MOVER), and then the GPS13 approach commencing with EWTOF. So, as a solution, I can select the discontinuity and clear it. Then, EXEC the flight plan and things magically work and I am headed Direct MOVER. Select Direct EWTOF and I am in business. It seems a little ugly to me, though. Is there a more elegant solution? Especially bearing in mind that I am briefly headed Direct MOVER even though that's not my clearance. Thanks for the help! --Chris |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Chris Quaintance wrote:
Now, a follow on question has surfaced. My flight plan in the 480 was merely KRHV to KSNS with no other waypoints. This was actually my clearance (radar vectors, direct). I'm confused if you weren't cleared to EWTOF I'd just start out going direct KSNS and not load an approach until I was cleared for it (how do you know what you are going to get?). |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Chris Quaintance wrote:
Now, a follow on question has surfaced. My flight plan in the 480 was merely KRHV to KSNS with no other waypoints. This was actually my clearance (radar vectors, direct). Now, in the sim, when I properly load the approach with MOVER as a starting point, I get a discontinuity. The flight plan, in it's XPND form, is KRHV, discontinuity, (MOVER), and then the GPS13 approach commencing with EWTOF. So, as a solution, I can select the discontinuity and clear it. There's no need to clear the discontinuity. Just select EWTOF from the flight plan and go direct. Then, EXEC the flight plan and things magically work and I am headed Direct MOVER. Select Direct EWTOF and I am in business. It seems a little ugly to me, though. Is there a more elegant solution? Especially bearing in mind that I am briefly headed Direct MOVER even though that's not my clearance. There's no need to ever be direct MOVER. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
![]() rant mode Having earned my instrument rating and done all my flying behind panels that do NOT include an IFR GPS, I frequently find myself a little queasy when I read these posts about GPS approaches. I'm a young man (33) and am a professional in the computer industry (or was, until I decided to go back to grad school) and yet, I find the complexity of operating a GPS just plain outrageous. I've rented aircraft with panel GPS and fiddled with the simulators on my PC and I always come away with this feeling of "argggh!" this is way too hard. I think the people who invented these panel units (or set up the IFR certification for them) seriously screwed up by not fully appreciating what was good about the old nav radios. To me, the nice thing is that using a nav radio is NOT A NEGOTIATION. You set it and that's that. You can do it ahead of time. You can change it at any time, without updating a plan, etc. You can put a frequency in there long before what appears on the nav head will make sense -- and that's okay. You as the pilot get to decide when to look at the needle. With these GPS systems it seems like you are constantly dealing with the after-effects of some engineer/programmer who is not in the air with you. Oh, and here's another nice thing about nav radios. They look and work the same in a 737 and a 152. But god forbid you jump into an aircraft with a different GPS unit than the one you're familiar with. You're gonna be in trouble! I dunno. I get what's great about GPS. I have a handheld (196) and like it. (And it's flightplan logic is substantially easier than a 430/530, btw). Aviation used to represent the cutting edge in human factors research. What happened? /rant mode -- dave j |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
R172K Approach Configuration | facpi | Instrument Flight Rules | 10 | January 5th 07 03:58 PM |
RNAV vectors | Dan Luke | Instrument Flight Rules | 74 | December 26th 06 10:31 PM |
Trust those Instruments.... Trust those Instruments..... | A Lieberman | Instrument Flight Rules | 1 | May 2nd 06 03:54 PM |
Approach Question- Published Missed Can't be flown? | Brad Z | Instrument Flight Rules | 8 | May 6th 04 04:19 AM |
Why is ADF or Radar Required on MFD ILS RWY 32 Approach Plate? | S. Ramirez | Instrument Flight Rules | 17 | April 2nd 04 11:13 AM |