IFR GPS replace DME / ADF?

Dave Butler wrote:
Newps wrote:

Why not? If you'll go direct with a handheld then why not shoot an
NDB approach with an IFR certified panel mount GPS such as a 430?


For one reason, the approach won't be in the GPS database.

So what? Set the GPS direct to the NDB. Fly outbound, do a procedure
turn. Turn inbound, fly back over the NDB and land. Why would that be
remotely difficult?

In article .com,
says...


Hello,

I'm new to IFR and just learning... if our plane doesn't have an ADF or
a DME... can we legally use, say a garmin 430, to do a NDB approach?
Also, can these garmin 430/480/530 units get you the DME?

Also, are RNAVs still used often?

Thanks,

-dr



The GPS/ADF question has also been discussed to death in a recent thread
here.

As for RNAV, you have to be careful using that word (or acronym) today,
because it is used to indicate older integrator boxes (KNS-80 etc) but
also applies to the latest GPS applications. The international B-RNAV and
P-RNAV standards do not preclude any of the navigational sources (VOR/DME
GPS) but specify performance standards. A GPS approach, even with WAAS or
LAAS is an RNAV approach by definition.

GF

Newps wrote:

For one reason, the approach won't be in the GPS database.


So what? Set the GPS direct to the NDB. Fly outbound, do a procedure
turn. Turn inbound, fly back over the NDB and land. Why would that be
remotely difficult?

Wouldn't be.

Hello everyone,

I just wanted to post that the Initial poster is using a canadian email
address and the rules in canada are a little bit different with regards
to the use of a GPS to fly a DME arc.

In Canada AIC 27/05 says:

6.0 Use of GNSS in Lieu of Ground-based Aids GNSS may be used to
identify all fixes defined by distance measuring equipment (DME), VOR,
VOR/DME and NDB, including fixes that are part of any instrument
approach procedure, to navigate to and from these fixes along specific
tracks, including arcs, and to report distances along airways or tracks
for separation purposes, subject to the following conditions:


Regards,

If you are looking for canadian rules, I strongly suggest that you
refer to Transport Canada website.

Thanks!

For one reason, the approach won't be in the GPS database

That's not true of any IFR GPS I've used. They usually have all
approaches, ILS, NDB, etc regardless if they are GPS or not. On the
Garmin you do get a warning though.

-Robert

Robert M. Gary wrote:
Some NDB approachs now say NDB/GPS. If it does not say GPS you cannot
use the GPS past the FAF. Its a bit silly that you must turn away from
your highly correct source (GPS) and turn to your ADF.


Virtually all FAA NDB approaches are NDB (GPS) unless an RNAV (GPS)
approach provides the same, or better, access. Once the RNAV approach
becomes effective, the GPS overlay for the NDB is cancelled.

Greg Farris wrote:

In article .com,
says...


Hello,

I'm new to IFR and just learning... if our plane doesn't have an ADF or
a DME... can we legally use, say a garmin 430, to do a NDB approach?
Also, can these garmin 430/480/530 units get you the DME?

Also, are RNAVs still used often?

Thanks,

-dr




The GPS/ADF question has also been discussed to death in a recent thread
here.

As for RNAV, you have to be careful using that word (or acronym) today,
because it is used to indicate older integrator boxes (KNS-80 etc) but
also applies to the latest GPS applications. The international B-RNAV and
P-RNAV standards do not preclude any of the navigational sources (VOR/DME
GPS) but specify performance standards. A GPS approach, even with WAAS or
LAAS is an RNAV approach by definition.

GF

Then, there is RNP.

In article JwR8g.176188$bm6.47778@fed1read04, Sam Spade
wrote:

As for RNAV, you have to be careful using that word (or acronym) today,
because it is used to indicate older integrator boxes (KNS-80 etc) but
also applies to the latest GPS applications. The international B-RNAV and
P-RNAV standards do not preclude any of the navigational sources (VOR/DME
GPS) but specify performance standards. A GPS approach, even with WAAS or
LAAS is an RNAV approach by definition.

GF

Then, there is RNP.

Which is sometimes considered different than RNP RNAV (e.g., RNP with
containment integrity).

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Bob Noel wrote:

In article JwR8g.176188$bm6.47778@fed1read04, Sam Spade
wrote:


As for RNAV, you have to be careful using that word (or acronym) today,
because it is used to indicate older integrator boxes (KNS-80 etc) but
also applies to the latest GPS applications. The international B-RNAV and
P-RNAV standards do not preclude any of the navigational sources (VOR/DME
GPS) but specify performance standards. A GPS approach, even with WAAS or
LAAS is an RNAV approach by definition.

GF


Then, there is RNP.


Which is sometimes considered different than RNP RNAV (e.g., RNP with
containment integrity).


How about RNAV (RNP) instrument approach procedure?