I’m pretty sure we’ve discussed this before, but I want to confirm something.
When filing an alternate on an IFR plan, if the alternate airport’s approaches say “DME required” or “ADF required” then we can’t file it in our planes. The requirements for an alternate insist that a non-GPS approach be available, and we can’t fly a DME-required approach non-GPS. Right?
I understand that if you end up needing an alternate, GPS or whatever is fine to use, but not for filing purposes.
-Curt
In reply to:
The requirements for an alternate insist that a non-GPS approach be available, and we can’t fly a DME-required approach non-GPS. Right?
Curt,
According to the AIM [1-1-21 (f)(6)(h)]:
(h) A non-GPS approach procedure must exist at the alternate airport when one is required. If the non-GPS approaches on which the pilot must rely require DME or ADF, the aircraft must be equipped with DME or ADF avionics as appropriate.
The guidance in the AIM is not regulatory, however, could be conceived as careless or reckless if not followed.
However, if you were to proceed to your alternate (say in a lost comm scenario) you could choose any approach you wish that is appropriate for the equipment installed and on the ground.
In the Cirrus, you can fly an approach based on DME such as an ILS-DME or LOC-DME or an approach where ADF is required (as long as the approach isn’t solely predicated on the NDB, such as NDB Rwy 4). You must have an updated database in order to substitute GPS for DME and/or ADF for approach operations. You don’t need an updated database for terminal or en route operations as long as you’ve accounted for the differences (if any). So, yes, you must use your GPS to substitute for DME and/or ADF when it is required.
My frustration boils up again, and the frustration of a lot of others IFR rated pilots flying Cirri in Europe;
There are just no legal GPS approaches in most of Europe, and for enroute you must have DME. The few legal GPS approaches (in Germany) all require DME, and for instance in The Netherlands you can’t file IFR unless you also have ADF.
Perhaps we can file IFR enroute to the Middle east in a few days, filing GPS approaches to Bagdad…But who wants to go there ?
[mad[:@][:(][:@][:@][:(]
Jaap
SR20 - 220 N262CD April 2 delivery
Japp, I can imagine your frustration. What I’m curious about is why the JAA is so adamant against the use of GPS. I understand the fear that since they don’t control the system, the satellites could be “turned off” or the accuracy degraded without their knowledge, but even with that concern GPS in my experience (and the experience of every pilot I know who has used it) is so far superior to VOR/DME and certainly ADF that it seems counter productive to prohibit its use. My understanding from reading a number of British Aviation Magazines is that general aviation has virtually no good lobby in Europe that compares even remotely to AOPA here. It’s really too bad you can’t convince the authorities to move into the 21st century.
Dear Jerry,
The use of GPS under VFR is not prohibited in Europe.
The European Commission and specially the French (Ariane rockets) want a new, 30 billion Euro (tax) costing satellite system called Gallileo. They use every trick why this would be better. And they have their mind set on aviation user fees. Of course GPS is a US DoD system, not controlled by European aviation authoreties.
But a small, “home made” transmitter can block both systems.
And you are right about general aviation in Europe. It is weak. In The Netherlands are on 16 million people about 600 GA planes. AOPA-NL has less than 2000 members.
Jaap
In Reply To:
I understand the fear that since they don’t control the system, the satellites could be “turned off” or the accuracy degraded without their knowledge,
I’ll bet that, as soon as the shooting hostilities begin in Iraq, we’ll start getting lots of RAIM warnings as the U.S. military intentionally degrades the GPS constellation signals to prevent others from using them for guidance. We probably won’t be doing much GPS-guided navigation for the duration of the shooting war, and I’ll be VERY surprised if we get ANY sort of NOTAMS about it beforehand. (Better brush up on your VOR-to-VOR and airways navigation and plan your IFR trips to airports that don’t have GPS-only or GPS in lieu of DME or ADF requirements! Also, how many of us actually ask FSS during briefings to check RAIM availablity at our destination ETA before launching?) If I was a European government, I wouldn’t put up with that uncertainty when my commerical and private air traffic depended on it! It relies too much on the good will of the U.S. gov’t, something that is in extremely short supply these days given the amount of political strong-arming our gov’t is doing right now!
Hypothetical example: If France, for instance, currently allowed widespread use of GPS-dependent navigation, the U.S. could have threatened to block or degrade the GPS signals, causing all sorts of air navigation issues in French airspace, in order to make France side with us on the Iraqi UN security resolution . Now, pick ANY other EU country we were trying to bully into compliance with our foreign policy…
I’ll bet that as soon as the EU gets their own GPS system up and running, they’ll allow GPS navigation, but you’ll probably have to have a box that receives different frequencies.
Japp, I actually knew you could use GPS for VFR over there. My comments were really for IFR. I suppose that if the entire system can be blocked by a small home made transmitter there is concern. Nevertheless over here there are probably several hundred planes flying IFR using GPS navigation at any given time and we haven’t had any problems. Why should Europe be different? In fact with all the airspace restrictions you have I would think being able to navigate with GPS would be a major advantage given the much greater accuracy.
In reply to:
Also, how many of us actually ask FSS during briefings to check RAIM availablity at our destination ETA before launching?
Bill,
You’re right… it’s a good idea these days. I’m not sure whether this AOPA site will warn of any outages – it’s supposed to warn of planned “interference tests”. Perhaps intentional degradation of accuracy will count, too.