Many GA aircraft have the functionality where pilots can remote the DME to Nav 1 or Nav 2. Personally I hate this setup as it is easy to set the associated tiny toggle switch (DME NAV1/NAV2) in the wrong position
I have that – here showing the duff display segment 
and for sure this catches people. When I used to rent out the TB20 I did a “check flight” with one guy who flew well but he started the Shoreham NDB/DME 20 with the DME set to Seaford instead of Shoreham. But then this is what the morse ident is supposed to catch.
However this didn’t happen here, did it? And loads of pilots don’t ident anything.
Personally, I think this is an excellent, if tragic, lesson on how things can go wrong if you do not use all the aids available (GPS, DME, ILS, NDB) and correlate the information presented.
I don’t agree. I think that on an instrument approach, one shouldn’t use an array of “aids” and be continually pressed to “crosscheck” various stuff (in terms of nav instruments that is). That, IMHO is old-school, sadistic stuff.
As you say yourself, there are so many little gauges, toggles, readouts in an old-style GA cockpit that just lend themselves to screwing up. I really prefer a clean instrument panel and a GPS approach.
JasonC wrote:
On something like a G1000 an ILS is loaded the same way as a GPS approach.
Flying an ILS on the G1000 is no different from a G430 or G530. You can either set it up manually, in which case the FMS has no clue to what you are doing, or you could load the approach procedure in which case you will get GPS guidance until some time before the FAP when the system will (is supposed to) automatically tune the ILS and switch the nav guidance from GPS to ILS.
what_next wrote:
I wonder if he had an approach chart on hand, as he was “officially” flying VFR. Flying that kind of procedure on the stored data of a GNS 530 alone is a sure recipe for disaster.
Unless I’m mistaking, he was not “officially” flying VFR, he was officially flying VFR in IMC and had asked for the ILS. As discussed many times, this is unique for the UK, but I can’t assume that he would set out without the plate when he knows that he might need to do an instrument landing (after all, he did the turns and decent at the right DMEs…just using the wrong fix)
I’m speculating (yes, speculating) that he might have a duff GS in the HSI, or maybe even the whole HSI was not working. I say that because he was clearly planning a constant decent approach, not looking for the GS. I have had an HSI with the GS not always coming alive, but also limited myself to VMC. If the HSI was not reliable, and the second VOR inop, it makes sense that he would stay on the GPS to give him a precise inbound track and plan to do a LOC/DME approach using the GPS only. Not saying that is a smart thing to do (clearly), but I can see how that decision could be made.
Peter wrote:
Did the accident aircraft have a G1000, 430W or a DFC90?
It had a 530W. So the sarcasm is completely uncalled for.
It works the same way if you use it correctly and in so doing would provide far more situational awareness.
+1 for what Bosco said.
With the 530 you just load the ILS approach and fly the whole approach with GPS guidance to the localizer. And there you switch to VLOC, and that’s it. All you can forget or mess up is that the Final Course on the HSI is not set or that you’re in the wrong altitude.
Unfortunately, he didn’t have a G1000 etc etc so the relevance of what he might have had (and lived) is zero – other than a separate discussion of how to improvise IFR with various levels of antique gear.
Was he actually VFR as per an explicit radio call? The UK “system” is that nearly all flight in Class G is assumed to be VFR, and usually it is in terms of service received e.g. there is no enroute clearance (and there cannot be any anyway, in G, despite pretentions in some other countries). It’s the pilot’s choice what word to use on the radio. Personally I prefer “IFR” because there is a better chance of a better service from ATC, just sometimes…
Yes, he could have had a sticky GS on the HSI. That is a common fault on the KI525 etc.
So the sarcasm is completely uncalled for.
I am trying to keep it relevant, Jason, because currently, for some reason which beats me, every nth post here is an irrelevant comment along the lines of “if you have Gear X then you can do Y” but X and Y are not relevant to the discussion. Looking at my inbox, I am not the only one who gets p1ssed off with that. A number of others are tearing their hair out reading the same stuff over and over.
Peter wrote:
I am trying to keep it relevant,
As the 530w works the same way it is completely relevant.
Maybe, if you are 100% up to speed with the system. Most aren’t.
Otherwise, why not just always say “if he had an SR22 Gx he would have been fine”. End of discussion.
Peter wrote:
Otherwise, why not just always say “if he had an SR22 Gx he would have been fine”.
Because he didn’t have an SR22 but he did have a 530W.
And a key point out of this report is that if you have a procedure in an “FMS” database it is safer to load it than fly a manually set up procedure.
And a 530w is hardly “antique” IFR equipment.
