I have noticed that while in the UK in working towards an IR, you will learn, and may be examined on carrying out a GNSS approach. However, it does not follow that you would load the approach on your IFR GPS when using other NAV sources, e.g. ILS. Even though the Garmin IFR GPS tend to be integrated NAV/COM/ILS/GPS sets, e.g. 430, 530, 1000.
Is this another somewhat UK quaint practice (having an NDB on the Missed Approach procedure, and not using a GNSS overlay being another)?
It was explained to me that examiners want to see evidence of carrying out a raw approach, etc. However, loading the ILS 21 for EGTC will normally load the correct terrestrial NAV sources, but also provide DTK sequencing and other useful aids towards enhanced situational awareness. The ILS is still flown using LOC and GS.
I do feel that the North American practical test standard needs to be transplanted to EASA – whatever equipment is fitted in the aircraft you need to demonstrate you know how to use it. An IR practical exam in a Garmin 1000 equipped aircraft would assume that you would load the approach correctly using the PROC function, and not half use the functionality. You would also be asked quite a few questions on glass cockpit and electrical failure scenarios.
While the knobology may be different depending on your IFR GPS equipment, the underlying logic is similar, but it is not obvious to me that you are actually taught some pretty basic IFR GPS concepts.
It was explained to me that examiners want to see evidence of carrying out a raw approach, etc. However, loading the ILS 21 for EGTC will normally load the correct terrestrial NAV sources, but also provide DTK sequencing and other useful aids towards enhanced situational awareness. The ILS is still flown using LOC and GS.
And where’s the problem then? The important thing is that when you are cleared for an ILS approach and read back the clearance, your approach actually must follow the ILS. What your secondary/backup instruments are set to is entirely up to you (unless you have to follow the procedures of your commercial employer). No examiner will fail you for that. Just don’t fly a GPS based approach when cleared for something else.
No examiner will fail you for that
I bet you there will be, ahem, national variations in exactly when you are allowed to be looking at the GPS 
For example it is utterly trivial to fly a perfect NDB hold if you can look at the GPS moving map. They simply cannot allow that – well not if they want you to use raw data.
I always load the approach on my GNS430W when flying a non-RNAV approach…..then I activate Vectors to Final….this gives an extended centerline which helps situational awareness….the CDI is selected to VLOC not GPS so the HSI is displaying the GS/LOC in the case of an ILS….I also use the TRK readout from the GPS to help select a heading for keeping the CDI centred if hand flying…
I bet you there will be, ahem, national variations in exactly when you are allowed to be looking at the GPS
Luckily the basic rule in Germany still is: You are allowed to use all certified equipment installed on your aeroplane. Even a GPS for flying NBD holds. Your ADF must be tuned to the station and be visible somewhere on the screen but who can tell, what you are looking at… The examiner can of course “fail” the GPS display to see if you are able to fly on raw data alone, if he so wishes, just as he can fail your attitude indicator.
Of course you should load the approach on the GPS. And fly the needles if an ILS. If an NDB I would never use my ADF as primary. That would be crazy but I do sometimes tune it to the station.
In the FAA IR flight test as Robert says they expect you to use what you have and would be worried if you didn’t.
VOR approaches I would also fly on the GPS track but would tune the VOR so I have the DME.
I find the ADF is best suited to functioning as a clock to tell me my engines running time.
And if given the choice of ILS or LPV, LNAV/VNAV, LNAV+V, unless required to take the ILS due to better minimums I will always fly the GPS approach. It is just better.
I find the ADF is best suited to functioning as a clock to tell me my engines running time.
Yes, I use the timer function on the ADF for holds etc….also useful in Australia for listening to the ABC!
My experience (IR training in The Netherlands) is that the examiner will start questioning what you’re doing if you fly an approach without also having it loaded on the GPS.
When flying an NDB approach in a busy traffic environment without using the GPS, you’ll scare off ATC because they’re simply not used to the high inaccuracy of your track.
Last profcheck the examiner asked me if I could demonstrate how to activate the NDB hold on a G430.
It seems that most IR examiners here have a professional flying background and focus on practical and safe IFR flying…
I would (do) always load the approach on the GPS. Actually, I do so for VFR approaches as well, “just in case”.
But, in a Skills Test, where should the line be drawn? Why would you not fly to minima, and execute the missed approach, on the autopilot? I know that’s “Reductio ad absurdum”, but why is it obvious to allow the use of the GPS but not the a/p?
but why is it obvious to allow the use of the GPS but not the a/p?
Because YOU are being examined and not the a/p ?
