Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
User avatar
By PeteSpencer
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1839950
GrahamB wrote:
PeteSpencer wrote:My problem was finding a Sim that could easily be configured as an SEP.


There's an interesting article in the latest 'Instrument Pilot' about the value of sims for PPL SEP IR training. Non-PPLIR Europe members will have to wait three months before it's publicly accessible though.


Yep: Read that: Pretty damning IMHO.
By Uptimist
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1840352
PeteSpencer wrote:
GrahamB wrote:
PeteSpencer wrote:My problem was finding a Sim that could easily be configured as an SEP.


There's an interesting article in the latest 'Instrument Pilot' about the value of sims for PPL SEP IR training. Non-PPLIR Europe members will have to wait three months before it's publicly accessible though.


Yep: Read that: Pretty damning IMHO.


We are a way off the original topic, but while we are here...

I just finished a PPL IR and found the sim (my own set up) immensely helpful. However I put a great deal of effort into replicating the actual aircraft setup in the sim, right down to (virtual) panel layout, individual instruments, and faithful reproduction of aircraft behaviour, power and trim settings, together with a top quality yoke. That made all the difference. As Jim says in his article:

“I remain of the opinion that simulation does not have much role to play in initial PPL IR training unless they have access to a dedicated type specific matched simulator and aircraft.”

I agree with that and it’s highly unlikely that flying schools will want to spend time dealing with all the variations, but if you can do that yourself at home for the aircraft set up you will fly, I highly recommend it.
DavidC liked this
User avatar
By NDB_hold
#1840376
I’ve said this on another thread but I found a basic sim very useful in IMCR training for learning what the needles do at what points in the approach - NDB especially - and recently the breakthrough for me has been a VR headset and a realistic ‘club style’ simulation of a typical aircraft (this was the JustFlight Robin DR400) with its foibles. The latter was definitely close enough to reality to be a great help with return to currency.
By AlanC
#1855086
Well, yesterday passed with more of a whimper than a bang, other than a few NOTAM removing LPV OCA(H) lines as of midnight. Glad I/my test candidate made the most with an afternoon LPV while they still existed!
AlanM, MattL liked this
By AlanM
#1855087
AlanC wrote:Well, yesterday passed with more of a whimper than a bang, other than a few NOTAM removing LPV OCA(H) lines as of midnight. Glad I/my test candidate made the most with an afternoon LPV while they still existed!


Yes the date came and went.

And we still have our LPV In EGJJ. The joys of our previously signed EWA from many years ago.

[/shameless plug] :idea: :lol:
AlanC liked this
By johnm
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1855096
And we still have our LPV In EGJJ. The joys of our previously signed EWA from many years ago.


and the first one in the British isles at EGJA is still available :thumright:
User avatar
By Andrew Sinclair
#1855133
This was being debated on another forum and it caused me to have a memory moment.

We should not forget that even with the withdrawal of the LPV minima, LNAV/VNAV minima lines are still available to aircraft that have SBAS GNSS navigators e.g. GNSx30W, GTNx50, newer G1000 etc etc; they have been since UK CAA approved this in June 2020 after some PPL/IR lobbying by @Bookworm and Timothy Nathan.

Some examples of the difference between current LPV and LNAV/VNAV minima are listed below:

Bristol 09: 57’
Bristol 27: 99’
Cardiff 12: 5’ (A)
Cardiff 30: 7’ (A)
Exeter 08: 130’ (A, B and C)
Exeter 26: 154’ (A)
Southampton 02: 115’ (A)

So not a huge amount unless you are regularly flying to minima in which case plan for the ILS.

Considering initials, revalidation and renewals, don’t forget if you have an SBAS equipped navigator you can use an LNAV flown twice, fly once as an (LNAV) ICAO Annex 6 2D operation and then the same procedure again as an (LNAV + V) Annex 6 3D operation using the Garmin advisory.
Stampe liked this
User avatar
By Andrew Sinclair
#1855150
Apologies @CloudHound, it was not my intention to undermine or decry your efforts over the years :oops: , LPV approaches have had a tremendously positive impact on the safety of IFR operations.

However, pilots get fixated on descending to DA(H)/MDA(H) when the reality is that most of the time the cloud ceiling and visibility does not require it. In 20 years I have needed to land in 800m/200’ only 10-15 times and 550m perhaps only a handful of times.
By As I CFIT
#1855156
CloudHound wrote:Well that’s OK then. Fine!

I didn’t need to waste the best part of 15 years work developing 3D approaches to GA Aerdromes. :(


LNAV/VNAV approaches are also 3D.

Andrew Sinclair wrote:LPV approaches have had a tremendously positive impact on the safety of IFR operations.


Have they? I'm genuinely interested because I have never flown an approach to LPV minima yet I've flown numerous LNAV/VNAV approaches in a CAT aircraft. LPVs marginally increase utility with their marginally lower minima but I'm struggling to understand how LPVs materially improve safety over and above LNAV/VNAV approaches. It could even be argued that LNAV/VNAV approaches are safer (depending on your definition of 'safer') because of increased margins; the visual portion of the approach is potentially flown in better weather conditions and terrain clearance will always be at least as good.
User avatar
By GrahamB
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1855378
CloudHound wrote:CAA has published this Clued Up news letter
https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/EGNOS_V4.pdf

However, on the last page the CAA has incorrectly defined an ‘Initial Fix’, (which should be the Initial Approach Fix) as the IF and an Intermediate Fix as the IAF.

The whole document is clumsy and comes over as being written by someone who didn't really know what they were talking about.
Andrew Sinclair liked this
User avatar
By marioair
#1855379
I don’t understand the intent of the document. If it’s to tell people that use LPV and RNP that LPVs are no longer available then they could have done that in one sentence.
If it’s to teach people about SBAS then why did they bother - go on the proper TK course
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10