WAAS and 61.65 three approaches

12 Answers

1. 
   

   
   

   Russ Roslewski on Dec 03, 2017

   So, you’re asking as if the aircraft ONLY has, for example, a Garmin 400W or 420W?

   I guess the short answer to “how do you comply with 61.65” is, you can’t. You’ll need to use another aircraft for this requirement.

   Incidentally, you will also need to use another aircraft for the checkride too. In the Instrument ACS, it is pretty clearly spelled out that you are required to bring an aircraft that can perform all the required tasks. If your airplane can’t, then you just can’t use that airplane, plain and simple. Page A-15 discusses the requirement that the non-precision approaches use two different types of navigational systems.

   You could theoretically have the same situation (for either the XC or the checkride) with an aircraft with ONLY a VOR/LOC indicator (no GS on the indicator).

   This type of requirement is certainly not unique to the Instrument rating. The Commercial rating, for example, requires a complex aircraft for some of the training and checkride tasks. If your aircraft isn’t “equipped” with retractable gear, you’d need to find a different aircraft.

   0 Votes 0 Votes  0 Votes

2. 
   

   
   

   John D Collins on Dec 04, 2017

   I would argue you can comply with the regulations. Parsing the regulation, it can be split into two phrases “Three different kinds of approaches” and “with the use of navigation systems”. the last phrase eliminates using a radar approach to meeting the criteria as these approaches do not involve the use of a navigation system. So what does “three different kinds of approaches” mean? Is a localizer approach a kind of approach, is an ILS a different kind of approach, the full ILS approach uses the exact same navigation system for lateral guidance as a localizer approach. I would say they are different kinds of approaches because they have different procedures even if charted on the same chart. In the same way, an LPV procedure may have the same equipment that is needed to fly an LNAV procedure, and I would consider them different kinds of approaches. A circling approach is a different kind of approach. The regulation does not say that each different kind of approach must be flown with a different kind of navigation system, only that a navigation system is required to be used. So with a WAAS navigation system, one can fly several kinds of approaches that require distinct methods and different skills to complete. They may all be of the same type RNAV, but to say that an LP is the same as an LNAV circle to land is the same as LPV is a stretch in my opinion, not to mention approaches with or without a TAA and with or without a HILPT or PT, or a procedure that is straight in to a runway or not.

   As far as the Instrument rating ACS is concerned, it lists the following tasks:

   VI Instrument Approach Procedures
   Task A Non Precision approach
   Task B Precision Approach
   Task C Missed Approach
   Task D Circling Approach
   Task E Landing from an Instrument Approach

   All of these tasks can be completed with an aircraft equipped as you posit.

   Appendix 7: Aircraft, Equipment, and Operational Requirements & Limitations describes what is required in the way of equipment for conducting the Flight Examination. I have quoted two relevant sections and find nothing contained in the ACS that requires that a VOR, NDB, DME, or ILS equipment be on board the aircraft.

   “Consistent with section 61.45(b) and (d), the aircraft must have the flight instruments necessary for controlling the aircraft without outside references and the radio equipment required for ATC communications and for performing instrument approach procedures. GPS equipment must be instrument-certified and must contain the current database.”

   “Localizer performance with vertical guidance (LPV) minimums with a decision altitude (DA) greater than 300 feet height above touchdown (HAT) may be used as a nonprecision approach; however, due to the precision of its glidepath and localizer-like lateral navigation characteristics, an LPV minimums can be used to demonstrate precision approach proficiency (AOO VI Task B) if the DA is equal to or less than 300 feet HAT.”

   I also verified with an active examiner that they would have no issue conducting a Instrument Flight test with such an aircraft equipped as you described.

   +3 Votes 3 Votes  0 Votes

3. 
   

   
   

   Russ Roslewski on Dec 05, 2017

   I am perfectly willing to be proven wrong.

   John, the fact that you asked a DPE about it, and he or she had an answer, implies that this topic has come up in DPE forums and training and whatever else they have.

   William0203usa, I would strongly suggest you get with your projected DPE well, well ahead of time (like now) to get their take on it – since that’s the person who will have to agree with it on the checkride.

   More discussion:

   For the 250 nm XC, the regulation does actually just say “three different kinds of approaches”. So I suppose one interpretation could be that an LPV, an LNAV, and a Circling approach would be three different types. However, from a training aspect there are additional issues to be resolved – If you fly using LPV guidance but level off at the LNAV MDA, have you really flown a “different” type of approach? Is that sufficiently different enough to provide a meaningful training event? Or will you disable WAAS on your receiver (if able) to force it to downgrade to LNAV (this is something I do occasionally with students to simulate a WAAS outage or for other reasons). Or will you find an airport that only has LNAV minimums? If you do that, will you fly the advisory glideslope down to the MDA, which basically makes it the same as the first scenario (LPV to LNAV MDA)?

   For the checkride:

   I suppose that GPS and WAAS could be considered two separate navigational aids, but that seems to stretch the definition a bit. Further, to actually NOT use WAAS, you would have to actually disable it in the GPS’s menu.

   Were I an examiner, I can’t say I’d consider a checkride that consisted of an LPV to 250 ft HAT, an LPV to 300 ft HAT, and an LNAV (probably using advisory vertical guidance unless you did actually turn off WAAS) to a circling MDA to be a very thorough test of instrument flying ability. Although if you consider GPS and WAAS to be different navigational systems, that would indeed meet the letter of the ACS.

   Perhaps I need to get on board that in just a few years, we won’t even bother training on VOR or ILS approaches anymore.

   0 Votes 0 Votes  0 Votes

4. Best Answer
   
   

   
   

   John D Collins on Dec 05, 2017

   Russ,

   I just don’t read any requirement for different navigational systems in the regulation or in the ACS. I do see a requirement for different kinds of approaches and that they must use navigation systems, which rules out Radar approaches, visual approaches, and contact approaches.

   The PTS had the following wording for Aircraft equipment and that was radically changed with the ACS, which no longer specifies the specific equipment types which must be installed on the aircraft used in the flight test.

   Aircraft and Equipment Required for the Practical Test

   The instrument rating applicant is required by 14 CFR part 61 to provide an airworthy, certificated aircraft for use during the practical test. Its operating limitations must not prohibit the Tasks required on the practical test. Flight instruments are those required for controlling the aircraft without outside references. The required radio equipment is that which is necessary for communications with air traffic control (ATC), and for the performance of two of the following nonprecision approaches: very high frequency omnidirectional range (VOR), nondirectional beacon (NDB), global positioning system (GPS) without vertical guidance, localizer (LOC), localizer-type directional aid (LDA), simplified directional facility (SDF), or area navigation (RNAV) and one precision approach: instrument landing system (ILS), GNSS landing system (GLS), localizer performance with vertical guidance (LPV) or Microwave landing system (MLS). GPS equipment must be instrument flight rules (IFR) certified and contain the current database.

   Note: A localizer performance with vertical guidance (LPV) approach with a decision altitude (DA) greater than 300 feet height above terrain (HAT) may be used as a nonprecision approach; however, due to the precision of its glidepath and localizer-like lateral navigation characteristics, an LPV can be used to demonstrate precision approach proficiency (AOA VI Task B) if the DA is equal to or less than 300 feet HAT.

   0 Votes 0 Votes  0 Votes

5. 
   

   
   

   Kris Kortokrax on Dec 05, 2017

   Just a little different take on things. I suppose that the way 61.65 is worded, you can make the case that the trip could be done with just the RNAV unit, but why would one not want to make the most of the training event? If you have been training with a flight school and have been training on all different types of approaches, surely they have an airplane that could be used on this trip.

   With regard to the practical test, Appendix 7 of the ACS also contains this statement: “The evaluator will select nonprecision approaches representative of the type that the applicant is likely to use. The choices must use at least two different types of navigational aids.” This suggests that you could not perform two RNAV approaches, since they would both be based on the same navigation system (GPS).

   Further, Order 8900.2 gives examiners the following guidance:
   “For the selection of the nonprecision approaches, the designee may choose to test on any two of the following nonprecision instrument approaches using different kinds of navigation systems:
   • Non-Directional Beacon (NDB),
   • Localizer-type directional aid (LDA),
   • Very High Frequency (VHF) Omnidirectional Range (VOR) station,
   • GPS,
   • Simplified Directional Facility (SDF), and
   • Localizer (LOC).”

   Note that the choice of approaches belongs to the examiner, not the applicant. The Order also mentions “two different navigation systems”.

   Lastly, “Circling” is not a type of approach. It is a line of minima shown for approaches based on many different navigation systems. There is no approach that contains the word “Circling” in the approach title. (Yes, I know that an approach such as VOR-A is a circling approach, but it is based on the VOR navigation system.)

   +1 Votes 2 Votes  1 Votes

6. 
   

   
   

   Russ Roslewski on Dec 05, 2017

   John, Kris’s reference to the ACS Appendix 7 is what I was discussing requiring two different navigational aids. It’s in the second paragraph on page A-15.

   Kris, I agree with what you wrote, but your statement “Note that the choice of approaches belongs to the examiner, not the applicant”, while true, isn’t necessarily applicable in this case. The examiner clearly can’t choose to conduct an approach which the aircraft is not capable of, as long as the aircraft meets the minimum requirements for the checkride. (Whether or not a Garmin 400W or similar device meets these requirements is, of course, the issue under discussion.)

   0 Votes 0 Votes  0 Votes

7. 
   

   
   

   Kris Kortokrax on Dec 05, 2017

   If the applicant is required to perform two non-precision approaches (which he is, according to both the ACS and Order 8900.2), each of which is based on a different navigation source (NDB, VOR, LOC, GPS), the examiner can (and should) certainly require that the applicant show up with an airplane equipped with more than a radio only capable of receiving only a GPS signal.

   +1 Votes 2 Votes  1 Votes

8. 
   

   
   

   KDS on Dec 06, 2017

   I should start by saying the correctness of one view or the other is irrelevant to the number of people who agree with it. However, in this case, I believe Kris is right on the money.

   The real answer can only come from guidance and if not clear in that, then an opinion from the FAA’s Chief Counsel. So, even if you hear an FAA inspector, DPE, or CFI say something, it ain’t necessarily so. I’ve seen many people who should know better give very off the wall answers.

   Take a look at the March 18, 2008 legal interpretation given to Mr. Danny Glaser.

   0 Votes 0 Votes  0 Votes

9. 
   

   
   

   John D Collins on Dec 07, 2017

   A lot of this discussion involves semantics.

   The General Counsel 2008 Glaser opinion was revisited with the 2012 Pratte opinion. Note that Pratte was acting manager of the FAA General Aviation and Commercial Division, AFS800 at the time: Here is the opinion:

   On March 18, 2008, the FAA issued a legal interpretation to Mr. Danny Glaser concluding that an approach using an airport surveillance radar (ASR) or a precision approach radar (PAR) did not satisfy the requirements of § 6l.65( d)(2)(iii)(C) because they do not qualify as navigation systems. That conclusion remains unchanged. However, that legal interpretation also narrowly interpreted the applicable regulation to require approaches using any three of the following navigation systems: non-directional beacon (NDB); localizer-type directional aid (LDA); very high frequency ornni-range station (VOR); global positioning system (GPS); simplified direction facility (SDF); or instrument landing system localizer (LOC). On May 30, 2012, your staff requested reconsideration of that portion of the legal interpretation because it is unnecessarily restrictive and has been overtaken by technological advances in navigation systems.

   The list of navigation systems in the Glaser interpretation included approved systems at the time of the interpretation to answer the question presented .. That list was not intended to exclude navigation systems that might be approved in the future. Accordingly, that list of navigation systems is inapplicable outside of the specific circumstances of the Glaser interpretation.

   Section 61.65(d)(2)(iii)(C) requires three different kinds of approaches using navigation systems. However, the Flight Standards Service is in the best position to issue policy and guidance as to what constitutes the different kinds of approaches allowed, and that office will amend Advisory Circular (AC) 6l-65E accordingly.

   AC 61-65E was never updated with guidance on this topic.

   So what is a Navigation System or kind of Navigational Aid? This is not a piece of avionics as the exact same avionics is used to fly an LDA, SDF or a LOC, yet all were listed in the Glaser opinion as listed choices for kinds of approach. In the AIM, Chapter 1, Section 1 is titled Navigation Aids. It lists GPS as a Navigation Aid (1-1-17) and WAAS (1-1-18). They have different characteristics, GPS only supports LNAV whereas WAAS supports LP and LPV. The WAAS system uses the different satellites, different lateral CDI scheduling on the final approach segment (angular verses fixed 0.3 NM ), difference in the provision of vertical guidance, differences in RAIM requirements and differences in the missed approach CDI and in the alternate requirements. Also, LP and LPV minimums may not be charted on the same procedure chart. My argument is there is much more difference between an LNAV using GPS and an LP using a WAAS GPS. A GNS430 can have the SBAS turned off and it will effectively change the operation on a GPS approach to work as a Non WAAS approach.

   Regarding the PTS or ACS requirements, the wording has changed over time.

   The PTS FAA-S-8081-4E change 2 effective in 2010 had the following wording:

   The required radio equipment is that which is necessary for communications with air traffic control (ATC), and for the performance of two of the following nonprecision approaches:
   very high frequency omnidirectional range (VOR), nondirectional beacon (NDB), global positioning system (GPS) without vertical guidance, localizer (LOC), localizer-type directional aid (LDA), simplified directional facility (SDF), or area navigation (RNAV) and one precision approach: instrument landing system (ILS), GNSS landing system (GLS), localizer performance with vertical guidance (LPV) or microwave landing system (MLS). GPS equipment must be instrument flight rules (IFR) certified and contain the current database.

   The PTS list of acceptable choices available to choose from these 7 items: VOR, NDB, GPS, LOC, LDA, SDF, or RNAV.

   From the current ACS:

   The evaluator will select nonprecision approaches representative of the type that the applicant is likely to use. The choices must use at least two different types of navigational aids.

   Examples of acceptable nonprecision approaches include: VOR, VOR/DME, LOC procedures on an ILS, LDA, RNAV (RNP) or RNAV (GPS) to LNAV, LNAV/VNAV or LPV line of minima as long as the LPV DA is greater than 300 feet HAT.

   Note that SDF is dropped as an example, but RNAV GPS to LNAV, LNAV/VNAV or LPV line of minima as long as the LPV DA is greater than 300 feet is added.

   So I think this is still subjective and if the examiner one plans to use doesn’t have an issue, that would be good enough for me. The current airspace is transitioning to a PBN mostly space based system, and a WAAS GPS is now usable as the sole source of navigation for IFR without the requirement of any other equipment on board to conduct an IFR flight.

   0 Votes 0 Votes  0 Votes

10. 
    

    
    

    KDS on Dec 08, 2017

    I’m familiar with that and it would certainly be an argument I would make in court if I had to. However, the legal opinions take precedent over opinions from anyone below AFS-1.

    The FAA, like every government agency, changes very slowly. Perhaps better guidance will be forthcoming, but I suspect it will take a request for a legal opinion from the Chief Counsel to nail down a definitive answer.

    0 Votes 0 Votes  0 Votes

11. 
    

    
    

    John D Collins on Dec 09, 2017

    I don’t think the FAA General Counsel will answer the question and would continue to defer to Flight Standards.

    0 Votes 0 Votes  0 Votes

12. 
    

    
    

    KDS on Dec 09, 2017

    They mysteries of government are open to all kinds of speculation. The only way to know for sure is to write to them.

    Office of the Chief Counsel
    800 Independence Avenue SW
    Washington, DC 20591

    0 Votes 0 Votes  0 Votes