Approaches into KABQ with Outdated XPlane GPS data

[Talan2000]

Greetings all,

Encountered some curve balls today on an instrument fam flight into the new KABQ airspace that I'd like to get some feedback on - and which I think may be more broadly applicable:

TLDR

1. I think default Xplane General Aviation pilots without updated ARINC data cycles loaded in their GNS430ws are going to have some difficulty shooting approaches into KABQ

2. What the heck is up with a hybrid GPS/ILS approach like ILS 8? Requires GPS (or radar) but no GPS in the title.

3. Is the GNS 430W legal and can the Xplane GNS 430 sim handle RNP approaches like RNAV (RNP) Y RWY 21 -- note it doesn't have an RF leg per se, but it does have a curved approach leg and of course AUTHORIZATION REQUIRED (so no GA though I believe GTN boxes can pull it off) This is all on the edge of r/w updates and pretty cool!

Situation:
Carenado BE33 with GNS430W with defaul ARIAC (ARINC?) Cycle:
AIRAC cycle : 1510 {EDIT: I just discovered that this AIRAC Cycle is NOT in fact the default XP cycle, it's the latest I had from Navigraph sub. Oct 15] I presume XP's is even older...
Version : 1
Valid (from/to): 17/SEP/2015 - 14/OCT/2015

ILS or LOC RWY 8 updated - 10 DEC 15
ILS or LOC RWY 3 updated 10 DEC 15
RNAV GPS Y 3 10 DEC 15

I haven't looked at all the IAFs and waypoints but a number have been renamed and thus are non-existent in the GPS. This can really bite the "non-wary" pilot loading up the approaches and may cause some headaches for the controllers as confusion for piston drivers fills the skies.

Being, semi-aware on this flight , I had planned to fly the GPS Y 8 with a circle to land to 26 due to gusty 26kt winds thanks to it being correct in the outdated database onboard. BUT, for some reason I requested and got the ILS 8, which I then shamefacedly re-requested to be GPS Y 8 a few moments later when I realized what I had done (had already loaded GPS Y 8) in the GPS.

The controller chided me a bit about why I couldn't intercept a localizer without using GPS, but I stuck to my guns and requested GPS Y - since the FIXES (IAFs) on the ILS 8 approach plate no longer match the database in Xplane and the IAFs are BOTH only defined by GPS! I could have taken vectors to localizer but I had a too low situational awareness at that moment and didn't want to increase my workload... Some further examination reveals that this is an odd (to me) ILS/GPS hybrid! Both new IAFs (and presumably the old database IAFs) are GPS waypoints. And of course noted on the plate is GPS OR RADAR REQUIRED.

Perhaps Peter can clarify if it is LEGAL to shoot an ILS with GPS required if your GPS database is out of date. (My guess - yes sorta, but only if you are using Radar contact - and you couldn't be vectored to the IAFs (which is sorta weird). So will ATC always just vector you to an IF since there is no way to perform a procedure turn here???

Summation - flying into KABQ presented me with a ton of unexpected adversity beyond just the mountains to the east. There are seemingly a ton of approaches one can shoot but upon closer inspection they aren't all legal, and the RNP one are (a) technologically blocked with 430W or (b) authorization required.

Great new stuff to learn about on a short IFR hop out of an uncontrolled field. Love it!

Todd

[stealthbob]

Perhaps Peter can clarify if it is LEGAL to shoot an ILS with GPS required if your GPS database is out of date. (My guess - yes sorta, but only if you are using Radar contact - and you couldn't be vectored to the IAFs (which is sorta weird). So will ATC always just vector you to an IF since there is no way to perform a procedure turn here???

Todd

As PE models the real world the quick answer for me is that it is illegal to fly with outdated charts and data but it is not really RW so we make do.

As far as what happened I would think following the LOC as requested would have been the "legal" way and if unable request vectors.

This is as I have it...by no means am I a an authority.

[wmburns]

May I recommend solving one of the problems by updating your AirNav data base? It's easy and cheap to get a one time download 'NavDataPro - Single dataset'.

As a sim only pilot I usually re-update my sim every year to 1.5 years or when I run across an out dated procedure.

In my opinion the Aerosoft is a better product than Navigraph. The installer is so much better.

Aerosoft:
http://en.shop.aerosoft.com/eshop.php?a ... ge=english

Navigraph:
https://www.navigraph.com/fmsdata.aspx

[Mudhen]

This ILS is not a hybrid approach. It is a traditional ILS with feeder routes from the IAFs accessible only with GPS.
You don’t have to have GPS on board if RADAR services are provided, (vectors for the approach.)
You can see that GPS is not required by reading the profile view; all of the fixes are set by the DME on the localizer, (i.e. I-SPT 5.3 etc.) not the GPS.
The only equipment required is that which is necessary to conduct the approach, (mentioned in the title and the notes,) and the missed approach procedure.
If GPS was required the title would read: ILS Z (or Y) or LOC RWY 8 and one would read "GPS REQUIRED" in the plan section of the plate, (it might also be mentioned in the notes section, but I’m not sure.)
Here's a good read: http://www.ifr-magazine.com/issues/1_12 ... 121-1.html

I can’t answer the X-Plane stuff.

[RyanK]

The equipment in the title of the approach is what's required for the final approach segment. Notes in the plan view are for joining the approach from the enroute structure. The only IAFs are GPS waypoints, hence why you need either GPS or radar vectors to transition onto the approach. For real world IFR using GPS, you do need a current database.

[Peter Grey]

Here is what the AIM has to say about the topic of database currency:

AIM 1-1-18

(b) Database Requirements. The onboard
navigation data must be current and appropriate for
the region of intended operation and should include
the navigation aids, waypoints, and relevant coded
terminal airspace procedures for the departure,
arrival, and alternate airfields.

In the past there were allowances for not having a current database, those allowances have been removed at some point.

[Talan2000]

Thanks for the feedback.

Ryank - One little quibble I have with your comment on the title listing all required equipment. If so, it would seem that this should be "ILS or LOC/DME RWY 8" since DME is required but only stipulated in the box...the point being there is some inconsistency in these titles/equipment requirements.

Mudhen - Thanks for the IFR Magazine article - that exactly fits the situation I saw here and gave some context as to why. Wonderful. It also reassured me that I wasn't crazy thinking it a bit weird to see "a traditional ILS fed by GPS waypoints" -- the article is from 2013 and discusses these as being uncommon and unusual, so I don't feel too out dated getting filled-in in 2016.

I will confess that I found your sentence a bit funny: "This ILS is not a hybrid approach. It is a traditional ILS with feeder routes from the IAFs accessible only with GPS." One wonders what exactly might qualify as a "hybrid approach"

"A relatively new situation where you will find multiple approaches of the same type to the same runway end are ILS approaches for which GPS is required. These procedures feature GPS-based routing leading to a conventional ILS final segment...

and the article's conclusion emphasizes the point I was trying to make for the run of the mill PE pilot in piston singles

"The moral of this story is that any time you’re assigned an approach that has a suffix in the procedure name, take a really good look at it before starting the approach. Try to figure out why that suffix is there and what it means to your equipment. It’s much better to find out early that you can’t fly a procedure than when you’re half way through it.

The potential confusion is compounded by the revision date of the current approaches seemingly being beyond the default ARIAC data -- not only GPS IAFs but different waypoints in the GPS (and I think also but cant confirm at the moment - that the GNS 430 in Xplane just lists the approach as ILS 8 with NO X Y or Z - another error -- (edit) but apparently not as the current chart has NO X Y or Z for this approach - so nothing to warn you about the GPS waypoints...Hmmmm. There's that consistency thing again?).

Mr. Burns - thanks for the suggestion to get a new cycle. Believe it or not I bought a whole years worth -- about 18 months ago I guess. I think one of the XP updates may have overriden the ones I downloaded. definitely a quick fix to get a single update - thanks for the suggestion and worthwhile certainly for KABQ approaches.

Peter - Thanks for the definitive regulatory perspective, as always. Do you agree that there is still the NUANCE that one can legally fly with an outdated ARIAC cycle SO LONG AS the rev. date is at or after the date of the chart amendment for your destination? Or do you think that little bit of discretion is gone from the AIM now?

(The scenario I see here is launching in a rental Arrow with last months ARIAC update, after confirming your approaches amendment/issue dates are further in the past than your loaded cycle, and still being in the FAA's good graces...) And re: legal niceties, one wonders how many plane owners have a log showing VOR checks within the last 30 days to confirm IFR readiness as well, but I digress.)

Now, I'm off to try to figure out definitively if the GNS430W or GNS530W is legal to fly RNP approaches/SIDs and if so at what level (0.30?). It's another area of ignorance I need to resolve!

Thanks so much for helping me feel PE is earning the $$$ for the renewed annual subscription

Todd

[RyanK]

Thanks for the feedback.

Ryank - One little quibble I have with your comment on the title listing all required equipment. If so, it would seem that this should be "ILS or LOC/DME RWY 8" since DME is required but only stipulated in the box...the point being there is some inconsistency in these titles/equipment requirements.

DME is not required for the final approach segment (which begins after the final approach fix and ends at the missed approach point). That's why it's listed in the notes and not the title. This is covered in the instrument procedures handbook which is free and worth reading.

Peter - Thanks for the definitive regulatory perspective, as always. Do you agree that there is still the NUANCE that one can legally fly with an outdated ARIAC cycle SO LONG AS the rev. date is at or after the date of the chart amendment for your destination? Or do you think that little bit of discretion is gone from the AIM now?

(The scenario I see here is launching in a rental Arrow with last months ARIAC update, after confirming your approaches amendment/issue dates are further in the past than your loaded cycle, and still being in the FAA's good graces...) And re: legal niceties, one wonders how many plane owners have a log showing VOR checks within the last 30 days to confirm IFR readiness as well, but I digress.)

This is basically the allowance that the AIM used to make, but doesn't any more.

[Talan2000]

Ryan,

"DME is not required for the final approach segment (which begins after the final approach fix and ends at the missed approach point). That's why it's listed in the notes and not the title. This is covered in the instrument procedures handbook which is free and worth reading."

I'm not a CFII, so I will defer to your feedback that there is no ambiguity in how approach plates are labeled wrt equipment requirements...but as a run of the mill instrument rated pilot I'd say we're almost, but not quite splitting hairs here.

One wonders how one might identify that VDP on the Final Approach segment without DME? I'm guessing you would teach your students to do the math, perform the calculation, and use a timer while shooting the LOC approach in their Cherokee 180 with 1 VOR and an ADF.

[Keith Smith]

I'm a run of the mill instrument pilot and I was aware that the approach title reflects the equipment required to fly the final approach segment and nothing else.

Just a suggestion, but since this has happened numerous times, I'd be careful about asking for help and then debating the answers to death, it might result in people being less willing to contribute to your threads.