Some people get hung up on the steep intercept. That's missing the point. Note that I don't know what the actual intercept heading was on that checkride. I wasn't there. The point is not whether it is a 20, 30, 45 or 60 degree intercept, the point is that you have to remember to check the nav radio identifier. Which you need to do whether you were on HDG vectors or VOR navigation or anything else.
Another clue he missed and you didn’t mention was that the green text on the HSI identified VOR1 instead of LOC1 after a localizer frequency is selected. Good video.
Career 737/757/767 pilot here. Your student will be okay; he got set up with a high workload and an issue which could have hurt him in future life. The lesson is: tune and identify the signal you will actually use. Otherwise there will be issues when awaiting glideslope intercept. Really make sure to identify, so the plane is flown down the right approach course (and with proper accuracy and the DME if needed). Also, set the VOR bearing selector to the course you want to fly, even on the HSI. Most of us on Collins / Honeywell displays use the arc mode anyway, unless there is a good reason to use the full compass rose. (grin) Lessons and setups learned, the pilot is better prepared.
Yes it is true that you have to check the navigation setting. But, in a rushed situation it is harder to make all the right moves. Everyone can and will eventually forget something important in a high stress situation. It is critically important that no pilot is exempt from mistakes. Build habits that buy you time to catch mistakes before they hurt can hurt you. The heading given was 130 until established (the localizer) at 1,400.
My instructor always told me this for programming approaches: build, bug, brief. Build the approach into the gps. Bug anything relevant, in this case nav frequency and course. Brief the approach
Hi Philipp, thanks for sharing this lesson learned. I'm working on my flight review and IPC and learning to fly a Cessna 172S G1000 with KAP 140 autopilot. I'm seeing a number of "gotchas" with the G1000. I'll try to replicate this in the simulator and learn to avoid this in the future. Thanks!
KAP-140 requires a lot more manual work in combination with the G1000, because it can't do GPSS steering like the GFC700. So it won't fly holds or procedure turns for you.
I flew a Hawker 400 for a year, with the ProLine 4. You don't need to see the full HSI because the only time you're not following the FMS/GPS nav is when you're shooting an ILS. You could argue "what if GPS and DME/DME failed?", but you could get by in that situation that will probably never happen. I'd have to go back and check, but I think you can change the MFD map to show a full compass rose too.
The ProLine 4 was used on the Starship back in the 90’s I think, I’d be very curious to hear from you what navigation features it was missing that you’d find on modern systems like the G1000 today. You could still do ILS with glideslope, right? What about RNAV approaches, VNAV and other stuff?
I stand corrected about the assigned heading. However, a 45 degree intercept is never how a vector is given by ATC. When you are flying a prescribed course you can plan the intercept by adjusting speed to your liking. This is done in a non radar environment. ATC vectors are 30 degrees or less and you are usually flying at a higher speed. One reason for this is that ATC has a minimum vectoring altitude that is often lower than a procedure turn inbound. When being vectored, ATC assumes considerable responsibility to get you set up correctly. This examiner expected the pilot to rush back to an approach and landing, something you should never do in this manner. In fact, a good request would be to ask ATC to vector you to final 3 miles outside the final approach fix, giving you time to setup and slow down. I requested this when I landed a Boeing 767-300 with an engine out, in Atlanta. (ATC can even give you localizer frequencies and inbound headings so you don't have to look at a chart in an emergency)! It matters that examiners act correctly when simulating ATC, otherwise the entire scenario that is supposed to evaluate an applicant is flawed.
I don't know what the actual intercept heading was on that checkride. I wasn't there. The point is not whether it is a 20, 30 or 45 degree intercept, the point is that you have to remember to check the nav radio identifier.
The examiner gave a 130 heading to intercept the localizer. ATC would never give such a clearance. The intercept angle is too extreme for an airplane flying in radar vector airspace and not on arrival or approach routing. The pilot would be correct to ask ATC for delay vectors, or a hold, to buy time to study and properly brief this approach. He then would have had the time to confirm that the correct localizer is tuned and identified. This examiner likely doesn't have much real world IFR experience---a very common problem with DPE's in GA
I don't know what the actual intercept heading was on that checkride. I wasn't there. The point is not whether it is a 20, 30 or 45 degree intercept, the point is that you have to remember to check the nav radio identifier.
yes, it tries to tune it on both, but if you are navigating green needles on one radio, it won't change it underneath you and instead put it in standby. X-Plane does the same thing.
That could have trapped me as well. Philipp, thanks a bunch for your work creating the G1000! I built an entire walk-in sim based on our training G1000Nxi Cessna172. I'm looking forward to more features! That said... It's not the advanced features that make us pass or fail, or land safely or not. It's the basics, right? Thanks again!
also can I please come in and fix the roller-counter animations on the XPLANE1000 PFDs… the higher digits should roll in sync when the digit to its right is rolling between 9 and 0… the airspeed and altitude readouts specifically
that was proline 4, not 21. The 21 let's you switch HSI formats from full to arc. I've never flown it in anything but arc mode, never needed to see the full HSI. Can't remember the last time I manually dialed in a course, it's all automatic even for ILS. At least on the 21, but I imagine the 4 auto dials the course for you too.
The Collins Pro Line is not ‘idiotic’. Virtually all transport category aircraft use ‘arc’ mode for a digital HSI. In real world flying, the bottom half of the compass rose is just clutter on the screen
You can change it on the mfd, yes. You can have the full rose or the forward arc depending on what you want to see. The “idiotic” part is that on the PFD, it displays three quarters, so not really a rose or an arc, with no way to change it
I wonder how many IR applications are truly ready to fly solo in IMC in real world. Using a Garmin quirk like this to fail a checkride seems... arbitrary. Sure it shows failure to adhere to a process, but then again a DPE may not like an applicant asking for delay vectors on every approach either.
My first solo flight after my checkride I did real world IMC to a 900ish foot ceiling airport that was 1.5 hours away. It was a lot of fun. I trained on 6 packs though with a GNS 175. Those touch screen GPS units makes IFR flying a breeze.
@@crazy4gta1 we don’t know what scenario was given to the applicant. Maybe there was no time to ask for delay vectors as an immediate return was required
Wow, I had to be the cynic here but that sounds like a trap laid by the DPE. You can argue if it's fair or not, that's a very gray and debatable line, but personally I think that's a low blow. Now granted I see the wisdom in building task saturation and seeing if a pilot sticks to their checklists and such, but I have a hard time with DPEs who try to trick pilots rather than just allowing the pilot to demonstrate their skill. Bright side I guess is that the pilot will probably never forget to confirm the ILS/LOC identifier again.
What makes it especially shitty is that this is a counter-intuitive quirk of Garmin software that he may never have seen in training. Poor design should be a learning moment not a failing one
I disagree that it was a DPE trap. The applicant simply missed many instrument indications including the HSI's course pointer *and* the TO/FROM flag (both green triangles) pointing downwards instead of upwards at video time 9:50. Another instrument indication that the applicant missed is described in somebody else's comment here on this page (SRBarlow described the applicant missed the HSI display showing VOR1 instead of LOC1). This is an extremely good presentation by the CFII. I passed my instrument checkride about 2 months ago.
The DPE wasn’t being tricky. IFR in IMC demands precision. This situation didn’t seem particularly task saturated. It seemed more real world to me, and hats off to the DPE. It is really easy to forget to flip the frequencies during ILS procedure setup, particularly since the RNAV/GPS procedures need no similar action. I’ve flown IFR for years, yet found myself in IMC and icing (real world distraction and stress), missed flipping the frequency, and overshot the approach. It happens, and in the real world can be deadly. That student will remember to check in the future.
Not if you have a digital display that decodes the signal for you - which most modern equipment does. You still have to look at what it displays, though. If not... you fail the checkride.
@@XPlanePhil Which is why I always teach my students to listen to the Morse even though we're equipped with G1000's in our fleet. That and you never know when you're going to be navigating with older equipment in a different plane one day. Better to get in the habit at the beginning. Law of primacy.
@@bendriscoll302 I found the Morse identification almost useless because of confirmation bias. Students will only catch if the transmitter is out because it is not beeping, but if it is beeping 90% of students will be absolutely convinced it’s beeping the code they are looking at. Confirmation bias. Heck, I can’t identify by morse code unless I tap the rhythm out on my leg first and then see whether the incoming beep matches the expected rhythm
@@XPlanePhil That's why I look at their eyes when it's playing. They try to cheat me all the time and just appease me by letting them play. I have them follow along with their finger as it plays. I'll switch the frequency on them sometimes when they aren't looking to try and catch them too.
@@XPlanePhil Apparently the DPE wants to observe the applicant positively confirming the Morse code identification signal by either pointing to the decoded identifier display on the G1000, or if too busy to use one's hand to point, then saying aloud that the G1000 has decoded the identification signal to confirm reception of XYZ or I-XYZ.
![[TH] VALORANT Champions Seoul - Grand Final - EDG vs TH](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/WvObMc9VelI/mqdefault.jpg)
Some people get hung up on the steep intercept. That's missing the point. Note that I don't know what the actual intercept heading was on that checkride. I wasn't there. The point is not whether it is a 20, 30, 45 or 60 degree intercept, the point is that you have to remember to check the nav radio identifier. Which you need to do whether you were on HDG vectors or VOR navigation or anything else.
He also obviously did not know his Final Approach Course because he would have caught the needle pointing in the wrong direction if he did.
Another clue he missed and you didn’t mention was that the green text on the HSI identified VOR1 instead of LOC1 after a localizer frequency is selected. Good video.
For the HSI thing, the rule of thumb is +2 -2 or -2 +2. Example, 180, 1+2=3, 8-2=6, hence 360. Another, 340, 3-2= 1, 4+2= 6, hence 160
now do it for 190
This is why it's good form to *always* verify frequency, identifier, and course when activating the approach or on the switch to green needles.
Career 737/757/767 pilot here. Your student will be okay; he got set up with a high workload and an issue which could have hurt him in future life. The lesson is: tune and identify the signal you will actually use. Otherwise there will be issues when awaiting glideslope intercept. Really make sure to identify, so the plane is flown down the right approach course (and with proper accuracy and the DME if needed).
Also, set the VOR bearing selector to the course you want to fly, even on the HSI. Most of us on Collins / Honeywell displays use the arc mode anyway, unless there is a good reason to use the full compass rose.
(grin) Lessons and setups learned, the pilot is better prepared.
Yes it is true that you have to check the navigation setting. But, in a rushed situation it is harder to make all the right moves. Everyone can and will eventually forget something important in a high stress situation. It is critically important that no pilot is exempt from mistakes. Build habits that buy you time to catch mistakes before they hurt can hurt you. The heading given was 130 until established (the localizer) at 1,400.
My instructor always told me this for programming approaches: build, bug, brief. Build the approach into the gps. Bug anything relevant, in this case nav frequency and course. Brief the approach
In a car, do you make a U-turn in a forbidden direction? Ahaha
Thanks for sharing. You just taught me something about the G1000
Hi Philipp, thanks for sharing this lesson learned. I'm working on my flight review and IPC and learning to fly a Cessna 172S G1000 with KAP 140 autopilot. I'm seeing a number of "gotchas" with the G1000. I'll try to replicate this in the simulator and learn to avoid this in the future. Thanks!
KAP-140 requires a lot more manual work in combination with the G1000, because it can't do GPSS steering like the GFC700. So it won't fly holds or procedure turns for you.
+200 -20 & -200 +20 for easy reciprocal
I flew a Hawker 400 for a year, with the ProLine 4. You don't need to see the full HSI because the only time you're not following the FMS/GPS nav is when you're shooting an ILS. You could argue "what if GPS and DME/DME failed?", but you could get by in that situation that will probably never happen. I'd have to go back and check, but I think you can change the MFD map to show a full compass rose too.
The ProLine 4 was used on the Starship back in the 90’s I think, I’d be very curious to hear from you what navigation features it was missing that you’d find on modern systems like the G1000 today. You could still do ILS with glideslope, right? What about RNAV approaches, VNAV and other stuff?
I stand corrected about the assigned heading. However, a 45 degree intercept is never how a vector is given by ATC. When you are flying a prescribed course you can plan the intercept by adjusting speed to your liking. This is done in a non radar environment. ATC vectors are 30 degrees or less and you are usually flying at a higher speed. One reason for this is that ATC has a minimum vectoring altitude that is often lower than a procedure turn inbound. When being vectored, ATC assumes considerable responsibility to get you set up correctly. This examiner expected the pilot to rush back to an approach and landing, something you should never do in this manner. In fact, a good request would be to ask ATC to vector you to final 3 miles outside the final approach fix, giving you time to setup and slow down. I requested this when I landed a Boeing 767-300 with an engine out, in Atlanta. (ATC can even give you localizer frequencies and inbound headings so you don't have to look at a chart in an emergency)! It matters that examiners act correctly when simulating ATC, otherwise the entire scenario that is supposed to evaluate an applicant is flawed.
I don't know what the actual intercept heading was on that checkride. I wasn't there. The point is not whether it is a 20, 30 or 45 degree intercept, the point is that you have to remember to check the nav radio identifier.
The examiner gave a 130 heading to intercept the localizer. ATC would never give such a clearance. The intercept angle is too extreme for an airplane flying in radar vector airspace and not on arrival or approach routing. The pilot would be correct to ask ATC for delay vectors, or a hold, to buy time to study and properly brief this approach. He then would have had the time to confirm that the correct localizer is tuned and identified. This examiner likely doesn't have much real world IFR experience---a very common problem with DPE's in GA
I don't know what the actual intercept heading was on that checkride. I wasn't there. The point is not whether it is a 20, 30 or 45 degree intercept, the point is that you have to remember to check the nav radio identifier.
That is pretty advanced, that it tunes NAV2 to the ILS frequency.
yes, it tries to tune it on both, but if you are navigating green needles on one radio, it won't change it underneath you and instead put it in standby. X-Plane does the same thing.
That could have trapped me as well. Philipp, thanks a bunch for your work creating the G1000! I built an entire walk-in sim based on our training G1000Nxi Cessna172. I'm looking forward to more features! That said... It's not the advanced features that make us pass or fail, or land safely or not. It's the basics, right? Thanks again!
Hallo Philipp, schönes Video, Danke! Beste Grüße aus Europa!
Im glad when i got my rating we hadvan ADF approach!! No computers at all!😂
Good video. Easy mistake to make. Need to make sure to check source and course for the intercept.
also can I please come in and fix the roller-counter animations on the XPLANE1000 PFDs… the higher digits should roll in sync when the digit to its right is rolling between 9 and 0… the airspeed and altitude readouts specifically
that was proline 4, not 21. The 21 let's you switch HSI formats from full to arc. I've never flown it in anything but arc mode, never needed to see the full HSI. Can't remember the last time I manually dialed in a course, it's all automatic even for ILS. At least on the 21, but I imagine the 4 auto dials the course for you too.
The Collins Pro Line is not ‘idiotic’. Virtually all transport category aircraft use ‘arc’ mode for a digital HSI. In real world flying, the bottom half of the compass rose is just clutter on the screen
You can change it on the mfd, yes. You can have the full rose or the forward arc depending on what you want to see. The “idiotic” part is that on the PFD, it displays three quarters, so not really a rose or an arc, with no way to change it
@@XPlanePhil Who cares? Your preference doesn't make something idiotic. Exactly what is wrong with it?
I wonder how many IR applications are truly ready to fly solo in IMC in real world. Using a Garmin quirk like this to fail a checkride seems... arbitrary. Sure it shows failure to adhere to a process, but then again a DPE may not like an applicant asking for delay vectors on every approach either.
I disagree with the delay vector thing. I think most dpes would appreciate good adm rather than rush and make a mistake.
My first solo flight after my checkride I did real world IMC to a 900ish foot ceiling airport that was 1.5 hours away. It was a lot of fun. I trained on 6 packs though with a GNS 175. Those touch screen GPS units makes IFR flying a breeze.
@@crazy4gta1 we don’t know what scenario was given to the applicant. Maybe there was no time to ask for delay vectors as an immediate return was required
Wow, I had to be the cynic here but that sounds like a trap laid by the DPE. You can argue if it's fair or not, that's a very gray and debatable line, but personally I think that's a low blow. Now granted I see the wisdom in building task saturation and seeing if a pilot sticks to their checklists and such, but I have a hard time with DPEs who try to trick pilots rather than just allowing the pilot to demonstrate their skill. Bright side I guess is that the pilot will probably never forget to confirm the ILS/LOC identifier again.
What makes it especially shitty is that this is a counter-intuitive quirk of Garmin software that he may never have seen in training. Poor design should be a learning moment not a failing one
I disagree that it was a DPE trap. The applicant simply missed many instrument indications including the HSI's course pointer *and* the TO/FROM flag (both green triangles) pointing downwards instead of upwards at video time 9:50. Another instrument indication that the applicant missed is described in somebody else's comment here on this page (SRBarlow described the applicant missed the HSI display showing VOR1 instead of LOC1). This is an extremely good presentation by the CFII. I passed my instrument checkride about 2 months ago.
The DPE wasn’t being tricky. IFR in IMC demands precision. This situation didn’t seem particularly task saturated. It seemed more real world to me, and hats off to the DPE. It is really easy to forget to flip the frequencies during ILS procedure setup, particularly since the RNAV/GPS procedures need no similar action. I’ve flown IFR for years, yet found myself in IMC and icing (real world distraction and stress), missed flipping the frequency, and overshot the approach. It happens, and in the real world can be deadly. That student will remember to check in the future.
@@capchuckpriceutyoub What part of 'real world' is a 135° intercept vector? Lol.
@@JustSayN2O Being put in an unrealistic scenario that leads the student on the path of failure by doing the correct actions is called a trap
Is it no longer a requirement to turn up the volume and verify the Morse ident?
Not if you have a digital display that decodes the signal for you - which most modern equipment does. You still have to look at what it displays, though. If not... you fail the checkride.
@@XPlanePhil Which is why I always teach my students to listen to the Morse even though we're equipped with G1000's in our fleet. That and you never know when you're going to be navigating with older equipment in a different plane one day. Better to get in the habit at the beginning. Law of primacy.
@@bendriscoll302 I found the Morse identification almost useless because of confirmation bias. Students will only catch if the transmitter is out because it is not beeping, but if it is beeping 90% of students will be absolutely convinced it’s beeping the code they are looking at. Confirmation bias. Heck, I can’t identify by morse code unless I tap the rhythm out on my leg first and then see whether the incoming beep matches the expected rhythm
@@XPlanePhil That's why I look at their eyes when it's playing. They try to cheat me all the time and just appease me by letting them play. I have them follow along with their finger as it plays. I'll switch the frequency on them sometimes when they aren't looking to try and catch them too.
@@XPlanePhil Apparently the DPE wants to observe the applicant positively confirming the Morse code identification signal by either pointing to the decoded identifier display on the G1000, or if too busy to use one's hand to point, then saying aloud that the G1000 has decoded the identification signal to confirm reception of XYZ or I-XYZ.