Instrument Approaches at UPT

[Gravedigger]

I was looking at the cockpits of the T-6 and T-37 and noticed that the T-6 has an HSI and no ADF, and the T-37 has an ADF but no advanced avionics. What kinds of approaches do they teach in each of the planes? How do you teach GPS approaches and things like that in the T-37? Do you just fly NDB approaches on the GPS in the T-6?

[Guest AWACker]

GPS approaches in a tweet...that's funny stuff.

[Scooter14]

GPS approaches are taught in the sims now in T-1's. Pretty cool stuff.

[Guest cadbury]

In T-6s you will shoot GPS, VOR, and ILS approaches. It doesn't have a TACAN or an ADF.

[HerkDerka]

The big thing to remember is this. The Tweet has the only instrument panel in the world that is the least condusive to instrument training. It's amazing how much better you get when you get to an aircraft with an HSI. Anyone remember that damn "toilet boil" in the Tweet? Man instruments sucked in that plane. The only good thing was the digital DME/bearing indicator.

PD

[backseatdriver]

Originally posted by cadbury:

In T-6s you will shoot GPS, VOR, and ILS approaches. It doesn't have a TACAN or an ADF.

The T-6 doesn't have a TACAN?

[Guest cadbury]

Nope, and neither does the T-38C, although we are supposed to get them sometime soon.

[Herk Mafia]

I talked to a T-1 IP today and he said they teach GPS approaches now. I have a question though. I dont start Instruments for 2 more weeks, but what is the difference in a having a TACAN and just having a VOR/DME? Arent they the same thing?

[163 FS]

VOR and TACAN stations are two different things. If you look at a low chart (or any other chart for that matter) you can see the different symbols.

Most stations are VORTACs, that is a TACAN and VOR in the same unit, but there are those VOR only and TACAN only stations.

As far as the T-38C, at Vance we have both VOR and TACAN in most of our jets. The T-38C didn't originally have both, only VOR, but the powers that be decided we needed a TACAN (no Sh*t). For those of you that don't know, a lot of military installations are TACAN only, thus you need a TACAN to navigate to the station.

[Scooter14]

Here's the deal with TACAN, VORTAC and VOR/DME

TACAN, short for Tactical Air Navigation, gives you range and bearing simply by selecting one of the 126(?) channels out there, which are UHF IIRC (I left my 11-217 at the squadron). Civil aircraft can get DME from it, but no bearing.

VORTAC gives you VOR bearing, TACAN bearing and DME.

VOR/DME only gives you VOR bearing and DME. Military TACAN only equipped aircraft can't navigate to it since there is no TACAN radial, they only get DME, the needle will just spin.

If you have a VOR receiver with a paired DME, or a VOR and a TACAN receiver, then it's transparent to you. Where it can get squirrely is on a localizer or ILS where a cross-radial is used to define a step down fix. If it's a VORTAC, we'll tune the localizer into the VOR and use the TACAN radial to define the fix where it crosses the LOC course (See ILS 1L at Wichita)

If it's a VOR/DME, we have to use the VOR receiver on the copilots side and get cross side information to get the VOR bearing. Not a big deal, we just aren't able to have the LOC dialed in on both sides (See ILS at Hutchinson Muni, KS).

Hope that helps

[Mild]

Doesn't the T-38C have a GPS? If it does then you really don't need a TACAN unless the field you're going to only has TACAN approaches ( mil fields should have an ILS approach). The GPS can give you dme to a navaid and a bearing pointer, just depends if your GPS is ifr-nav certified.

[Whitman]

What's an HSI?

[ClearedHot]

Doesn't the T-38C have a GPS? If it does then you really don't need a TACAN unless the field you're going to only has TACAN approaches ( mil fields should have an ILS approach).

Wow, how things and attitudes have changed. I remember a mission over Afghanistan when my GPS went figure merit 9, my recovery base was 500-2 with blowing sand and all they had to get back in was a portable TACAN.

Are we raising a generation of GPS aviators? It is a great tool, but you still need to know how to find your way from point A to point B without a gods-eye view and a computer.

By the way not all mil fields have an ILS, especially in combat.

[Mild]

quote:

"Wow, how things and attitudes have changed. I remember a mission over Afghanistan when my GPS went figure merit 9, my recovery base was 500-2 with blowing sand and all they had to get back in was a portable TACAN"

With the T-6, T-1 and T-38C all having GPS we are raising a generation of GPS aviators. The GPS is not the only navaid in those aircraft either so young aviatiors will get their share of prec/non-prec approaches(that aren't GPS) as well as basic navigation.

The TACAN as a navaid was already to have been decommissioned that's why the T-6, T-38C, and possibly the F-22 do not have a TACAN. (That's what I have been told, still looking for it in writing) Embrace technology or get left behind.

quote:

"By the way not all mil fields have an ILS, especially in combat"

this topic is "Approaches at UPT"

[ClearedHot]

Embrace technology or get left behind.

Glad to see the AETC IPs are teaching what the guys in the field will need. Embracing technology has nothing to do with it. GPS is a great tool, but it is not the end all be all. The foundation built in UPT might save someone in combat. There are times GPS isn't there or is not accurate enough to put weapons on target with, especially on the fly. Get the most out of technology but be able to fall back on basic skills when the computer goes tango uniform.

this topic is "Approaches at UPT"

Does NAS Whiting have an ILS?

[Guest AWACker]

Eh, Mild, I'm not sure you're getting exactly what Clearhot was trying to say. To some of us, it seems like teaching GPS nav in UPT with approaches is almost like teaching approaches and nav backwards. I only flew one GPS approach in UPT, and that was because we were flying a visual into Laughlin in the T-1, and I talked my IP into letting me plug it in and flying it as the "backup" just to see where it took us (yeah, right down to the runway like an ILS, just like advertised). But, I have a feeling that with a GPS in the T-6, you still wouldn't teach the GPS approaches first, and the ILS approaches later, just like you wouldn't teach basic navigation by telling the students just to "plug it into the flight computer, and follow the line". So you got that going for you.

In addition, it's great that students are getting to learn how to fly these approaches (not that they are mind-blowing-difficult), but when are they really going to use a GPS approach in an MWS? I'm certainly no expert on a the subject, but what airframes do we even have that are equipped (and just as importantly, certified), to fly these things? In that aspect, it almost seems like wasted training.

Or, it could just be jealousy, because new Studs at UPT are learning how to use cool new toys that quite a few of us won't be exposed to until we get new planes or future lives.

Regardless, I hope you get what I'm saying. It's the idea that although yeah, we've developed the technology to use, but some of us wonder why we're bothering to teach it to the new pilots as training when, in our eyes, they'll probably never use it outside of a training environment in their military career.

[Guest Metalhead]

HSI, Horizontal Situation Indicator

That's the main navigation instrument used for instrument flight. There's other instruments, but once you get into bigger, IFR certified aircraft (there's always exceptions), they're probably gonna have an HSI. Couple-o-pictures:

https://www.xflight.de/f16/pe_org_par_cec_hsi.htm

https://www.nevergetlost.at/english/pdf/066.pdf

[Gravedigger]

I agree with Chuck that GPS should be icing on your instrument training cake. I did all of my training without a GPS to learn how to fly instruments and then was taught ok if you have use it. A garmin 430 can make you almost completely dependant on it if you don't force yourself to use other instruments. All to often people fly soley by their GPS and lose RAIM and are SOL. Just my opininion. Thanks for all of the info guys.

[Guest Shep]

Remember, occasionally they'll teach the 2-engine approach in Tweets. That's a far cry from the "dreaded 7-engine approach" that those Buff drivers out there fear on a daily basis.

[Guest pcampbell]

Just to add to the discussion on how GPS cannot be your only tool, my PP instructor told me that in the western US, GPS often goes down, particularly when the US decides to go blow-up little desert countries in the Middle East. He says they divert GPS satellites to more interesting areas. Can anyone verify this?

[Guest Metalhead]

Yaa, Horseshit. I'm thinking he was trying to make you think he is smarter that he is. Does GPS go down? Yea but not for that reason. Even according to AIM 1-1-19:

" 7. The GPS constellation of 24 satellites is designed so that a minimum of five are always observable by a user anywhere on earth. The receiver uses data from a minimum of four satellites above the mask angle (the lowest angle above the horizon at which it can use a satellite."

You can't just change a bunch of satellite orbits on a whim, and even if you could, it's not like they would stay put over your little desert country. (geo-synchronous excluded, but I think they have to be at the equator, GPS is not geo-synchronous) Nor would you need to move them, based on what is said in AIM.

Last I heard, they increased the constellation to 28.

Individual satellites will go down, if for whatever reason the time base signal is corrupted, etc, whatever. When they do, a notam is generally issued (Query for KGPS).

When there is a lack of required signal, signal corruption, etc, one loses what is referred to as RAIM -- Receiver Autonomous Integrity Monitoring. It's described in the same AIM chapter, para 8. You have to have "RAIM" to use the gps for air nav. Kind of like an ident for a VOR, except that it's automatic. Some aircraft computer systems call this a FOM, or figure of merit.

Next time you talk to your PP instructor, tell him he's full of it and show him why, or wait till you get wings and go blow his doors of with all your newly found knowledge. :D

[HerkDerka]

Also, next time your PP instructor tries to give you a piece of info about the military, remember that he is a PP INSTRUCTOR! LOL!

PD

[Hacker]

Since the topic of discussion here is "Approaches at UPT", I want to mention that the T-38C, while GPS equipped, does NOT fly GPS approaches. I'm not sure of what the T-6 has to offer, though.

Also realize that while apparently the C-17 has the ability to fly GPS approaches, none of the fighter aircraft that I know of have this capability. So, it's TACANs, VORs, ILSs, and GCI approaches for all my friends!

On the subject of GPS navigation two points:

One, from the "embracing technology" side of things, I don't see how navigating from place to place using GPS fixes is all that different from using radio NAVAIDs -- you still have to use similar procedures to proceed direct there (rather than homing).

Two, from the "old crusty guy" side of the house, I also agree that pilots need to equally understand how to navigate using radio NAVAIDs or INS systems instead of GPS. I can tell you from personal experience that the GPS signal in central Iraq during OIF was *trashed*, probably due to the GPS jammers that were deployed there. Did it effect operations? Not from where I was sitting, because we just flipped our nav systems over to INS and continued with what we were doing. Plus, there's that really handy "map reading" thing that worked out amazingly well.

In addition, all that stuff about how many satellites are guaranteed to be up at any time is nice...but...what about during wartime when we go against an enemy who can target our satellites? I can think of one potential adversary who has this capability and the intent to take down GPS satellites if the time comes.

Bottom line with that is we must not become completely reliant on GPS for navigation and targeting because it may not always be there for us.

Again, this part of the conversation is WAY off the topic of approaches at UPT but still a factor since that seems to be the way the discussion is going.

[JimNtexas]

If you will excuse a mere former EWO, azimuth accuracy of Tacan is far greater than that of VOR due to the shorter wavelength of Tacan’s uhf signal and it’s 2x rotation speed of the bearing signal..

Edited April 22, 2021 by JimNtexas

[nunya]

The OP hasn't been here in three years!