New Garmin GTN 750 Features

Garmin has released system software 6.50 for its GTN 750 and GTN 650 navigators. The new software adds several features, including:

  • Vertical navigation (VNAV) capability when flying STARS and the initial stages of instrument approaches
  • Along-track offsets in flight plan segments
  • Destination airport remains in the flight plan when an approach is loaded (but the destination airport is removed when the approach is activated)
  • A shortcut to the airport info page added to all procedure headers
  • Load the approach NAV frequency from the approach header in the flight plan
  • QWERTY keyboard option

The following sections highlight some of these features. For more details on how to use the functions, see the latest editions of the GTN guides, available in my Aviation Documents folder at OneDrive and from Garmin’s product pages.

The details about this update to the GTN series are in ASDN Service Bulletin 1860 and the GTN 725/750 SOFTWARE v6.50 PILOT’S GUIDE UPGRADE SUPPLEMENT.

Garmin also released system software updates for the G500/600 PFD/MFD and associated hardware. For details on those updates, see ASDN Service Bulletin 1861.

Garmin has also updated its free Windows-based trainer for the GTN series.

Note that these system updates must be performed by an authorized Garmin dealer or avionics shop unless you are flying a experimental-homebuilt aircraft.

VNAV Capability

The new software adds several vertical navigation features, best illustrated with examples.

Suppose you are flying the RNAV RWY 08 approach at Lewiston, ID (KLWS), joining the procedure at the BIDDY initial approach fix northwest of the airport. The NoPT feeder route from BIDDY specifies an an altitude of at or above 5000 ft to EVOYU, followed by a descent to at or above 4000 ft to MABIZ, and then at or above 3400 ft to the FAF at GIYES.


With the new GTN system software, those segment altitudes appear in the flight plan page for the procedure.

The VNAV feature appears as a magenta vertical guidance cue  next to the altitude tape on a PFD such as the new Garmin G500Txi (shown here) or the G500. Note that at this point in the approach, the LPV glidepath is a dim white diamond behind the magenta VNAV cue because the FAF is not the active waypoint and LPV is not yet annunciated on the HSI.

The VNAV cue simply provides advisory guidance to help you smoothly descend to each charted altitude as you fly the initial stages of the approach.

The LPV glidepath marker that displays approved vertical guidance replaces the VNAV cue when the FAF is active and the GTN system confirms that LPV minimums are available, as shown below.


Similar VNAV information and cues are available when flying a STAR, such as the MADEE FOUR arrival at Bellingham, WA (KBLI).


Note that the altitudes shown in the GTN flight plan list for this STAR are for turbojet aircraft. But you can easily edit the altitude if ATC assigns a more appropriate altitude when you’re flying a typical piston-powered light aircraft.



If you are flying an approach based on an ILS, LOC, or VOR, you can quickly retrieve the navaid frequency by touching the approach title, as shown below for the ILS RWY 16 at KBLI.


Along-Track Offsets

Suppose you are flying northeast along V2 at 13,000 ft. between ELN and MWH when Seattle Center clears you to cross 20 nm west of MWH at 9000 ft.


With the new software, you can easily enter an along-track offset and display advisory vertical guidance to help you meet the restriction.

Touch MWH in the flight plan, and then touch the new Along Track button.


To create a waypoint for VNAV guidance, fill in the information that corresponds to your new clearance.


Airport Information

An earlier version of the GTN system software included behavior that frustrated many pilots. When you loaded an approach into a flight plan, the destination airport was removed. If you hadn’t noted details such as the tower frequency, extracting that information from the GTN’s database was cumbersome.

In version 6.50, Garmin has added an APT Info button next to the approach title in the flight plan list.

Touching that button shows the familiar information window that provides touch access to details about the airport, including frequencies, weather, and other data.

QWERTY Keyboard

You can also choose a QWERTY keyboard instead of the alphabetical layout in previous versions of the GTN software. The option is available on the System Setup page.



IFR Lost Communications

All instrument pilots learn the rules (14 CFR §91.185) that apply if you lose two-way radio communications while operating under IFR. But most discussions of that regulation overlook three key paragraphs in the AIM and their practical implications.


Note: This original text for this post first appeared in the February 2018 issue of the American Bonanza Society magazine.

First, to review the basics, see 14 CFR §91.185 and the Instrument Flying Handbook (FAA H-8083-15B), which describes the details of the regulation in “Communication/Navigation System Malfunction” (p. 11-8).


To simplify matters, most of us employ a mnemonic such as Avenue F MEA to aid recall of the key details of the route and altitude to fly (assuming you are not flying in VMC, do not encounter VMC after losing two-way communications, and that you cannot hear or respond to ATC via voice over a navaid, squawking IDENT, turning to headings, or other means).

Avenue F (Route)

  • Assigned: Last assigned heading, or—
  • Vectored: Fly the last vector to the ATC-specified fix or route, or—
  • Expected: Fly the route ATC last told you to expect (e.g., join an airway, feeder route, localizer, etc.), or—
  • Filed: If you haven’t received an updated clearance or route from ATC, fly the route that you filed.

MEA (Altitude)

  • The minimum en-route altitude for the segment of the route you’re flying, or—
  • The expected altitude ATC told you to anticipate, or—
  • The assigned altitude that ATC included in your original clearance

To the route and altitude, add timing, so that you arrive at your intended destination when ATC is expecting you, per the details in the regulation and the AIM.

To these guidelines, I add the specific lost communications procedures that are typically included as notes for published IFR departure procedures. For example, see the chart for the YELM THREE departure at the Olympia, WA (KOLM) airport.

Practical Advice from the AIM

Instructors and DPEs enjoy posing lost-communications scenarios that require careful parsing of 14 CFR §91.185 and scrutiny of IFR charts.


But in focusing on the regulation itself, we often overlook what is arguably the most important practical guidance for such situations, found in AIM 6−4−1: Two-way Radio Communications Failure.

The first three paragraphs of that section note that:

a. It is virtually impossible to provide regulations and procedures applicable to all possible situations associated with two-way radio communications failure. During two-way radio communications failure, when confronted by a situation not covered in the regulation, pilots are expected to exercise good judgment in whatever action they elect to take. Should the situation so dictate they should not be reluctant to use the emergency action contained in 14 CFR Section 91.3(b).

b. Whether two-way communications failure constitutes an emergency depends on the circumstances, and in any event, it is a determination made by the pilot. 14 CFR Section 91.3(b) authorizes a pilot to deviate from any rule in Subparts A and B to the extent required to meet an emergency.

c. In the event of two-way radio communications failure, ATC service will be provided on the basis that the pilot is operating in accordance with 14 CFR Section 91.185. A pilot experiencing two-way communications failure should (unless emergency authority is exercised) comply with 14 CFR Section 91.185….

Note also that the Instrument Rating ACS places lost communications procedures in section VII Emergency Operations. The standards for Task A in that section state that you must understand and demonstrate the:

Procedures to be followed in the event of lost communication during various phases of flight, including techniques for reestablishing communications, when it is acceptable to deviate from an IFR clearance, and when to begin an approach at the destination.

The AIM text recognizes and implicitly suggests several issues that you must consider if you lose two-way communications while operating IFR in IMC. For example:

  • What caused the communications failure? Just broken radios? A fault somewhere in the electrical system?
  • Will proceeding according to the regulation require you to continue the flight–perhaps for an extended time–over potentially hazardous terrain or through challenging weather?
  • Are you currently operating within or near busy airspace, such as Class B? Will your cleared IFR route take you near or into such airspace?

Suppose, for example, that you lose communications after you level off westbound following a departure from Spokane International Airport (KGEG) in Washington state en route to Boeing Field (KBFI) in Seattle.


Your clearance will take you via V2 across the Cascade Mountains to Boeing Field (KBFI) in Seattle. You are not on fire or aware of any other issue with the airplane that demands an immediate precautionary landing. Weather at airports along or near your route is IMC but at or above published minimums for the approaches available to you.

Adhering to the letter of 14 CFR §91.185 would require you to continue along your last cleared route at the appropriate altitudes to arrive as close as possible to your ETA at KBFI.

But the introductory paragraphs to AIM 6-4-1 give you broad support to exercise your emergency authority as PIC.

For example, diverting to an airport such as Moses Lake (KMWH) and flying one of its many available approaches would be far more reasonable than continuing across the mountains and then descending into the congested airspace that surrounds Seattle—and perhaps holding near KBFI to arrive near your ETA.


Whether or not you continue strictly according to the regulations, ATC will clear the airspace around you until your intentions are clear and they’re able track you or confirm that you’re on the ground. Assuming that they can still observe you—even if as only a primary target on their traffic displays—they will be happy to watch you descend into a relatively quiet airport like KMWH rather than, like members of a curling team, furiously sweep the path in front you all the way to your filed and cleared destination.

An RNAV Approach in VMC

In this video, I depart Jefferson County International Airport (0S9) on the Olympic Peninsula and fly the RNAV RWY 20 approach at Bremerton (KPWT) in visual conditions.

This is an exercise I do with my instrument students as they begin flying approaches. It’s useful to observe several approaches, preferably with the autopilot engaged, to help new IFR pilots correlate what they see out the window with the navigation displays, aircraft attitude, power settings, and configurations used during an IFR approach. Watching the autopilot fly the approach helps students clearly see the subtle corrections needed to track courses and glidepaths. And observing the proximity to terrain and obstacles reinforces the need to fly the published courses and altitudes precisely.

New IFR Currency Rules and Other Changes to 14 CFR Part 61

On June 27, 2018, FAA published an extensive revision to sections of 14 CFR Part 61 governing IFR currency with the use of aviation training devices, the role of technically advanced aircraft (TAA) in training for certain certificates and ratings, and many other important changes. You can download the PDF of the final rule here.

This rule is result of an NPRM published in May 2016, which you read about at BruceAir here.

Some of the new regulations should become effective July 28, 2018. Others will be effective later; the details of the effective dates are in the final rule and provided later this article.

The September/October 2018 issue of FAA Safety Briefing includes a summary of key provisions in the new regulations and their effective dates. See p. 28.

The new regulations of primary interest to general aviation pilots:

  • Allow instrument-rated pilots to maintain IFR currency using an ATD, FTD, or FSS without having an instructor present. The IFR currency rules also now make no distinction between tasks performed in an ATD, FTD, or FSS and an aircraft.
  • Change some provisions related to the completion of an instrument proficiency check (IPC).
  • Allow the use of technically advanced aircraft in lieu of or in combination with complex aircraft to acquire 10 hours of flight time formerly required in a complex aircraft for commercial pilot applicants.

SUMMARY: This rulemaking relieves burdens on pilots seeking to obtain aeronautical experience, training, and certification by increasing the allowed use of aviation training devices. Use of these training devices has proven to be an effective, safe, and affordable means of obtaining pilot experience. This rulemaking also addresses changing technologies by accommodating the use of technically advanced airplanes as an alternative to the use of older complex single engine airplanes for the commercial pilot training and testing requirements. Additionally, this rulemaking broadens the opportunities for military instructor pilots or pilot examiners to obtain civilian ratings based on military experience, expands opportunities for logging pilot time, and removes a burden from sport pilot instructors by permitting them to serve as safety pilots. Finally, this rulemaking includes changes to some of the provisions established in an August 2009 final rule. These actions are necessary to bring the regulations in line with current needs and activities of the general aviation training community and pilots.

The following is an analysis of the new rules that are of interest primiarly to pilots operating under 14 CFR Parts 61 and 91. To understand all of the new regulations and how they affect certain commercial operators and flight training programs, you should review the entire text of the final rule.

CFI No Longer Required when using FFS, FTD, or ATD to Maintain IFR Currency

The FAA is amending § 61.51(g) by revising paragraph (g)(4) and adding a new paragraph (g)(5) to allow a pilot to accomplish instrument recency experience when using a FFS, FTD, or ATD without an instructor present, provided a logbook or training record is maintained to specify the approved training device, time, and the content as appropriate.

To learn more about the definitions of FSS, FTD, and ATD, see the final rule and AC 61-136.

A pilot will still be required to have an instructor present when using time in a FFS, FTD, or ATD to acquire instrument aeronautical experience for a pilot certificate or rating.

And the new rule does not changes the provisions of § 61.51 that require an instrument proficiency check if a pilot does not maintain IFR currency.

Here’s the revised language:

§ 61.51 (g) (5) A person may use time in a full flight simulator, flight training device, or aviation training device for satisfying instrument recency experience requirements provided a logbook or training record is maintained to specify the training device, time, and the content.

(h) Logging training time. (1) A person may log training time when that person receives training from an authorized instructor in an aircraft, full flight simulator, flight training device, or aviation training device.

The new language for § 61.57 Recent flight experience: Pilot in command is:

(c) (2) Use of a full flight simulator, flight training device, or aviation training device for maintaining instrument experience. A pilot may accomplish the requirements in paragraph (c)(1) of this section in a full flight simulator, flight training device, or aviation training device provided the device represents the category of aircraft for the instrument rating privileges to be maintained and the pilot performs the tasks and iterations in simulated instrument conditions. A person may complete the instrument experience in any combination of an aircraft, full flight simulator, flight training device, or aviation training device.

The FAA’s analysis of the comments on the proposal notes that:

…[B]ecause instrument recency experience is not training, the FAA no longer believes it is necessary to have an instructor present when instrument recency experience is accomplished in an FSTD or ATD. The FAA is therefore removing the requirement for an authorized instructor to be present when a pilot accomplishes his or her instrument recency experience in an FFS, FTD, or ATD…

As with instrument recency experience accomplished in an aircraft, § 61.57(c) requires the pilot to log the required tasks in his or her logbook and § 61.51(b) requires certain information to be logged, including the type and identification of the FSTD or ATD. Additionally, § 61.51(g)(5) requires the pilot to maintain a logbook or training record that specifies the training device, time, and content. The FAA therefore emphasizes the importance of clearly documenting in one’s logbook the type and identification of the FFS, FTD, or ATD used to maintain recency and a detailed record of the specific tasks completed.

The FAA discussion points out that pilots have long been able to maintain IFR currency in aircraft by flying with a safety pilot, and the FAA addressed several comments about the efficacy of using ATDs and FTDs to maintain instrument currency.

Because instructor supervision is not required when a pilot satisfies the instrument
recency experience in an aircraft, similarly, it should not be required when a pilot satisfies the same instrument recency experience in a FFS, FTD, or ATD. A pilot must perform and log the required tasks regardless of whether the tasks are accomplished in an aircraft, FFS, FTD, or ATD. As several commenters noted, pilots who satisfy the instrument recency experience in an FFS, FTD, or ATD should be trusted in the same fashion as those pilots who satisfy the requirements in an aircraft. While there is a potential for falsification in both scenarios, the FAA finds that the current penalties for falsifying pilot logbooks and records, which include suspension or revocation of one’s airman certificate, are a sufficient deterrent to falsifying the logging requirements…

Furthermore, the FAA is not requiring the FFS, FTD, or ATD to produce a flight track and log pilot activities as proof of performing the required tasks for maintaining instrument recency; nor is the FAA imposing more stringent recordkeeping requirements on the flight schools who own such FFS, FTD, or ATDs or on the pilots who use the FFS, FTD, or ATD to maintain instrument recency…

The FAA finds that satisfying instrument recency experience requirements in an FFS, FTD or ATD is as beneficial as satisfying the requirements in an aircraft regardless of whether an instructor is present. FFSs, FTDs, and ATDs are specifically designed to allow a person to replicate and execute instrument tasks just as they would in an aircraft…

Section 61.57(c) requires a pilot to perform and log minimum tasks to maintain instrument recency; § 61.57(c) does not impose training or proficiency requirements. An instrument-rated pilot has already demonstrated his or her proficiency during a practical test with an examiner. The purpose of the instrument recency experience requirement is to ensure the pilot maintains his or her instrument proficiency by performing and logging the required instrument experience. Therefore, the FAA expects pilots accomplishing the instrument recency experience to already be at an acceptable level of proficiency. The FAA recommends, however, that a pilot seek additional training if he or she is uncomfortable with his or her performance of the required tasks under § 61.57(c)…

FAA believes that new § 61.51(g)(5) will likely increase the public’s use of FFSs, FTDs or ATDs and notes that the majority of comments supported this conclusion…

As a general matter, the FAA notes that ATDs allow programming and practice of many instrument situations, scenarios, and procedures. The current capabilities of ATDs, FTDs, and FFSs allow an instrument rated pilot to program and successfully practice simulated low visibility weather conditions, multiple approaches in a shorter period of time, emergency procedures, equipment failures, and other various flight scenarios that cannot necessarily be accomplished in an aircraft safely. Allowing the use of ATDs, FTDs and FFSs without the requirement (and therefore the cost) of having an instructor present can result in more pilots being better prepared. This benefit could include executing flight scenarios they may not normally experience when accomplishing instrument recency in an aircraft, or in locations where they do not normally fly, or when practicing emergency procedures that are likely too dangerous to accomplish in an aircraft. This includes the unique capability of practicing identical instrument approach procedures to an airport the pilot may not have otherwise flown to before.

Instrument Recency Experience Requirements

The new rules will simplify § 61.57(c) which describes how pilots can use ATDs, FTDs, and FSS alone or in combination with flight time in an aircraft to maintain IFR currency.

The FAA is aligning the requirements for accomplishing instrument experience in an ATD with the requirements for accomplishing instrument experience in an FSTD or aircraft. Prior to this final rule, a person accomplishing instrument recency experience in an aircraft, FFS, FTD, or a combination, was required to, within the preceding 6 months, have performed: (1) Six instrument approaches; (2) holding procedures and tasks; and (3) intercepting and tracking courses through the use of navigational electronic systems. Persons accomplishing instrument recency experience exclusively in an ATD, however, were required to have performed, within the preceding 2 months, the same tasks and maneuvers listed above plus “two unusual attitude recoveries while in a descending Vne airspeed condition and two unusual attitude recoveries while in an ascending, stall speed condition” and a minimum of three hours of instrument recency experience. This final rule amends § 61.57(c) to allow pilots to accomplish instrument experience in ATDs by performing the same tasks required for FSTDs and aircraft, and at the same 6-month interval allowed for FSTDs and aircraft.

In support of the change, the FAA notes that:

FAA believes that the current design and technology of ATDs has advanced and provides a greater opportunity for the advancement of instrument skills and improved proficiency, as well as a wider range of experiences and scenarios, which justifies their increased use in § 61.57(c)(2)…

While the FAA stated in the NPRM that a pilot would be permitted to complete instrument recency experience in any combination of aircraft, FFS, FTD, or ATD, the proposed rule would not have expressly allowed this. The FAA is therefore adding language to proposed § 61.57(c)(2) to expressly state that a person may complete the instrument recency experience in any combination of aircraft, FFS, FTD, or ATD…

FAA disagrees with [comments] requiring a pilot to accomplish the instrument recency experience in an aircraft. The FAA has allowed the instrument recency tasks to be accomplished in an FFS, FTD, or ATD since 2009. The FAA did not propose to change the allowance of an ATD to satisfy instrument recency experience. Rather, given the technological advancements that have occurred in ATDs since 2009, the FAA proposed to align ATD use to the 6-month task completion interval and the required tasks consistent with FSTDs and aircraft…

FAA finds that an ATD adequately replicates an aircraft for purposes of maintaining instrument recency. Section 61.57(c) does not require a pilot to experience variables and additional stressors that one may experience in an aircraft to maintain instrument recency. The FAA recognizes the importance of familiarity with these conditions and events; however, they are more attributable to training. An instrument-rated pilot maintaining instrument recency under § 61.57(c) has already accomplished the required instrument training and has already demonstrated his or her proficiency during a practical test with an examiner.

Furthermore, the FAA disagrees with the comment that requiring more flight time in an aircraft will result in fewer accidents. The FAA finds that allowing a pilot to accomplish instrument recency requirements in an ATD or FSTD encourages more pilots to remain instrument current and provides the necessary experience to enable safe operation of an aircraft in instrument meteorological conditions (IMC)…

FAA believes that training in FSTDs and ATDs in combination with training in an aircraft reinforces the necessary pilot skill to rely solely on the flight instruments to successfully operate an aircraft in IMC. This mitigates any reliance on postural senses, sounds, or feelings that can otherwise lead to loss of control. The FAA further described that training devices do not require motion to be approved and that training devices cannot completely train the pilot to ignore certain erroneous sensory perceptions, but pilots develop this skill during the flight portion of their instrument training. Consistent with the final rule, “Aviation Training Device Credit for Pilot Certification,” the FAA believes that instrument experience accomplished in ATDs is an effective procedural review and reinforces the necessary skills to properly interpret the aircraft’s flight instruments, allowing successful operation of an aircraft in IMC.

Change to IPC Requirements

The final rule also revises § 61.57(d) to remove the reference to the practical test standards (or ACS) for the tasks required to complete an IPC.

In § 61.57(d), the FAA is removing the reference to the PTS. The FAA recognizes that it was inappropriate for § 61.57(d) to state that the areas of operation and instrument tasks were required in the instrument rating PTS. The PTS and ACS do not contain regulatory requirements. Therefore, rather than referencing the instrument rating ACS in § 61.57(d), the FAA is codifying in § 61.57(d) the areas of operation for an IPC.

The new § 61.57(d) reads:

Instrument proficiency check. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, a person who has failed to meet the instrument experience requirements of paragraph (c) of this section for more than six calendar months may reestablish instrument currency only by completing an instrument proficiency check. The instrument proficiency check must consist of at least the following areas of operation:

(i) Air traffic control clearances and procedures;

(ii) Flight by reference to instruments;

(iii) Navigation systems;

(iv) Instrument approach procedures;

(v) Emergency operations; and

(vi) Postflight procedures.

Note that the new rule doesn’t specifically mention circle-to-land approaches, approaches to a landing, etc. According to the IFR ACS, these tasks must be accomplished in an airplane if you use an ATD or FTD for other parts of an IPC.

But the new list is more general. The new language in § 61.57(d) implies you could use an ATD or FTD to complete all of an IPC since you wouldn’t specifically be required to complete tasks that typically are not approved in those devices.

The change to § 61.57(d) seems to require updating at least the LOAs for ATDs and FTDs, AC 61-98D, and Instrument Proficiency Check (IPC) Guidance.

Completion of Commercial Pilot Training and Testing in Technically Advanced Airplanes

The new rules, effective August 28, 2018, will complement the recent changes in FAA policy that no longer require the use of complex aircraft for certain practical tests (more on this topic at BruceAir here).

The final rule substantially changes the definition of TAA in the NPRM.

§ 61.129 Aeronautical experience.

(ii) 10 hours of training in a complex airplane, a turbine-powered airplane, or a
technically advanced airplane (TAA) that meets the requirements of paragraph (j) of this section, or any combination thereof. The airplane must be appropriate to land or sea for the rating sought;…

(j) Technically advanced airplane. Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, a technically advanced airplane must be equipped with an electronically advanced avionics system that includes the following installed components:
(1) An electronic Primary Flight Display (PFD) that includes, at a minimum, an airspeed indicator, turn coordinator, attitude indicator, heading indicator, altimeter, and vertical speed indicator;
(2) An electronic Multifunction Display (MFD) that includes, at a minimum, a moving
map using Global Positioning System (GPS) navigation with the aircraft position displayed;
(3) A two axis autopilot integrated with the navigation and heading guidance system; and
(4) The display elements described in paragraphs (j)(1) and (2) of this section must be
continuously visible.

The discussion of the new rule expands on the reasoning behind and comments on the NPRM.

Prior to this final rule, a pilot seeking a commercial pilot certificate with an airplane single-engine class rating was required to complete 10 hours of training in either a complex or turbine-powered airplane. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to add a definition of technically advanced airplane (TAA) to § 61.1 and amend the training requirements to allow a pilot seeking a commercial pilot certificate with an airplane single-engine class rating to complete the 10 hours of training in a TAA instead of a complex or turbine-powered airplane. In addition to these regulatory changes, the FAA proposed to revise the practical test standards for commercial pilot applicants and flight instructor applicants seeking an airplane category single engine class rating to allow the use of a TAA on the practical tests.

Several comments on the NPRM highlighted problems with the FAA’s original defintion of TAA. In response, the FAA notes that:

The FAA recognizes that the proposed definition would have been too prescriptive. …FAA has revised the proposed language in response to industry’s concerns to make it more flexible and accommodating of new technologies. Furthermore, the FAA recognizes that the definition of TAA would have inappropriately embedded requirements, which may have inhibited future technologies from falling under the definition of a TAA. The FAA is therefore revising the definition of TAA in § 61.1 to contain a more general description of a TAA. TAA is now defined as an airplane equipped with an electronically advanced avionics system. The FAA is relocating the requirements regarding what a TAA must contain to § 61.129 by adding new paragraph (j). The FAA is also adding language to § 61.129(j) to allow the FAA to authorize the use of an airplane that may not otherwise meet the requirements of a TAA. This additional language is intended to provide flexibility by allowing the FAA to accommodate future technologies that do not necessarily meet the confines of the regulatory requirements for a TAA in § 61.129(j).

The discussion of the final rule includes a detailed response to comments about the use of such terms as PFD and MFD and the description of the autopilot required in a TAA. The basic requirements are described in the FAA discussion:

FAA is retaining the terms “Primary Flight Display,” “Multifunction Display,” and “advanced” in the TAA requirements. The FAA disagrees that the terms PFD and MFD will cause confusion. These terms are currently used and described in several FAA publications that are recognized by the aviation industry…

PFD is defined as “a display that provides increased situational awareness to the pilot by replacing the traditional six instruments used for instrument flight with an easy-to-scan display that provides the horizon, airspeed, altitude, vertical speed, trend, trim, and rate of turn among other key relevant indications.” MFD is defined as a “small screen (CRT or LCD) in an aircraft that can be used to display information to the pilot in numerous configurable ways. Often an MFD will be used in concert with a primary flight display.”

The FAA believes the terms PFD and MFD add clarity to the TAA requirements by
describing and prioritizing the display features and elements for TAA avionics and their respective functions. For example, the term PFD is specific to the use of the primary flight controls to maintain aircraft attitude and positive control. The PFD is used by the pilot to execute appropriate use of the control stick or yoke for pitch and bank, rudder pedals for yaw, and throttle for engine power. The PFD is designed specific to controlling the aircraft attitude and altitude relative to the horizon and the surface of the earth, especially when outside visibility is poor or unavailable. The MFD has a different priority; its function is secondary to the PFD. The MFD is designed for navigational use and position awareness information, even though it may include some PFD features for redundancy. Furthermore, the FAA is requiring certain minimum display elements for both a PFD and MFD, respectively, thereby clarifying what will be considered a PFD or MFD…

Section 61.129(j)(2) requires only the minimum elements of a MFD; it does not preclude the use of a split-screen display or two independent screens contained within a single physical unit. Therefore, a manufacturer may use a split-screen display or two independent screens for the PFD and MFD provided the displays contain the minimum elements required for each…

FAA is clarifying the MFD requirements by first describing what the display shows (i.e., a moving map) and then describing how the display is facilitated (i.e., using GPS navigation). Accordingly, § 61.129(j)(2) now requires the MFD to include, at a minimum, a moving map using GPS navigation. The FAA believes this
revision to the proposed language clarifies that a system with a moving map display common to GPS/WAAS navigators would satisfy the MFD requirement. Additionally, the FAA is requiring the aircraft position to be displayed on the moving map…

FAA removing the phrase “independent additional” from the proposed language to allow a single piece of equipment or single display to satisfy the requirement for both a PFD and MFD. However, to ensure that both displays are visible at the same time, the FAA is requiring the display elements for both the PFD and MFD (paragraphs (j)(1) and (2)) to be continuously visible…

FAA did not intend to exclude systems that provide autopilot functions separate from the MFD. The FAA is therefore separating the “two-axis autopilot” requirement from the MFD requirement. Accordingly, under new § 61.129(j)(3), the two axis autopilot is no longer required to be included as part of the MFD. This change from what was proposed allows the use of independent/aftermarket autopilot systems…

The TAA requirements in no way restrict the use of peripheral or supporting equipment that enables the display functionality described for the PFD and MFD in the TAA requirements…

While there may be different TSOs for the various functions of GPS, moving map, and navigation resulting in separate pieces of underlying equipment, this equipment can support the MFD requirements so long as the MFD includes a moving map that uses GPS navigation with the aircraft position displayed…

The TAA requirements of § 61.129(j) do not require the autopilot to have GPSS. However, § 61.129(j) specifies only the minimum requirements for a TAA. Therefore, an autopilot may have additional features, including GPSS. The “two axis” requirement refers to the lateral and longitudinal axes. The autopilot at a minimum must be able to track a predetermined GPS course or heading selection, and also be able to hold a selected altitude. The autopilot is not, however, required to control vertical navigation other than holding a selected altitude…

Revised Definition of Pilot Time

The new rule changes the definition of pilot time in § 61.1 to read:

Pilot time means that time in which a person—
(i) Serves as a required pilot flight crewmember;
(ii) Receives training from an authorized instructor in an aircraft, full flight simulator, flight training device, or aviation training device; or
(iii) Gives training as an authorized instructor in an aircraft, full flight simulator, flight training device, or aviation training device.

Effective Dates

The changes to the regulations become effective as follows:

This rule is effective July 27, 2018, except for the amendments to §§ 61.31(e)(2) and (f)(2), 61.129(a)(3)(ii), (b)(3)(ii) and (j), 61.197, 61.199, 61.412, 61.415, 91.109, and appendix D to part 141, which are effective August 27, 2018; the amendments to §§ 61.1 (amendatory instruction 10 revising the definition of ‘‘Pilot time’’), 61.39, 61.51(e) and (f), 61.57(c), 61.159(a), (c), (d), (e), and (f), 61.161(c), (d), and (e), 135.99, and 141.5(d) which are effective November 26, 2018; and the amendments to §§ 61.3, 63.3, 63.16, 91.313, 91.1015, 121.383, and 135.95, which are effective December 24, 2018.


Proposed Changes to Airport Diagrams

FAA is proposing to remove the inset airport diagrams from instrument procedure charts and the Chart Supplement (A/FD) and instead publish complete airport diagrams for all airports with IFR procedures.

The proposal (detailed FAA briefing here) was discussed at the April 25-26, 2018 meeting of the Aeronautical Charting Forum (complete meeting minutes here).

FAA currently produces:

  • 700 airport diagrams
  • 3000 airport sketches in the Chart Supplement
  • 3000 inset diagrams on terminal procedure charts


The detailed proposal includes the following key points:

  • Eliminate Terminal and Chart Supplement Sketches.
  • All hard-surfaced runway public use airports with IFR procedures will have a published airport diagram.
  • Eliminate cultural features such as trees, creeks, water and power lines etc.
  • Change diagram specifications to incorporate information from the chart supplement and terminal chart sketches.
  • Add geo-referenced information for real-world location and for future data driven product development.

FAA argued that the proposed charting change would:

  • Eliminate maintenance of three types of airport layouts.
  • Create a single standard Airport Diagram for all airports.
  • Print one diagram in one publication (currently printed 4 ways).
  • Free up space in the TPP plate for more relevant procedural information
  • Provide a more robust product.
  • Streamline internal production processes.
  • Deliver a more accurate and updated product.

An FAA representative noted that Jeppesen does not publish inset sketches on its terminal charts. Adopting this proposal would follow that practice.

The proposal generated detailed discussion, and FAA solicited comments from users and organizations such as AOPA.

Cloud Surfing

A few minutes of flying among the clouds during a couple of IFR flights in the Pacific Northwest.

More videos at my YouTube channel, BruceAirFlying.

Setting the CDI on a Conventional Approach (The “Kill Switch”)

If you fly an aircraft with an IFR-approved GNSS, you probably use that “suitable RNAV system” to help you fly all types of approaches, including ILS, LOC, and VOR procedures. In fact, if your aircraft isn’t equipped with DME or ADF, using an IFR-approved GNSS system may be the only way for you to fly many conventional procedures.

“Suitable RNAV systems” based on GNSS are described in AIM 1−2−3. Use of Suitable Area Navigation (RNAV) Systems on Conventional Procedures and Routes, AC 90−100, AC 90-108, and other FAA references.

For more information about the use of GPS along the final approach course of a VOR or NDB approach, see Use of GPS on Conventional Approaches (Update)

A critical step in flying conventional approaches while using GNSS to fly transitions/feeder routes is ensuring that the proper guidance is shown on the PFD/HSI as you intercept and then fly the final approach course.

For example, as shown below, when flying the LOC RWY 17 approach at Aurora, OR (KUAO), you could use the GNSS for course guidance as you fly the charted transition from the Battleground (BTG) VOR.



Some systems can automatically switch the CDI from the “magenta line” shown when using GNSS signals to “green needles,” usually labeled VOR/LOC, as you intercept final. But you must always monitor the avionics and, if necessary, use the CDI button (or other switch for your system) to change to VOR/LOC “green needles” before you join the final approach course.


For more information about guidance along the final approach course, see Use of IFR GPS on Conventional Approaches here at BruceAir.

Unfortunately, many pilots fail to confirm this critical step, which often occurs during a high-workload phase of an approach. For example, just as you are about to intercept the final approach course, ATC may issue a rapid-fire vector and approach clearance (“Fly heading 130, maintain 2,000 until established…”), you can be distracted while making a late configuration change, or while switching frequencies to the tower or CTAF.

In fact, this error is so common that many pilots and instructors call the CDI switch the “kill button” (or a similarly ominious name) to emphasize its importance.

I use a graphical reminder to help me ensure that I switch course guidance in plenty of time for a smooth intercept.

Like many pilots, I use a tablet and an aviation app (in my case, primarily ForeFlight) to display charts. Those apps typically have an annotation feature that lets you mark up charts to emphasize important information.


For example, on this chart for another approach at KUAO, I’ve noted a temporary change in minimums.


To remind myself to switch the CDI to “green needles” on conventional approaches, I use the annotation feature to draw a transparent green line along the final approach course.


I mark up the charts for conventional approaches during my preflight planning as I review weather, NOTAMs, procedures that I might fly, and other details.

I organize approaches that I fly often into binders in ForeFlight (other apps have a similar feature), and the markups are preserved between flights, so I don’t have to repeat this process for most of the procedures that I fly.

Because RNAV (GPS) approaches don’t require changing from GNSS guidance, I don’t highlight the final approach segment on those procedures.

To avoid cluttering charts, I also don’t mark the intial steps of a missed approach in magenta to signify that I can return to GNSS guidance to fly the miss, regardless of the type of approach. But if you’re in IFR training or new to using GNSS under IFR, highlighting the miss in magenta might be a useful reminder.