UH-60M & GPS Approaches

[zVo]

Anyone in the H-60 community have the "latest & greatest" on when the M model is supposed to be upgraded to a non-corruptible GPS database? I hear answers ranging from "Build 3 / the next software update" all the way to "not until you're ready to retire" with the latter, in my opinion, being the most likely.

 

I've looked into it myself and I haven't found anything concrete. It's going to get interesting as the FAA's NextGen program is pushing for the shutdown of VORs (or simply not repairing them as they break). I liked how back in flight school IERW instrument phase, the instrument-equipped, 15-to-20 year-old TH-67s even had Garmin 430's that allowed us to do RNAV approaches, but the brand new Sikorsky Black Hawk is lagging way behind in comparison to commercial aviation. My local flying area at my post has broken VORs & NDBs everywhere and the FAA has no plan on fixing them... it'd be nice to do an RNAV approach sometime.

[Joe_P148]

Correct me if I am wrong but the 60M has a Tacan/ DME package?

 

I cannot honestly understand why the 60M did not get an IFR certified GPS. After speaking with a 60M pilot I think we came to the conclusion that it either had something to do with A. the Dual EGI set up not being compatible with RAIM on the GPS 128D... or B. That the politics of the U.S. Army acquisitions department have prevailed over providing the Army Aviation with functional and up to date equipment.

 

I honestly think is has to do with the EGI's. With the 128D on the UH-60L you can isolate to GPS only inputs and completely disregard the Doppler, which is an old inertial based system, similar to EGI but without the lasers. I do know that there are commercial aircraft with RNAV capabilities that fly GPS but I believe that GPS receives its satellites from a different source.

 

Also, I don't think that the fix for the UH-60M is solvable with a mod similar to the UH60L receiving the 128D. This is why the Army is probably dragging their feet on the update. Cost vs functionality. Although it is an important upgrade it isn't absolutely necessary just yet.

 

As for your timeline, don't expect it anytime soon. You can enjoy the fact that the 60L guys are flying 20 year old plus aircraft and doing RNAV approaches.

[zVo]

You are correct, -60M has DME/TACAN.

 

Interesting. When you make the comparison of Doppler to the Embedded/GPS Inertial system, it makes sense as a possibility. The EGI (in layman's terms, as I understand it) uses its GPS functionality only to cross-reference the inertial system + gyro-compass for digital pitch/roll/yaw for accuracy.

 

When I was doing the Mike model transition, the explanation we received was that the 60M is capable of performing RNAV/VNAV approaches except the GPS database is corruptible, therefore illegal to use for primary IFR navigation. They insisted it was a limitation of the software build as they displayed an official Sikorsky development map for future revisions of the 60M and 'IFR GPS Approaches' was on it. I'm not ruling out the ability of a software upgrade like a lot of people seem to think it is, but I think you're on to something that it may be a limitation of the hardware and requires an upgrade rather than a mod.

[d10]

The 60M does have TACAN/DME. I think it was a cost/acquisitions issue more than a technical issue. But I'm just speculating, I don't have any info beyond that of a typical H-60M pilot.

 

Somewhat related, if you were to install an IFR certified Garmin 500 in an H-60M is there any reason why you wouldn't then be RNAV capable? A very smart pilot told me that's not necessarily good enough because it's a standalone system and the guidance isn't linked to the primary flight instruments or the flight director. I've never heard of that as a requirement and I can't find a reference though.

[wm200]

The requirement among other things is RAIM capability so it can correct errors. Thats probably what he meant.

[d10]

It has that. He was pretty clear about the issue being the navigation signals not being sent to the primary flight instruments and flight director.

[Velocity173]

It's a politics issue. I went through one of the early 128D classes in 2007. After a 2 hr presentation on it's new IFR capabilities I asked why it isn't precision (LPV) capable. I was told "because the Army doesn't want it that way." I found it funny that with the old B I could do quasi precision approaches (emergency) in the Landing Mode but this new D couldn't do it. All about the red tape certification process we have.

 

While I was glad we got the D, it still pales in comparison to a basic Garmin product. I've got an old 480 in my Velocity and it's capabilities are amazing. I can do a WAAS LPV into some small Podunk airport all IMC. And it has comm / VOR / ILS and a moving map!

 

It's not just the Army though. I've talked to an F-18 guy in the Navy and they have the same issues. It's difficult to cut through the regulatory BS to get quality avionics. The thing doesnt even have ILS! He said they finally got approval to use iPad minis in the cockpit. It's sad when some laptop technology gives you more SA than the installed avionics.

 

One of the problems with the IFR stuff is updating the database every 28 days. That's an AR 95-1 requirement but not for most civilian GPSs. When we first got 128Ds at Lowe no one wanted to take time to update the cards. That and the fact the thing isn't user friendly kept most of us from using it. Hopefully nowadays they're using the D in the IFR phase.

[Rob1237051]

Our unit was running those nice Garmin 430s but due to a problem with the contract we couldn't get the jeppson updates. There wasn't much I couldn't do on the 430...It even doubled as another civil band VHF. It was great for when I didn't want to screw with manual freqs in our multiband radios.

[wopilot]

It's a politics issue. I went through one of the early 128D classes in 2007. After a 2 hr presentation on it's new IFR capabilities I asked why it isn't precision (LPV) capable. I was told "because the Army doesn't want it that way." I found it funny that with the old B I could do quasi precision approaches (emergency) in the Landing Mode but this new D couldn't do it. All about the red tape certification process we have.

While I was glad we got the D, it still pales in comparison to a basic Garmin product. I've got an old 480 in my Velocity and it's capabilities are amazing. I can do a WAAS LPV into some small Podunk airport all IMC. And it has comm / VOR / ILS and a moving map!

It's not just the Army though. I've talked to an F-18 guy in the Navy and they have the same issues. It's difficult to cut through the regulatory BS to get quality avionics. The thing doesnt even have ILS! He said they finally got approval to use iPad minis in the cockpit. It's sad when some laptop technology gives you more SA than the installed avionics.

One of the problems with the IFR stuff is updating the database every 28 days. That's an AR 95-1 requirement but not for most civilian GPSs. When we first got 128Ds at Lowe no one wanted to take time to update the cards. That and the fact the thing isn't user friendly kept most of us from using it. Hopefully nowadays they're using the D in the IFR phase.

IFR updating every 28 days is an FAA rule that the army took to AR95-1, not the other way around. To be IFR current in any aircraft that claims a /G or WAAS capability, you MUST have an up to date database.

 

A/L models will have LPV and WAAS capability before the M.

 

Army is already testing WAAS in the LUH, and should be done soon

[wopilot]

The 60M does have TACAN/DME. I think it was a cost/acquisitions issue more than a technical issue. But I'm just speculating, I don't have any info beyond that of a typical H-60M pilot.

 

Somewhat related, if you were to install an IFR certified Garmin 500 in an H-60M is there any reason why you wouldn't then be RNAV capable? A very smart pilot told me that's not necessarily good enough because it's a standalone system and the guidance isn't linked to the primary flight instruments or the flight director. I've never heard of that as a requirement and I can't find a reference though.

Incorrect, the G500 (not IFR certified for helicopters by the way) uses a GTN or GNS WAAS navigator as its "FMS". Part 23, 25, and 27 aircraft can use this exact setup. HIRF/lightning is one of the reasons you cannot use the G500H in Part 29 for IFR ops, it is fully capable system wise to do so. In fact, you would get LPV and soon LP capability. The G500H becomes your primary flight instruments with a flight director also capable of integrating to an autopilot or SAS/CAS.

 

You should take a look at what Turkey is doing with their Hawks, adding a GTN 750 for this exact reason.

[Velocity173]

IFR updating every 28 days is an FAA rule that the army took to AR95-1, not the other way around. To be IFR current in any aircraft that claims a /G or WAAS capability, you MUST have an up to date database.

 

A/L models will have LPV and WAAS capability before the M.

 

Army is already testing WAAS in the LUH, and should be done soon

Negative. No requirement to have a current database for IFR ops with a WAAS GPS. It's all about what the RFM states. Some are approved for enroute nav with an expired database, some are approved for enroute and terminal. Our 407 has a 530W and the STC for it allows for the enroute and terminal navigation if the PIC compares the waypoints in the expired database with current approved waypoints. Most GPS manufacturers have this statement as well. You just have to check your particular POH / AFM and see what the wording says. Kinda like expired charts, the FAA doesn't have any regulatory stance in that. AOPA has a good online IFR GPS class which covers this.

 

AR 95-1 overrules all that and simply requires a current database for IFR ops. Of course there's a Y code requirement that a lot of people don't know about as well.

[Gomer Pylot]

FAA regulations have nothing to do with it. The military can fly IFR with whatever they want, because the FAA has no authority to regulate public use aircraft, including the military. Military regulations are the controlling authority, and each military service can write whatever it wants, allowing IFR approaches with whatever equipment it has or wants, including nothing at all. It matters not at all whether a device is IFR certified in civilian life, the military can use it at will. If there is any will.

[wopilot]

Negative. No requirement to have a current database for IFR ops with a WAAS GPS. It's all about what the RFM states. Some are approved for enroute nav with an expired database, some are approved for enroute and terminal. Our 407 has a 530W and the STC for it allows for the enroute and terminal navigation if the PIC compares the waypoints in the expired database with current approved waypoints. Most GPS manufacturers have this statement as well. You just have to check your particular POH / AFM and see what the wording says. Kinda like expired charts, the FAA doesn't have any regulatory stance in that. AOPA has a good online IFR GPS class which covers this.

AR 95-1 overrules all that and simply requires a current database for IFR ops. Of course there's a Y code requirement that a lot of people don't know about as well.

Your 407 is not a part 29 IFR certified aircraft either.

 

I can shoot approaches all day in VFR too, but IFR I could not if I didn't have an updated database.

[wopilot]

FAA regulations have nothing to do with it. The military can fly IFR with whatever they want, because the FAA has no authority to regulate public use aircraft, including the military. Military regulations are the controlling authority, and each military service can write whatever it wants, allowing IFR approaches with whatever equipment it has or wants, including nothing at all. It matters not at all whether a device is IFR certified in civilian life, the military can use it at will. If there is any will.

Nobody is saying FAA has authority to regulate the IFR regulations for the military. However, there are regulations that the Military uses FROM the FAA to write their own regs.

 

Also, to fly in the NAS, there are certain FAA requirements public use aircraft must meet in order to so so.

[Velocity173]

Your 407 is not a part 29 IFR certified aircraft either.

 

I can shoot approaches all day in VFR too, but IFR I could not if I didn't have an updated database.

I'm not referring to approaches. You brought up filing IFR / G. It's not about aircraft certification either. The TSO doesn't address database currency. The GPS manual or the AFM, RFM, and POH cover it. From Garmin's 430W manual:

 

Can I still file slant Golf ("/G") using my GPS?

 

Yes, you may file your flight plan as / G if your 400W series unit is an authorized IFR installation. The 400W series is a TSO C146a Gamma-3 (class 3) authorized GPS navigator. If you are flying ENROUTE you may file / G with an expired database only after you have verified all route waypoints. APPROACHES may not be flown with an expired database. See your approved airplane flight manual supplement for more information.

 

While our 407 isn't IFR certified, the install is if ever the aircraft becomes certified. That is why our supplement addresses verification of waypoints on an expired database.

 

Not that the AIM is regulatory but there is a new change regarding GPS approaches in table 1-1-6 GPS Approval Required / Authorized Use. Note 3 under IFR Approach:

 

3. Requires current database OR verification that the procedure has not been amended since the expiration of the database.

 

Personally I would use my airplane's Garmin 480 for enroute NAV with an expired database but do the visual or ILS once I arrive. But it's still legal to file / G for my route.

[wopilot]

We are on the same page now, I apologize for miscommunicating the filing and actual part.

 

And I agree, I have no issues flying regularly with out of date databases, but hard IFR or approaches are another.

I'm not referring to approaches. You brought up filing IFR / G. It's not about aircraft certification either. The TSO doesn't address database currency. The GPS manual or the AFM, RFM, and POH cover it. From Garmin's 430W manual:

Can I still file slant Golf ("/G") using my GPS?

Yes, you may file your flight plan as / G if your 400W series unit is an authorized IFR installation. The 400W series is a TSO C146a Gamma-3 (class 3) authorized GPS navigator. If you are flying ENROUTE you may file / G with an expired database only after you have verified all route waypoints. APPROACHES may not be flown with an expired database. See your approved airplane flight manual supplement for more information.

While our 407 isn't IFR certified, the install is if ever the aircraft becomes certified. That is why our supplement addresses verification of waypoints on an expired database.

Not that the AIM is regulatory but there is a new change regarding GPS approaches in table 1-1-6 GPS Approval Required / Authorized Use. Note 3 under IFR Approach:

3. Requires current database OR verification that the procedure has not been amended since the expiration of the database.

Personally I would use my airplane's Garmin 480 for enroute NAV with an expired database but do the visual or ILS once I arrive. But it's still legal to file / G for my route.

[Joe_P148]

Back to the UH60M debate, I don't think the EGI's is the primary reason for the 60M not having an IFR certified GPS. It's due to the software package and FMS interface that creates waypoints and couples them to the DAFCS and the MFD's. Furthermore, as you many have stated previously this FMS database is non corruptable and therefore not IFR capable.

 

I do not see the need to go through all of the AWR's and waivers necessary to outfit Army aircraft with civil IFR GPSs. Unless of course, a unit is deploying to a place where they will require the GPS as a primary form of IFR navigation.

 

But even in that case, in places like Afghanistan BDE and BN level SP's have been terping out thier own emergency GPS approaches to be used locally. So I don't really see the argument for the Army to spend millions if not billions, (I don't really know the figure), to re configure current M models for IFR GPS nav capabilities.

[wopilot]

Back to the UH60M debate, I don't think the EGI's is the primary reason for the 60M not having an IFR certified GPS. It's due to the software package and FMS interface that creates waypoints and couples them to the DAFCS and the MFD's. Furthermore, as you many have stated previously this FMS database is non corruptable and therefore not IFR capable.

 

I do not see the need to go through all of the AWR's and waivers necessary to outfit Army aircraft with civil IFR GPSs. Unless of course, a unit is deploying to a place where they will require the GPS as a primary form of IFR navigation.

 

But even in that case, in places like Afghanistan BDE and BN level SP's have been terping out thier own emergency GPS approaches to be used locally. So I don't really see the argument for the Army to spend millions if not billions, (I don't really know the figure), to re configure current M models for IFR GPS nav capabilities.

We literally ducktaped 430's in the cockpit of Apache's, and even in the E model, they have dual Garmin 430W's..so attaining an AWR from AETD 'shouldn't' be too hard to accomplish.

 

AETD is slowly learning that current up to date civil standards, are almost just as good as Mil Spec. Especially at the price point.

 

The fact of the matter is, the M should have been GPS IFR certified from the beginning, just like the Apache should have been IFR in at least the D.

[Velocity173]

Yeah I'm not sure the M guys would get much use out of an IFR GPS. How many long IFR cross countries are done in the States where direct would save significantly more time over ground NAVAIDs? How many times when you arrive at your destination do you really need to do a GPS approach? The 128D was a nice option and probably a pretty inexpensive mod. Transforming the M to an IFR GPS platform I imagine would be a bit pricey.

 

Of course in theater it wouldn't be of use anyway. Even when we finally got a certified GPS approach at Bagram it was still only used for VFR training or emergencies.

[wopilot]

It really depends on what NAVAIDS will still be there... obviously TACAN's longer than some.

 

If a WAAS approach could be substituted for an ILS, which LP will do that soon, it would be a matter of, how long before airports stop maintaining an expensive ILS system because they lose government funding.

 

Of course, something better will probably be out by the time this happens, but that would be pretty Army of them to have IFR GPS in time for that.

 

 

Yeah I'm not sure the M guys would get much use out of an IFR GPS. How many long IFR cross countries are done in the States where direct would save significantly more time over ground NAVAIDs? How many times when you arrive at your destination do you really need to do a GPS approach? The 128D was a nice option and probably a pretty inexpensive mod. Transforming the M to an IFR GPS platform I imagine would be a bit pricey.

Of course in theater it wouldn't be of use anyway. Even when we finally got a certified GPS approach at Bagram it was still only used for VFR training or emergencies.

[Joe_P148]

AWRs aren't the easiest to obtain. Duct taping avionics equipment in the cockpit is cool but I can bet $$ Huntsville will never approve that. It basically comes down to the crash sequence and items in the aircraft becoming projectiles.

 

Funny, I didn't think you apache guys wre that concerns with IFR flying anyways .

 

I have to concour with velocity, IFR GPS is nice but not necessary.

 

I don't think ILS is going away anytime soon. I could be wrong but even with lpv I see most of the commercial guys shooting the ILS with DME.

[CharyouTree]

One of the problems with the IFR stuff is updating the database every 28 days. That's an AR 95-1 requirement but not for most civilian GPSs. When we first got 128Ds at Lowe no one wanted to take time to update the cards. That and the fact the thing isn't user friendly kept most of us from using it. Hopefully nowadays they're using the D in the IFR phase.

When I left in January, it was still an issue. The only people that had the PCMCIA cards were BN guys, and NONE of the aircraft had the Y code installed. (Funnily enough, it's a requirement, and updating DAFIF reverts the GPS to Y mode, but you need to bring it back to M mode for IFR ops.). There was talk about the new mx contract requiring them to update the data and the codes, but I didn't see it happen.

[Joe_P148]

Im curious what you mean by updating the DAFIF reverts the GPS to Y mode? Yeah, PCMCIA cards seems to be an issue with every unit. Did anyone ever try ordering any through tech supply? I don't see the point in having the 128D mods if no one is going to use them? Furthermore, what's the point if they aren't going to teach the students how to use them either? It always pissed me off how Rucker never took the time to teach students the little things, which later become big things.

[Velocity173]

The type operation of the GPS 128B or D is affected by loading the DAFIF not the mode (M / Y). Also Y code (PPS) is required for IFR ops IAW AR-95-1. You'll see a lot of people say all GPSs are operating in PPS after the unscrambling of the satellites was lifted in 2000. Nope, that's only part of it. To be full up PPS you have to have the fill per DOD definition...no that's not Opsec either.

 

So at Rucker the first problem is none if those guys are going to take the time to load the PCMCIA cards and no way anyone is going out to all those aircraft with and ANCD / SKL and loading Y Code. In the civilian world these tasks are mostly done at the maintainence level. That was my recommendation when I was there. Or get someone sitting around in flight ops to update all the cards every 28 days.

Edited August 22, 2013 by Velocity173

[d10]

Also Y code (PPS) is required for IFR ops IAW AR-95-1.

 

Where does it say that?