What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

FAA Changes to IFR Requirements

Skybolt14

I'm New Here
The FAA has apparently changed the wording for IFR flight (91.205d):

"(d) Instrument flight rules. For IFR flight, the following instruments and equipment are required:
(1) Instruments and equipment specified in paragraph (b) of this section, and, for night flight, instruments and equipment specified in paragraph (c) of this section.
(2) Two-way radio communication and navigation equipment suitable for the route to be flown."

I used to say "land based", the FAA took it out. If I have an IFR cetified GPS (Garmin 300XL), I dont need a VOR any more to file and fly IFR? I have all the other equipment in the list.

Coments?
 
That wording is not new, IIRC it changed a few years ago. However, to fly with GPS as sole source I think you need a TS0 145/146 WAAS GPS navigator. It's all spelled out in Chapter 1 of the AIM. So IMO you still need the VOR even if you are filing /G unless the 300XL is a WAAS box.
 
Last edited:
Is the AIM regulatory? I don't think so.

In this case, the answer is 'sort of'. The legal term is 'regulatory by reference'. Here's the logic chain, that only a lawyer could love:
FAR91 says you have to use 'suitable' equipment.
'Suitable', as it pertains to use of GPS, is defined in FAR 1.1 (definitions). There's a lot of verbage there, but basically it says suitable is whatever the FAA says it is, in various non-regulatory publications including the AIM. So the gps part of the AIM is "regulatory by reference".

This is not the only example. For instance, the Practical Test Standards for instrument airplane contain a section on IPCs. Now the PTS is an advisory circular, not regulatory. But the FAA can make its employees and designees follow it. And CFIs giving IPCs have to follow it too, because the FARs now specifically reference it, for IPCs. "Regulatory by reference".
 
I standby my opinion that a non-WAAS, TSO 129 GPS is not approved for sole source enroute nav in the eyes of the FAA. However, at the end of the of the day it's just my opinion. In the standard certified world an STC and AFM/POH would provide the limitations. IMO E-ABs are admittedly in a gray area in that regard but I personally choose to follow the AIM religiously for all things IFR, but that's just me. YMMV. ....
 
Garmin 430 non waas

Todd,
There was something interesting in my log books about the 430 Nonwaas
installation I have that got my attention " The GPS system is supplemented by standard VOR/DME navigation for this aircraft" This has a ton of paperwork,FSDO,flight tests, flight manual supplements,etc but it is "IFR". Standard cat aircraft.

John
 
Todd,
There was something interesting in my log books about the 430 Nonwaas
installation I have that got my attention " The GPS system is supplemented by standard VOR/DME navigation for this aircraft" This has a ton of paperwork,FSDO,flight tests, flight manual supplements,etc but it is "IFR". Standard cat aircraft.

John

I got my IR in a non-WAAS G1000 172. I never said a non-WAAS TSO 129 GPS equipped aircraft can't file IFR /G -- it obviously can and I have the rating to prove it. What I'm saying is a non-WAAS GPS can't be the sole source (ie no other installed or operable Nav equipment on-board) Nav solution.

Here's my interpretation of what WAAS gets you in the IFR world:

1. Legally file and fly IFR with no other operable Nav equipment (eg no VOR/LOC/GS) -- Note: I'm not saying this is smart just legal
2. For alternates, you can plan to use GPS approaches at both the destination and the alternate
3. RNAV (GPS) approaches with vertical guidance (ie LPV, LNAV/VNAV) that can provide minimums equal to a precision approach
4. Eliminates the need for a pre-flight RAIM check
 
Last edited:
Back
Top