FAA Policy Change Voids Many IFR GPS Units

BuckWynd · #1 05-24-2007, 09:49 PM

This article forwarded from AvWeb, just in case some of you missed it:

"Many previously IFR-certified GPS receivers might now be unapproved for flying many instrument procedures due to recent FAA policy changes, according to AOPA.

On Thursday, the association said the FAA's Advisory Circular 90-100A, issued in March, indicates that only three GPS models -- the Garmin 400, 500 and G1000 series -- are now legal. Other models made by Garmin, including the new GNS 480 WAAS receiver, as well as receivers manufactured by Chelton, Honeywell, Northstar, and Trimble are listed as "non-compliant," AOPA said. The action means up to 26,000 GPS users no longer comply with a 1996 FAA policy that allows GPS to be used in lieu of ADF or DME.

"This doesn't make any sense. In most cases, this is not a safety of flight issue," said Randy Kenagy, AOPA senior director of strategic planning. "Pilots affected will lose access to approaches and published routes unnecessarily." AOPA has brought the matter to the FAA's attention, telling the FAA that all IFR-certified systems should still be approved for use in lieu of ADF and DME and for flying T routes and certain departure procedures where pilots manually enter the waypoints."

(Article by Chad Trautvetter, AvWeb Editor In Chief)

Bob Axsom · #2 05-25-2007, 03:49 AM

It is absolutely unbelievable (I saw the announcement on AvWeb) that the FAA would do such a thing. I have an SL-60 that is very accurate and reliable and has to be used at many airports these days because I don't have an ADF or DME and didn't need them when I built the plane. Even if they want to make a change existing systems should be grandfathered and there should be a phase in to allow the pipeline to clear out. The DOT/FAA have a responsibility to provide a reliable and stable air traffic system for the aviators and they are not living up to that responsibility.

Many years ago when I was in the military I was a member of an organization called AACS which provided the all of the USAF navaids, control centers (Area D in Korea, etc.), approach control (GCA, RAPCON, etc.), control towers, base weather, etc. I worked, ate and slept with air traffic control and electronic maintenance people and we were a proud bunch. I still sense that pride and responsibility when I communicate with controllers but I think management priorities and perhaps management disability are causing problems that will only get worse in the foreseeable future. FSS is already just a shell of its former self.

Bob Axsom

Brantel · #3 05-25-2007, 07:23 AM

Man this is bad....

Hopefully the efforts from the AOPA will get this fixed. Who comes up with this stuff?

PJSeipel · #4 05-25-2007, 08:28 AM

Geez. I bought a Garmin GNC300XL just a few months ago.

PJ
RV-10 #40032

rv7boy · #5 05-25-2007, 10:09 AM

Do you get the feeling that someone in the FAA is trying to squeeze us little guys out? Considering the debate about FAA funding, fuel taxes, user fees, etc. and then this, it is a little puzzling.

I have just inherited a 1969 C-172 with two NavComs, an ADF and a DME, Quite spiffy in its time. When we had it appraised for estate settlement purposes, I was very surprised to find out the avionics were basically a "no-adder" item. If it had any kind of panel mount GPS, it would have increased the value by $5,000. I wonder if that would be true in view of this recent FAA announcement.

And on Monday of this week, I was seriously thinking about shopping for a used Garmin 430. On the other hand, maybe they'll be an even better buy now!
Don

Pirkka · #6 05-25-2007, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rv7boy

Do you get the feeling that someone in the FAA is trying to squeeze us little guys out?

Or has Garmin been pushing this for FAA?

RVbySDI · #7 05-25-2007, 10:30 AM

I think it should be a mandatory requirement for all rules makers at FAA (especially the head FAA talking head) be pilots. If any employee is appointed to a rule making committee they should have first hand pilot experience dealing with whatever that rule is affecting. Perhaps that would weed out some of those people who are just on the dole for a paycheck. Maybe we could then have an environment in the FAA where realistic meaningful decisions can be made.

I know, I know, a pipe dream! But, hey, a fella can dream can't he?

dan · #8 05-25-2007, 10:32 AM

AOPA is sensationalizing as usual. Read AC90-100a and tell me if it really does apply to YOU.

Quote:

b. Applicability of AC 90-100A. AC 90-100A applies to operation on U.S. Area Navigation (RNAV) routes (Q-routes and T-routes), Departure Procedures (Obstacle Departure Procedures and Standard Instrument Departures), and Standard Terminal Arrivals (STARs). It does not apply to over water RNAV routes (ref 14 CFR 91.511, including the Q-routes in the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic routes) or Alaska VOR/DME RNAV routes ("JxxxR"). It does not apply to off-route RNAV operations, Alaska GPS routes or Caribbean routes, or helicopter operations involving offshore or specific heliport procedures.

If I'm going to take this AC seriously (and not just assume that AOPA is sensationalizing to rationalize its own existence), then somebody needs to tell me EXACTLY:

a) What I no longer can do with my TSOC129a Class A1 GX60.
b) If this even really does affect my IFR operations.
c) What exactly (i.e. according to the performance criteria laid out in AC90-100a) the non-compliance is.

Until then, it's business as usual for me.

az_gila · #9 05-25-2007, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dan

AOPA is sensationalizing as usual. Read AC90-100a and tell me if it really does apply to YOU.

If I'm going to take this AC seriously (and not just assume that AOPA is sensationalizing to rationalize its own existence), then somebody needs to tell me EXACTLY:

a) What I no longer can do with my TSOC129a Class A1 GX60.
b) If this even really does affect my IFR operations.
c) What exactly (i.e. according to the performance criteria laid out in AC90-100a) the non-compliance is.

Until then, it's business as usual for me.

Dan... the non-compliance is detailed here in a separate Excel document on the FAA web site...

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...compliance.xls

Seems to be a question with the selection of approaches by name, and a level of approval of the database...

"Apollo GX50
Apollo GX55
Apollo GX60
Apollo GX65"

ALL

ALL

NO, TSO-C129a but not compliant due to equipment limitation that prevents selection of named departure and/or arrival procedures. No plans to obtain Type 2 LOA for navigation database.

N/A. ?N/A? in the ?DME/DME(/IRU) Eligibility? column means that the listed model does not include any DME/DME navigation function.

gil in Tucson.... glad to be VFR at this time....

DGlaeser · #10 05-25-2007, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dan

AOPA is sensationalizing as usual. Read AC90-100a and tell me if it really does apply to YOU.

If I'm going to take this AC seriously (and not just assume that AOPA is sensationalizing to rationalize its own existence), then somebody needs to tell me EXACTLY:
a) What I no longer can do with my TSOC129a Class A1 GX60.
b) If this even really does affect my IFR operations.
c) What exactly (i.e. according to the performance criteria laid out in AC90-100a) the non-compliance is.
Until then, it's business as usual for me.

The way I read it, this affects the use of GPS to replace DME fixes and NDBs. So, for instance, what you'd no longer be able to do is use a GPS for an NDB approach, or use GPS to replace a DME fix on any approach. If there is a defined GPS approach you can use instead, it's no big deal. If the DME or NDB fixes are all that's there, you're out of luck. If the NDB is the only FAF specified for an ILS, that may be another one.
I don't think the AOPA is sensationalizing, I think they are calling the FAA to task for another unjustified change in policy. If they get away with this one, what's next?