Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 07:00 AM - Re: Converting IFR GPS to Terminal (Brian Lloyd)
2. 07:33 AM - Re: Converting IFR GPS to Terminal (Greg Young)
3. 07:43 AM - Re: Converting IFR GPS to Terminal (BobsV35B@aol.com)
4. 07:46 AM - Using a 396 for IFR, was: Converting IFR GPS to Terminal (BobsV35B@aol.com)
5. 08:37 AM - Re: Converting IFR GPS to Terminal (Alan K. Adamson)
6. 09:46 AM - Audio Isolation Amplifier (Mitchell Faatz)
7. 10:49 AM - Re: Using a 396 for IFR, was: Converting IFR GPS to Terminal (Greg Young)
8. 12:20 PM - Re: Audio Isolation Amplifier (Brian Lloyd)
9. 01:43 PM - Using a 396 for IFR, was: Converting IFR GPS to Terminal (BobsV35B@aol.com)
10. 02:51 PM - Re: Charging system failure (DAVID REEL)
11. 02:54 PM - FW: Alternator Voltage Spikes (Rogers, Bob J.)
12. 03:03 PM - Alternator set poiint, Was: Charging system failure (BobsV35B@aol.com)
13. 03:07 PM - Re: Using a 396 for IFR, was: Converting IFR GPS to Terminal (richard titsworth)
14. 04:59 PM - Re: Using a 396 for IFR, was: Converting IFR GPS to Terminal (Alan K. Adamson)
15. 07:42 PM - Use of GPS in lieu of ADF and DME, was: Converting IFR GPS to Terminal (BobsV35B@aol.com)
16. 08:17 PM - Re: Use of GPS in lieu of ADF and DME, was: Converting IFR GPS to Terminal (Kelly McMullen)
17. 08:47 PM - Re: Use of GPS in lieu of ADF and DME, was: Converting IF... (BobsV35B@aol.com)
18. 10:19 PM - Re: Use of GPS in lieu of ADF and DME, was: Converting IFR GPS to Terminal (richard titsworth)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Converting IFR GPS to Terminal |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
On May 3, 2006, at 10:28 PM, DEAN PSIROPOULOS wrote:
> I have a Tommorrow (UPS AT) GX-65 GPS/COM. This unit can be used for
> En-route IFR operations and has a TSO-C129a Class A2
> certification. This is
> basically the same unit as the GX-60 which is also certified for IFR
> terminal and approach operations. My question is this, I'm
> guessing that
> the only difference between the GX60 and 65 is the operational
> software
> load. It may even be as simple as a change to a software
> configuration
> table that activates additional features to enable the terminal and
> approach
> capabilities. So.....is there any ex-UPS Aviation Technologies
> employees
> lurking on this list that can tell me if my hypothesis is correct?
> And if
> it is, would they be willing to help me get this software load
> configured so
> I can do approach and terminal ops with the GX65? Since the GX
> series is no
> longer sold (now that Garmin has taken over UPS AT) I can't get my
> GX-65
> upgraded to a GX-60 by sending it back to the factory. I'm not too
> keen on
> buying a Garmin 430 at this point (every time I think I'm done
> spending
> money on this airplane something else comes along) so I'm looking
> for some
> compromise here that won't break the bank.
Unfortunately there is no way short of the factory of getting your
GX65 to become a GX60. You are making the mistake of thinking that if
it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims in your pond that
it must be a duck. This is not true from the point of view of the
FAA. The sticker on the back says it is a GX65 so therefore it is a
GX65 no matter what you do to it. Only the manufacturer can change
that with the blessing of the FAA. (Yeah, I know; if it walked like a
GX60, quacked like a GX60, and swam an approach like a GX60 I might
be tempted to call it a GX60 too ... until the ramp check. But the
inspector probably wouldn't know enough to figure out what to look
for so even then you would probably get away with it.)
OTOH, have you actually called Garmin to ask them if it is possible
to trade your GX65 and some money for a GX60? (Lovely radio by the
way. I have one in my Aztec.) They are still supporting that radio
with repairs and spare parts. I am sure they have a couple of units
on the shelf for swap-out. Perhaps you can get a GX60 that way.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Converting IFR GPS to Terminal |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Greg Young <gyoung@cs-sol.com>
I suspect there is more than just a software load. IIRC my upgrade cost ~$1=
000 & came back with a new front panel at least so I hope there was more to=
it than the name change. RAIM probably has a hardware component. Also had =
all new manuals which were required for a certified install. Have you actua=
lly checked with Garmin? They still repair them and have a stockpile of par=
ts. Alternatively, you could probably sell your GX-65 and buy a GX-60 for a=
$500-1000 difference. Or get a Garmin 396 for the approaches. The 396 blow=
s away the GX-60 and I fly with both GX-60 in my Navion.
Greg Young
From: DEAN PSIROPOULOS
Sent: Thu 5/4/2006 12:28 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Converting IFR GPS to Terminal
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoul=
os@verizon.net>
I have a Tommorrow (UPS AT) GX-65 GPS/COM. This unit can be used for
En-route IFR operations and has a TSO-C129a Class A2 certification. This i=
s
basically the same unit as the GX-60 which is also certified for IFR
terminal and approach operations. My question is this, I'm guessing that
the only difference between the GX60 and 65 is the operational software
load. It may even be as simple as a change to a software configuration
table that activates additional features to enable the terminal and approac=
h
capabilities. So.....is there any ex-UPS Aviation Technologies employees
lurking on this list that can tell me if my hypothesis is correct? And if
it is, would they be willing to help me get this software load configured s=
o
I can do approach and terminal ops with the GX65? Since the GX series is no
longer sold (now that Garmin has taken over UPS AT) I can't get my GX-65
upgraded to a GX-60 by sending it back to the factory. I'm not too keen on
buying a Garmin 430 at this point (every time I think I'm done spending
money on this airplane something else comes along) so I'm looking for some
compromise here that won't break the bank.
Dean Psiropoulos
RV-6A N197DM
Finishing panel and wiring, ya hoo!!!=20
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Converting IFR GPS to Terminal |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
Good Morning Dean,
Do you really need the approach capability?
Your current set has enroute and terminal capability provided that it has
been installed correctly for those functions.
That capability is adequate for the set to be used in lieu of ADF and DME
anywhere within the US National Airspace System.
While having approach capability is very handy at those airports that have
only GPS approaches available, having the "In Lieu Of provision" is very
helpful at those airports where many approaches are listed as requiring an ADF
or
the use of DME.
Any time those restrictions are in the approach name or listed as a
requirement for the approach, the GPS may be used in lieu of the ADF or DME. The
only
occasion when your GPS cannot be used in lieu of an ADF is when your are
executing an NDB approach. It can be used for ALL DME purposes.
That unit of your's is a very good addition to any IFR airplane.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
On May 3, 2006, at 10:28 PM, DEAN PSIROPOULOS wrote:
> I have a Tommorrow (UPS AT) GX-65 GPS/COM. This unit can be used for
> En-route IFR operations and has a TSO-C129a Class A2
> certification. This is
> basically the same unit as the GX-60 which is also certified for IFR
> terminal and approach operations. My question is this, I'm
> guessing that
> the only difference between the GX60 and 65 is the operational
> software
> load. It may even be as simple as a change to a software
> configuration
> table that activates additional features to enable the terminal and
> approach
> capabilities. So.....is there any ex-UPS Aviation Technologies
> employees
> lurking on this list that can tell me if my hypothesis is correct?
> And if
> it is, would they be willing to help me get this software load
> configured so
> I can do approach and terminal ops with the GX65? Since the GX
> series is no
> longer sold (now that Garmin has taken over UPS AT) I can't get my
> GX-65
> upgraded to a GX-60 by sending it back to the factory. I'm not too
> keen on
> buying a Garmin 430 at this point (every time I think I'm done
> spending
> money on this airplane something else comes along) so I'm looking
> for some
> compromise here that won't break the bank.
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Using a 396 for IFR, was: Converting IFR GPS to Terminal |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
Good Morning Greg,
Just to be clear, let's not forget to mention that the 396 is NOT approved
for any IFR function and especially not for approaches.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 5/4/2006 9:35:00 A.M. Central Standard Time,
gyoung@cs-sol.com writes:
Or get a Garmin 396 for the approaches.
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Converting IFR GPS to Terminal |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson@highrf.com>
One BIG NOTE on the 396 for approaches.... Well actually 2, but I'll assume
everyone knows it *also* is not approach certified.
Ok, to the point, while it does have a Jeppesen database in it and it *does*
have approaches in it..... I'm pretty sure that the approaches in the 396
are *ONLY* from the FAF inbound. They full approaches are not there. In
other words if you were assigned the full GPS-xx approach, you wouldn't have
the IAF as the first waypoint. Not a problem when on radar vectors, but a
major problem if you aren't.
Just my .02
Alan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Greg
Young
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 10:31 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Converting IFR GPS to Terminal
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Greg Young <gyoung@cs-sol.com>
I suspect there is more than just a software load. IIRC my upgrade cost ~$1=
000 & came back with a new front panel at least so I hope there was more to=
it than the name change. RAIM probably has a hardware component. Also had =
all new manuals which were required for a certified install. Have you actua=
lly checked with Garmin? They still repair them and have a stockpile of par=
ts. Alternatively, you could probably sell your GX-65 and buy a GX-60 for a=
$500-1000 difference. Or get a Garmin 396 for the approaches. The 396 blow=
s away the GX-60 and I fly with both GX-60 in my Navion.
Greg Young
From: DEAN PSIROPOULOS
Sent: Thu 5/4/2006 12:28 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Converting IFR GPS to Terminal
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "DEAN PSIROPOULOS"
--> <dean.psiropoul=
os@verizon.net>
I have a Tommorrow (UPS AT) GX-65 GPS/COM. This unit can be used for
En-route IFR operations and has a TSO-C129a Class A2 certification. This i=
s basically the same unit as the GX-60 which is also certified for IFR
terminal and approach operations. My question is this, I'm guessing that
the only difference between the GX60 and 65 is the operational software
load. It may even be as simple as a change to a software configuration
table that activates additional features to enable the terminal and approac=
h capabilities. So.....is there any ex-UPS Aviation Technologies employees
lurking on this list that can tell me if my hypothesis is correct? And if
it is, would they be willing to help me get this software load configured s=
o I can do approach and terminal ops with the GX65? Since the GX series is
no longer sold (now that Garmin has taken over UPS AT) I can't get my GX-65
upgraded to a GX-60 by sending it back to the factory. I'm not too keen on
buying a Garmin 430 at this point (every time I think I'm done spending
money on this airplane something else comes along) so I'm looking for some
compromise here that won't break the bank.
Dean Psiropoulos
RV-6A N197DM
Finishing panel and wiring, ya hoo!!!=20
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Audio Isolation Amplifier |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mitchell Faatz <mitch@skybound.com>
Hey Bob & everybody -
I've got a Garmin 430, 330, and my own "box" (moving map & stereo music
for our discussion here). I also have audio from an RST Marker Beacon,
maybe a warning tone or two, and in the future perhaps from a Nav 122D.
I have no audio panel, and a NAT stereo intercom. The NAT has balance
controls so I can have COM more in the left ear, and intercom more in
the right ear.
Should I just build the iso amp project as a mono board and use it to
combine NAV and warning tones and pipe that into that NATs "aux" audio
input? And then run my box's output to NAT's music in, and COM direct
to the NAT?
Thanks for any help on this -
Mitch Faatz RV-6A Finish Kit Auburn, CA
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Using a 396 for IFR, was: Converting IFR GPS to |
Terminal
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Greg Young" <gyoung@cs-sol.com>
Nor would his modified GX-65 be approved for anything (even VFR) after
the mod. That's his choice. For me, I fly with an approach certified
GX-60 and SL-30 in my Navion and will have the same in my RV-6. But the
396 is a damn fine backup.
Regards,
Greg
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>
>
>
> Good Morning Greg,
>
> Just to be clear, let's not forget to mention that the 396 is
> NOT approved for any IFR function and especially not for approaches.
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Ancient Aviator
> Stearman N3977A
> Brookeridge Air Park LL22
> Downers Grove, IL 60516
> 630 985-8503
>
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Audio Isolation Amplifier |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Mitchell Faatz wrote:
> Should I just build the iso amp project as a mono board and use it to
> combine NAV and warning tones and pipe that into that NATs "aux" audio
> input? And then run my box's output to NAT's music in, and COM direct
> to the NAT?
>
> Thanks for any help on this -
Well, first you need to think about what you want to do. How many audio
sources do you have? Which ones do you want to be able to switch on and
off? (To be honest, you will probably want to be able to switch all your
audio sources.) Which ones are stereo and which are mono? Which ones do
you want to have precedence? Some audio panels will drop the volume or
mute some source when others become active, e.g. music will mute when
you receive something on the comm.
What about integrating a handheld or a cell phone? Every audio system I
do in the future will have provision to patch in a cell phone so I can
make a call while using the standard aircraft headsets as I often end up
sitting at the end of a runway waiting for an IFR release over the phone
from FSS.
Then you need to think about how you are going to handle transmitters.
Do you have two comms? Do you want to be able to use them separately,
i.e. with the left seat talking on comm one while the right seat is
talking on comm two?
Lay out your logic for what goes where then we can tackle how to do it.
Brian Lloyd
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Using a 396 for IFR, was: Converting IFR GPS to Terminal |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
Good Afternoon Greg,
Not to belabor the point, but, if he has the set modified and/or upgraded by
Garmin, I think it is reasonable that it would be approvable for approach
purposes.
As the set is right now, before any change or modification, it is approvable
to be used for the vast majority of operations conducted by most IFR pilots.
It can be used for all enroute and terminal purposes including as a
substitute for the ADF and DME on any approach that requires those items.
My comments were meant to encourage the use of the set 'as is' for legal,
not emergency purposes. In an emergency, anything that is helpful could and
should be used.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 5/4/2006 12:52:08 P.M. Central Standard Time,
gyoung@cs-sol.com writes:
Nor would his modified GX-65 be approved for anything (even VFR) after
the mod. That's his choice. For me, I fly with an approach certified
GX-60 and SL-30 in my Navion and will have the same in my RV-6. But the
396 is a damn fine backup.
Regards,
Greg
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Charging system failure |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "DAVID REEL" <dreel@cox.net>
To continue the saga, 45 minutes into my first flight with the new voltage
regulator, I got another overvoltage crowbar event. A 10 amp fuse blew
before the 5 amp circuit breaker that protects the alternator field circuit.
Back on the ground I replaced the fuse with a 22awg 5" long fuselink made up
from one of Bob's kits. Then I ran the engine to see what the voltage
regulator was doing. The starting battery voltage was 12.6. After a few
minutes idling the buss voltage settled to 14.3 volts. Pretty steady. Then
I turned on some loads, my only significant one being the Whelen strobe
lights. The voltage became unstable, jumping up to 14.6 and back down to
14.3. I'm thinking this relates to Bob's remark about the unstability of
regulators that use the field circuit to sense bus voltage. I wonder if
anyone can explain the mechanism for this instability. In particular, I'm
wondering if, as the battery gets a full charge & stops providing a large
proportion of the load, a varying load such as the strobes could cause it to
burp up to 16 volts or more occasionally? This regulator seemed to settle
on 14.8 volts when the battery was fully charged.
I've just recieved Van's variable voltage regulator & will be installing
this. Think I'll set it low, maybe 13.8v, to try and eliminate these
crowbar events. Certainly, 14.8 volts seems to start overcharging the
battery almost immediately & is way overkill. Have others used lower
charging voltages successfully?
Dave
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | FW: Alternator Voltage Spikes |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rogers, Bob J." <BRogers@fdic.gov>
Do you think the assertion below is true(that there are 200 volt spikes
when starting)?
-----Original Message-----
From: Rotary Engine [mailto:rotaryeng@earthlink.net]
Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 5:44 PM
Subject: Alternator Voltage Spikes
Subject: Alternator Voltage Spikes
I have been noticing all the comments about voltage spikes during
starting/shutdown. One poster mentioned that a battery couldn't put out
200
volts, so I thought I would toss my 2 cents in. I worked for several
years
as an IC design manager at Texas Instruments in the automotive group
where
we designed ICs for automotive regulators. I will assure you that
charging
systems for cars (and airplanes) do indeed put out spikes well over 200
volts when the alternator is rotating very slowly. This voltage can
easily
cause oxide failure, known as 'punch-through', which shorts VCC and
Ground
inside the IC. Once that happens, heavy current flows through the IC
causing
the smoke stored in the IC to escape. ICs don't work once you let the
smoke
out! :-) To understand how a 12 volt battery/alternator can put out a
high
voltage, you have to understand that in an inductor (i.e. the windings
of
the alternator), the voltage across the inductor is equal to L*di/dt, or
the
Inductance of the winding times the rate of change of the current
through
the inductor. If you attempt to instantly stop or start the current
through
an inductor, di/dt will become very large, and the voltage will increase
to
whatever level necessary to collapse or create the magnetic field around
the
inductor. When an alternator is turned very slowly, there are points
where
the windings are open circuited (or routed through high resistance
paths)
which causes voltages to rise to the level that breaks down the primary
protection - around 200 volts. In an automobile, there is a highly
reliable
circuit that disconnects the radio bus from the charging bus during
start
and shut-down to protect equipment from these spikes. This is what
Cessna
attempted to do with some aircraft, but the circuit they used is
somewhat
crude and potentially unreliable, so people disconnected its output that
was
supposed to control the avionics power relay, and rewired this relay to
be
controlled by a simple switch on the panel.
Marc Wiese
The Rotary Engine NewsLetter. Powered by Linux.
ACRE NL web site. http://www.rotaryeng.net
Copyright 1998-2006 All world wide rights reserved.
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Alternator set poiint, Was: Charging system failure |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
Good Afternoon Dave,
I have set one for 14.2. That was on the advice of the Concorde battery
folks and the manufacturer of the solid state regulator used on the airplane.
It seems to have worked very well for the last two hundred hours or so that
have been put on the airplane since the installation was made.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 5/4/2006 4:53:00 P.M. Central Standard Time,
dreel@cox.net writes:
I've just received Van's variable voltage regulator & will be installing
this. Think I'll set it low, maybe 13.8v, to try and eliminate these
crowbar events. Certainly, 14.8 volts seems to start overcharging the
battery almost immediately & is way overkill. Have others used lower
charging voltages successfully?
Dave
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Using a 396 for IFR, was: Converting IFR GPS to |
Terminal
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "richard titsworth" <rtitsworth@mindspring.com>
FYI...
Someone may want to further investigate/verify this but I believe the
following comment (from below) is not 100% legally correct.
"It [GPS] can be used for all enroute and terminal purposes including as a
substitute for the ADF and DME on any approach that requires those items."
I believe the correct comment is:
The GPS can be used for the ADF and/or DME on "most" (not "any") approach
that requires those.
The nuance is where/why the NDB and/or DME is required for the approach....
If the requirement is in the title (name) of the approach, then the NDB
and/or DME facility is necessary for the final leg (FAF -> Runway) and
CANNOT be substituted with the GPS unless GPS is also in the title (it
frequently is for many NDB approaches, but not "all").
That is why/how approaches are named and why some are titled "NDB or GPS"
and others are titled "NDB". Why would there be a difference if GPS could
be substituted for any [all] NDB's. For reference look up the [Anderson]
AID NDB or GPS rwy 30 approach and compare it to the [Angola] ANQ NDB rwy5
approach.
http://download.aopa.org/iap/20060413/EC-2/aid_ndb_or_gps_rwy_30.pdf
http://download.aopa.org/iap/20060413/EC-2/anq_ndb_rwy_05.pdf
If you page though an approach plate book you'll find similar examples.
However, if the required NDB and/or DME facility is for another part of the
approach, such as the missed procedure or an approach with a single IAF,
then it will appear on the plan view as text such as "DME Required". The
GPS CAN be used as a substitute for these (i.e. the DME is not required - a
bit counter-intuitive)
For example reference the [Akron] AKR LOC rwy25 approach (where the NDB is
the only IAF):
http://download.aopa.org/iap/20060413/EC-2/akr_loc_rwy_25.pdf
If the NDB and/or DME is used for another aspect of the approach or an
optional IAF or alternate DME minimum then it will not be noted as required
and the GPS CAN also be substituted.
The GPS can also be substituted for IFR enroute fixes (assuming the aircraft
is also equipped with "ground based navigational instruments appropriate to
the flight"). I understand that to mean that you must have some appropriate
ground based equipment on board and functional (i.e. a VOR).
I'm not the expert, so someone may want to verify (or correct me) on this.
The whole topic can be pretty confusing. I'll do some digging myself for
appropriate AC, FAR, and/or AIM references.
Rick Titsworth
C172 w/Bendix King KN94 IFR Cert GPS (enroute and approach)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
BobsV35B@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 4:36 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Using a 396 for IFR, was: Converting IFR GPS to
Terminal
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
Good Afternoon Greg,
Not to belabor the point, but, if he has the set modified and/or upgraded
by
Garmin, I think it is reasonable that it would be approvable for approach
purposes.
As the set is right now, before any change or modification, it is
approvable
to be used for the vast majority of operations conducted by most IFR
pilots.
It can be used for all enroute and terminal purposes including as a
substitute for the ADF and DME on any approach that requires those items.
My comments were meant to encourage the use of the set 'as is' for legal,
not emergency purposes. In an emergency, anything that is helpful could and
should be used.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Using a 396 for IFR, was: Converting IFR GPS to |
Terminal
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson@highrf.com>
Rick...
I *think*, and can't find the info right now.... But...
When the FAA first issued the directive of GPS use in place of DME, NDB, it
was as you stated. However it was later refined to remove those
exclusions... (with the standard exceptions of alternates and no use of GPS
approach if the *only* approach)
I'd have to go dig and it isn't really of interest, but either on the EAA or
the AOPA site, the last refinement was posted.
YMMV and I didn't stay in a Holiday Inn last night,
Don't matter for me anyway, the Dual Chelton will pass TSO-146a (FMS spec
for WAAS), and with the freeflight GPS, it will also satisfy TSO-145a (WAAS
GPS spec). Only internal displayed GPS in my panel will be a 396 in a
GizmoDoc for backup :)...
Alan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of richard
titsworth
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 6:03 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Using a 396 for IFR, was: Converting IFR GPS
to Terminal
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "richard titsworth"
--> <rtitsworth@mindspring.com>
FYI...
Someone may want to further investigate/verify this but I believe the
following comment (from below) is not 100% legally correct.
"It [GPS] can be used for all enroute and terminal purposes including as a
substitute for the ADF and DME on any approach that requires those items."
I believe the correct comment is:
The GPS can be used for the ADF and/or DME on "most" (not "any") approach
that requires those.
The nuance is where/why the NDB and/or DME is required for the approach....
If the requirement is in the title (name) of the approach, then the NDB
and/or DME facility is necessary for the final leg (FAF -> Runway) and
CANNOT be substituted with the GPS unless GPS is also in the title (it
frequently is for many NDB approaches, but not "all").
That is why/how approaches are named and why some are titled "NDB or GPS"
and others are titled "NDB". Why would there be a difference if GPS could
be substituted for any [all] NDB's. For reference look up the [Anderson]
AID NDB or GPS rwy 30 approach and compare it to the [Angola] ANQ NDB rwy5
approach.
http://download.aopa.org/iap/20060413/EC-2/aid_ndb_or_gps_rwy_30.pdf
http://download.aopa.org/iap/20060413/EC-2/anq_ndb_rwy_05.pdf
If you page though an approach plate book you'll find similar examples.
However, if the required NDB and/or DME facility is for another part of the
approach, such as the missed procedure or an approach with a single IAF,
then it will appear on the plan view as text such as "DME Required". The
GPS CAN be used as a substitute for these (i.e. the DME is not required - a
bit counter-intuitive)
For example reference the [Akron] AKR LOC rwy25 approach (where the NDB is
the only IAF):
http://download.aopa.org/iap/20060413/EC-2/akr_loc_rwy_25.pdf
If the NDB and/or DME is used for another aspect of the approach or an
optional IAF or alternate DME minimum then it will not be noted as required
and the GPS CAN also be substituted.
The GPS can also be substituted for IFR enroute fixes (assuming the aircraft
is also equipped with "ground based navigational instruments appropriate to
the flight"). I understand that to mean that you must have some appropriate
ground based equipment on board and functional (i.e. a VOR).
I'm not the expert, so someone may want to verify (or correct me) on this.
The whole topic can be pretty confusing. I'll do some digging myself for
appropriate AC, FAR, and/or AIM references.
Rick Titsworth
C172 w/Bendix King KN94 IFR Cert GPS (enroute and approach)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
BobsV35B@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 4:36 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Using a 396 for IFR, was: Converting IFR GPS to
Terminal
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
Good Afternoon Greg,
Not to belabor the point, but, if he has the set modified and/or upgraded by
Garmin, I think it is reasonable that it would be approvable for approach
purposes.
As the set is right now, before any change or modification, it is approvable
to be used for the vast majority of operations conducted by most IFR pilots.
It can be used for all enroute and terminal purposes including as a
substitute for the ADF and DME on any approach that requires those items.
My comments were meant to encourage the use of the set 'as is' for legal,
not emergency purposes. In an emergency, anything that is helpful could and
should be used.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Use of GPS in lieu of ADF and DME, was: Converting |
IFR GPS to Terminal
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
Good Evening Richard,
Your sleuthing is done in a reasonable manner, but that isn't quite the way
it works.
What I stated is correct.
A GPS that has at least an IFR approval for enroute and terminal use can be
used for any ADF or DME use other than what I specified. If the DME is
included in the name of the approach or if it is listed a in a note on the
approach page, the approach can be executed by using the GPS in the manner described
in the AIM section 1-1-19, f.
The GPS cannot be substituted for the ADF when executing an NDB approach.
You must name an alternate that does not need a GPS or any other equipment you
do not have on board and you must have a current data card in the set. All
points of navigation must be contained in the database and cannot be self
loaded by the operator.
However, there is one very unusual case where you may use another point
along the same course to determine a waypoint via the GPS distance from another
waypoint along that course.
For all practical purposes within the US National Air space System, the GPS
can be used in lieu of ADF and DME.. If you find any FAA inspector who tells
you otherwise, please send me his name and station within the FAA. I will
contact Oklahoma City and see to it that the person gets the proper information.
You state: "That is why/how approaches are named and why some are titled
"NDB or GPS"
and others are titled "NDB". Why would there be a difference if GPS could
be substituted for any [all] NDB's. For reference look up the [Anderson]
AID NDB or GPS rwy 30 approach and compare it to the [Angola] ANQ NDB rwy5
approach."
As I said earlier, you cannot use the GPS as a substitute for the ADF on any
NDB approach. When the Title says "NDB or GPS", that means that the
approach has been approved for use by GPS under the old, no longer used, overlay
program. All of the points within the approach are in the database and the
approach is executed strictly as a GPS approach. When you execute that approach,
you are NOT substituting the GPS for the ADF, you are shooting a GPS approach
that has the same courses and uses the same minima as the NDB approach.
If it is an ILS and DME is in the title or if DME is listed as being
required on a note in the approach, the GPS may be used in lieu of the DME. You
are
not shooting a GPS approach you are using the DME to determine the distance
from the location of the DME transceiver.
However, if an approach is titled just as an NDB approach, you cannot
substitute the GPS for the ADF.
You further state:
"I'm not the expert, so someone may want to verify (or correct me) on this.
The whole topic can be pretty confusing. I'll do some digging myself for
appropriate AC, FAR, and/or AIM references:
This is one of the very few cases where I can call myself an expert! I was
one of the very early proponents of such use. The fine folks at AOPA joined
in on my side and we got the job done!
I was even asked by the FAA to aid in writing the provisions to allow that
use.
By the time the interpretations had been written, some of the language got
pretty convoluted. Without getting a lawyer to cover everything I have said
about it, I will not claim one hundred percent accuracy in my description, but
the simple answer is that the GPS can be used in lieu of ADF or DME on any
approach in the manner I have described. You are reading too much into it. Read
the AIM and you will see the intent!
Unfortunately, the fellows that did write that language have either retired
or moved on to bigger an better things. That is why I ask that if anyone in
the FAA tells you different, please let me know and I will chase it down for
the proper answer.
I would be happy to discuss the specifics of any individual approach or
application that you would like to have explained.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 5/4/2006 5:09:04 P.M. Central Standard Time,
rtitsworth@mindspring.com writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "richard titsworth"
<rtitsworth@mindspring.com>
FYI...
Someone may want to further investigate/verify this but I believe the
following comment (from below) is not 100% legally correct.
"It [GPS] can be used for all enroute and terminal purposes including as a
substitute for the ADF and DME on any approach that requires those items."
I believe the correct comment is:
The GPS can be used for the ADF and/or DME on "most" (not "any") approach
that requires those.
The nuance is where/why the NDB and/or DME is required for the approach....
If the requirement is in the title (name) of the approach, then the NDB
and/or DME facility is necessary for the final leg (FAF -> Runway) and
CANNOT be substituted with the GPS unless GPS is also in the title (it
frequently is for many NDB approaches, but not "all").
That is why/how approaches are named and why some are titled "NDB or GPS"
and others are titled "NDB". Why would there be a difference if GPS could
be substituted for any [all] NDB's. For reference look up the [Anderson]
AID NDB or GPS rwy 30 approach and compare it to the [Angola] ANQ NDB rwy5
approach.
http://download.aopa.org/iap/20060413/EC-2/aid_ndb_or_gps_rwy_30.pdf
http://download.aopa.org/iap/20060413/EC-2/anq_ndb_rwy_05.pdf
If you page though an approach plate book you'll find similar examples.
However, if the required NDB and/or DME facility is for another part of the
approach, such as the missed procedure or an approach with a single IAF,
then it will appear on the plan view as text such as "DME Required". The
GPS CAN be used as a substitute for these (i.e. the DME is not required - a
bit counter-intuitive)
For example reference the [Akron] AKR LOC rwy25 approach (where the NDB is
the only IAF):
http://download.aopa.org/iap/20060413/EC-2/akr_loc_rwy_25.pdf
If the NDB and/or DME is used for another aspect of the approach or an
optional IAF or alternate DME minimum then it will not be noted as required
and the GPS CAN also be substituted.
The GPS can also be substituted for IFR enroute fixes (assuming the aircraft
is also equipped with "ground based navigational instruments appropriate to
the flight"). I understand that to mean that you must have some appropriate
ground based equipment on board and functional (i.e. a VOR).
I'm not the expert, so someone may want to verify (or correct me) on this.
The whole topic can be pretty confusing. I'll do some digging myself for
appropriate AC, FAR, and/or AIM references.
Rick Titsworth
C172 w/Bendix King KN94 IFR Cert GPS (enroute and approach)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
BobsV35B@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 4:36 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Using a 396 for IFR, was: Converting IFR GPS to
Terminal
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
Good Afternoon Greg,
Not to belabor the point, but, if he has the set modified and/or upgraded
by
Garmin, I think it is reasonable that it would be approvable for approach
purposes.
As the set is right now, before any change or modification, it is
approvable
to be used for the vast majority of operations conducted by most IFR
pilots.
It can be used for all enroute and terminal purposes including as a
substitute for the ADF and DME on any approach that requires those items.
My comments were meant to encourage the use of the set 'as is' for legal,
not emergency purposes. In an emergency, anything that is helpful could and
should be used.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Use of GPS in lieu of ADF and DME, was: Converting |
IFR GPS to Terminal
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>
Bob, I think the only thing that is added is that you have to verify
that the DME location is in the database, especially where it is a
loc/dme approach where it presumably is at the far end of the runway, at
the Loc antenna. I don't know that all of those are in a non-approach
GPS data base. Otherwise I agree with everything else you are presenting.
Bo
bsV35B@aol.com wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>
>
>
> Good Evening Richard,
>
> Your sleuthing is done in a reasonable manner, but that isn't quite the way
> it works.
>
> What I stated is correct.
>
> A GPS that has at least an IFR approval for enroute and terminal use can be
> used for any ADF or DME use other than what I specified. If the DME is
> included in the name of the approach or if it is listed a in a note on the
> approach page, the approach can be executed by using the GPS in the manner described
> in the AIM section 1-1-19, f.
>
> The GPS cannot be substituted for the ADF when executing an NDB approach.
> You must name an alternate that does not need a GPS or any other equipment you
> do not have on board and you must have a current data card in the set. All
> points of navigation must be contained in the database and cannot be self
> loaded by the operator.
>
> However, there is one very unusual case where you may use another point
> along the same course to determine a waypoint via the GPS distance from another
> waypoint along that course.
>
> For all practical purposes within the US National Air space System, the GPS
> can be used in lieu of ADF and DME.. If you find any FAA inspector who tells
> you otherwise, please send me his name and station within the FAA. I will
> contact Oklahoma City and see to it that the person gets the proper information.
>
> You state: "That is why/how approaches are named and why some are titled
> "NDB or GPS"
> and others are titled "NDB". Why would there be a difference if GPS could
> be substituted for any [all] NDB's. For reference look up the [Anderson]
> AID NDB or GPS rwy 30 approach and compare it to the [Angola] ANQ NDB rwy5
> approach."
>
> As I said earlier, you cannot use the GPS as a substitute for the ADF on any
> NDB approach. When the Title says "NDB or GPS", that means that the
> approach has been approved for use by GPS under the old, no longer used, overlay
> program. All of the points within the approach are in the database and the
> approach is executed strictly as a GPS approach. When you execute that approach,
> you are NOT substituting the GPS for the ADF, you are shooting a GPS approach
> that has the same courses and uses the same minima as the NDB approach.
>
> If it is an ILS and DME is in the title or if DME is listed as being
> required on a note in the approach, the GPS may be used in lieu of the DME. You
are
> not shooting a GPS approach you are using the DME to determine the distance
> from the location of the DME transceiver.
>
> However, if an approach is titled just as an NDB approach, you cannot
> substitute the GPS for the ADF.
>
> You further state:
>
> "I'm not the expert, so someone may want to verify (or correct me) on this.
> The whole topic can be pretty confusing. I'll do some digging myself for
> appropriate AC, FAR, and/or AIM references:
>
> This is one of the very few cases where I can call myself an expert! I was
> one of the very early proponents of such use. The fine folks at AOPA joined
> in on my side and we got the job done!
>
> I was even asked by the FAA to aid in writing the provisions to allow that
> use.
>
> By the time the interpretations had been written, some of the language got
> pretty convoluted. Without getting a lawyer to cover everything I have said
> about it, I will not claim one hundred percent accuracy in my description, but
> the simple answer is that the GPS can be used in lieu of ADF or DME on any
> approach in the manner I have described. You are reading too much into it. Read
> the AIM and you will see the intent!
>
> Unfortunately, the fellows that did write that language have either retired
> or moved on to bigger an better things. That is why I ask that if anyone in
> the FAA tells you different, please let me know and I will chase it down for
> the proper answer.
>
> I would be happy to discuss the specifics of any individual approach or
> application that you would like to have explained.
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
>
> In a message dated 5/4/2006 5:09:04 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> rtitsworth@mindspring.com writes:
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "richard titsworth"
> <rtitsworth@mindspring.com>
>
> FYI...
>
> Someone may want to further investigate/verify this but I believe the
> following comment (from below) is not 100% legally correct.
>
> "It [GPS] can be used for all enroute and terminal purposes including as a
> substitute for the ADF and DME on any approach that requires those items."
>
> I believe the correct comment is:
>
> The GPS can be used for the ADF and/or DME on "most" (not "any") approach
> that requires those.
>
> The nuance is where/why the NDB and/or DME is required for the approach....
>
> If the requirement is in the title (name) of the approach, then the NDB
> and/or DME facility is necessary for the final leg (FAF -> Runway) and
> CANNOT be substituted with the GPS unless GPS is also in the title (it
> frequently is for many NDB approaches, but not "all").
>
> That is why/how approaches are named and why some are titled "NDB or GPS"
> and others are titled "NDB". Why would there be a difference if GPS could
> be substituted for any [all] NDB's. For reference look up the [Anderson]
> AID NDB or GPS rwy 30 approach and compare it to the [Angola] ANQ NDB rwy5
> approach.
>
> http://download.aopa.org/iap/20060413/EC-2/aid_ndb_or_gps_rwy_30.pdf
> http://download.aopa.org/iap/20060413/EC-2/anq_ndb_rwy_05.pdf
>
> If you page though an approach plate book you'll find similar examples.
>
> However, if the required NDB and/or DME facility is for another part of the
> approach, such as the missed procedure or an approach with a single IAF,
> then it will appear on the plan view as text such as "DME Required". The
> GPS CAN be used as a substitute for these (i.e. the DME is not required - a
> bit counter-intuitive)
>
> For example reference the [Akron] AKR LOC rwy25 approach (where the NDB is
> the only IAF):
>
> http://download.aopa.org/iap/20060413/EC-2/akr_loc_rwy_25.pdf
>
> If the NDB and/or DME is used for another aspect of the approach or an
> optional IAF or alternate DME minimum then it will not be noted as required
> and the GPS CAN also be substituted.
>
> The GPS can also be substituted for IFR enroute fixes (assuming the aircraft
> is also equipped with "ground based navigational instruments appropriate to
> the flight"). I understand that to mean that you must have some appropriate
> ground based equipment on board and functional (i.e. a VOR).
>
> I'm not the expert, so someone may want to verify (or correct me) on this.
> The whole topic can be pretty confusing. I'll do some digging myself for
> appropriate AC, FAR, and/or AIM references.
>
> Rick Titsworth
> C172 w/Bendix King KN94 IFR Cert GPS (enroute and approach)
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> BobsV35B@aol.com
> Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 4:36 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Using a 396 for IFR, was: Converting IFR GPS to
> Terminal
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>
>
> Good Afternoon Greg,
>
> Not to belabor the point, but, if he has the set modified and/or upgraded
> by
> Garmin, I think it is reasonable that it would be approvable for approach
> purposes.
>
> As the set is right now, before any change or modification, it is
> approvable
> to be used for the vast majority of operations conducted by most IFR
> pilots.
> It can be used for all enroute and terminal purposes including as a
> substitute for the ADF and DME on any approach that requires those items.
>
> My comments were meant to encourage the use of the set 'as is' for legal,
> not emergency purposes. In an emergency, anything that is helpful could and
>
> should be used.
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Ancient Aviator
> Stearman N3977A
> Brookeridge Air Park LL22
> Downers Grove, IL 60516
> 630 985-8503
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Use of GPS in lieu of ADF and DME, was: Converting |
IF...
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
Good Evening Kelly,
That is a basically true statement. There is a provision in the AIM that
tells of a method to use the distance from a point that is on the primary course
to get the required distances that would otherwise be determined by a
distance from the location of the DME Transceiver.
Check it out in the note following paragraph: AIM, 1-1-19, f, (c), (1), [c]
It is complicated procedure and, in the AIM, is described as being a
temporary fix until such time as all DME sites are in the database.
All Garmin, Apollo, and King databases have the Localizer associated DME
Transceiver sites in their current databases. For the Apollo units, there is a
separate page. The others have them listed on the Waypoint page and use the
same identifier as the localizer. As an example, at Rockford, Illinois, where
one localizer identifier is IRFD, the location of the associated DME
transceiver will be listed as IRFD.
We Trimble users are still stuck with the "temporary" expediency!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 5/4/2006 10:19:21 P.M. Central Standard Time,
kellym@aviating.com writes:
Bob, I think the only thing that is added is that you have to verify
that the DME location is in the database, especially where it is a
loc/dme approach where it presumably is at the far end of the runway, at
the Loc antenna. I don't know that all of those are in a non-approach
GPS data base. Otherwise I agree with everything else you are presenting.
Bo
bsV35B@aol.com wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Use of GPS in lieu of ADF and DME, was: Converting |
IFR GPS to Terminal
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "richard titsworth" <rtitsworth@mindspring.com>
Thanks. Good info. :-)
Now that I've found an expert I have three nuance questions...
#1 If someone has a GX-65 (enroute only) do they still file as /G?
Does that create any confusion with ATC if they are asked/vectored for a GPS
approach?
#2 Lets say my IFR GPS database is out of date (most recent updates not yet
applied).
I understand that I can still use the GPS for enroute navigation (i.e. file
and accept "direct") as long as I verify that the relevant data points are
still accurate.
I understand that I cannot use it for IFR GPS approaches (until updated).
Would I file /G?
Do you know of the AC/FAR/Aim reference to this scenario?
#3 Continuation of scenario #2... If I am flying a VOR/DME or LOC/DME or an
ILS with a required ADF (for the missed) with a traditional and valid
NAV/CDI, can I legally use the out-of date GPS to substitute the DME or ADF
if I have verified the accuracy of the relevant GPS data? Do you know of
the AC/FAR/Aim reference to this scenario?
Thanks Again.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
BobsV35B@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 10:33 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Use of GPS in lieu of ADF and DME, was:
Converting IFR GPS to Terminal
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
Good Evening Richard,
Your sleuthing is done in a reasonable manner, but that isn't quite the way
it works.
What I stated is correct.
A GPS that has at least an IFR approval for enroute and terminal use can be
used for any ADF or DME use other than what I specified. If the DME is
included in the name of the approach or if it is listed a in a note on the
approach page, the approach can be executed by using the GPS in the manner
described
in the AIM section 1-1-19, f.
The GPS cannot be substituted for the ADF when executing an NDB approach.
You must name an alternate that does not need a GPS or any other equipment
you
do not have on board and you must have a current data card in the set. All
points of navigation must be contained in the database and cannot be self
loaded by the operator.
However, there is one very unusual case where you may use another point
along the same course to determine a waypoint via the GPS distance from
another
waypoint along that course.
For all practical purposes within the US National Air space System, the GPS
can be used in lieu of ADF and DME.. If you find any FAA inspector who
tells
you otherwise, please send me his name and station within the FAA. I will
contact Oklahoma City and see to it that the person gets the proper
information.
You state: "That is why/how approaches are named and why some are titled
"NDB or GPS"
and others are titled "NDB". Why would there be a difference if GPS could
be substituted for any [all] NDB's. For reference look up the [Anderson]
AID NDB or GPS rwy 30 approach and compare it to the [Angola] ANQ NDB rwy5
approach."
As I said earlier, you cannot use the GPS as a substitute for the ADF on
any
NDB approach. When the Title says "NDB or GPS", that means that the
approach has been approved for use by GPS under the old, no longer used,
overlay
program. All of the points within the approach are in the database and the
approach is executed strictly as a GPS approach. When you execute that
approach,
you are NOT substituting the GPS for the ADF, you are shooting a GPS
approach
that has the same courses and uses the same minima as the NDB approach.
If it is an ILS and DME is in the title or if DME is listed as being
required on a note in the approach, the GPS may be used in lieu of the DME.
You are
not shooting a GPS approach you are using the DME to determine the distance
from the location of the DME transceiver.
However, if an approach is titled just as an NDB approach, you cannot
substitute the GPS for the ADF.
You further state:
"I'm not the expert, so someone may want to verify (or correct me) on this.
The whole topic can be pretty confusing. I'll do some digging myself for
appropriate AC, FAR, and/or AIM references:
This is one of the very few cases where I can call myself an expert! I was
one of the very early proponents of such use. The fine folks at AOPA
joined
in on my side and we got the job done!
I was even asked by the FAA to aid in writing the provisions to allow that
use.
By the time the interpretations had been written, some of the language got
pretty convoluted. Without getting a lawyer to cover everything I have
said
about it, I will not claim one hundred percent accuracy in my description,
but
the simple answer is that the GPS can be used in lieu of ADF or DME on any
approach in the manner I have described. You are reading too much into it.
Read
the AIM and you will see the intent!
Unfortunately, the fellows that did write that language have either retired
or moved on to bigger an better things. That is why I ask that if anyone in
the FAA tells you different, please let me know and I will chase it down
for
the proper answer.
I would be happy to discuss the specifics of any individual approach or
application that you would like to have explained.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 5/4/2006 5:09:04 P.M. Central Standard Time,
rtitsworth@mindspring.com writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "richard titsworth"
<rtitsworth@mindspring.com>
FYI...
Someone may want to further investigate/verify this but I believe the
following comment (from below) is not 100% legally correct.
"It [GPS] can be used for all enroute and terminal purposes including as a
substitute for the ADF and DME on any approach that requires those items."
I believe the correct comment is:
The GPS can be used for the ADF and/or DME on "most" (not "any") approach
that requires those.
The nuance is where/why the NDB and/or DME is required for the approach....
If the requirement is in the title (name) of the approach, then the NDB
and/or DME facility is necessary for the final leg (FAF -> Runway) and
CANNOT be substituted with the GPS unless GPS is also in the title (it
frequently is for many NDB approaches, but not "all").
That is why/how approaches are named and why some are titled "NDB or GPS"
and others are titled "NDB". Why would there be a difference if GPS could
be substituted for any [all] NDB's. For reference look up the [Anderson]
AID NDB or GPS rwy 30 approach and compare it to the [Angola] ANQ NDB rwy5
approach.
http://download.aopa.org/iap/20060413/EC-2/aid_ndb_or_gps_rwy_30.pdf
http://download.aopa.org/iap/20060413/EC-2/anq_ndb_rwy_05.pdf
If you page though an approach plate book you'll find similar examples.
However, if the required NDB and/or DME facility is for another part of the
approach, such as the missed procedure or an approach with a single IAF,
then it will appear on the plan view as text such as "DME Required". The
GPS CAN be used as a substitute for these (i.e. the DME is not required - a
bit counter-intuitive)
For example reference the [Akron] AKR LOC rwy25 approach (where the NDB is
the only IAF):
http://download.aopa.org/iap/20060413/EC-2/akr_loc_rwy_25.pdf
If the NDB and/or DME is used for another aspect of the approach or an
optional IAF or alternate DME minimum then it will not be noted as required
and the GPS CAN also be substituted.
The GPS can also be substituted for IFR enroute fixes (assuming the
aircraft
is also equipped with "ground based navigational instruments appropriate to
the flight"). I understand that to mean that you must have some
appropriate
ground based equipment on board and functional (i.e. a VOR).
I'm not the expert, so someone may want to verify (or correct me) on this.
The whole topic can be pretty confusing. I'll do some digging myself for
appropriate AC, FAR, and/or AIM references.
Rick Titsworth
C172 w/Bendix King KN94 IFR Cert GPS (enroute and approach)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
BobsV35B@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 4:36 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Using a 396 for IFR, was: Converting IFR GPS to
Terminal
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
Good Afternoon Greg,
Not to belabor the point, but, if he has the set modified and/or upgraded
by
Garmin, I think it is reasonable that it would be approvable for approach
purposes.
As the set is right now, before any change or modification, it is
approvable
to be used for the vast majority of operations conducted by most IFR
pilots.
It can be used for all enroute and terminal purposes including as a
substitute for the ADF and DME on any approach that requires those items.
My comments were meant to encourage the use of the set 'as is' for legal,
not emergency purposes. In an emergency, anything that is helpful could and
should be used.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|