Change in ILS visibility minimums

Ted DuPuis said:
As I recall, the Sovereign is a Part 25 aircraft, and the requirements for everything in that are significantly stricter than Part 23. Something like a second FMS required, etc. It all gets more complicated, and therefore more expensive.

For the 310, upgrading to WAAS meant sending in the 530, changing the antenna cable, and putting on a new antenna.
Click to expand...
We already have a second FMS. I think it's mostly a software upgrade and an antenna just like for your airplane. The reason it's so expensive it that there is no other option for another vendor. Honeywell can charge what they want. Besides, it's on a jet which automatically adds a couple zeros to any price.
 
Everskyward said:
We already have a second FMS. I think it's mostly a software upgrade and an antenna just like for your airplane. The reason it's so expensive it that there is no other option for another vendor. Honeywell can charge what they want. Besides, it's on a jet which automatically adds a couple zeros to any price.
Click to expand...

Which also makes sense. Part 25 adds lots of zeros by itself. :)

I've seen old Lear 24s with 530s and other equipment I'm used to seeing in the spamcan world, but that's a much smaller, lighter plane. I'm guessing Part 23 cert.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Which also makes sense. Part 25 adds lots of zeros by itself. :)

I've seen old Lear 24s with 530s and other equipment I'm used to seeing in the spamcan world, but that's a much smaller, lighter plane. I'm guessing Part 23 cert.
Click to expand...
I think Lear 24s were one of the first Part 25 airplanes. For sure Lear 35s were Part 25. The thing is that with a conventional panel you can put in and change out different GPSs and other components. When it's a full, integrated avionics system you can't do that.

You can look at a bunch of Lear 35 panels and you will see different avionics, radar, MFDs, etc in them. If you look at a bunch of C-680 panels they will look pretty much identical.
 
Last edited:
Makes sense as well. Since jets are only something I've recently had to start learning about, my knowledge is pretty minimal.
 
I also should clarify that if someone wanted to they could change out one of the older GPSs for a new WAAS-capable one in a conventional panel airplane. However, the old existing GPSs in some of our airplanes can't be upgraded with a software change and would require a complete new unit. Not sure this is going to happen anytime soon but we'll see. It was probably more likely to happen if the ILS minimums had stayed at 3/4 mile and the LPV minimums were 1/2 mile. :D
 
I'm definitely getting the feel from various sources that this recent update for APA had a number of "quality" issues.
 
N801BH said:
Reassuring to see the FAA is receptive to pilot feedback..:):):yes:
Click to expand...
There was a whole lot of feedback from pilots and organizations at KAPA since it's a busy airport with many operators. I think mine was only one of a whole bunch of emails.
 
Yup, a large number of people commented. Glad to be a part of that process. The changes corrected some oversights. Cool.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top