Ryan, let me start by saying I do not have the understanding and lexicon you have dealing with aviation matters in general. I see you have experience and knowledge across a vast range of avionics topics. I do not. However I do have some specific experience with the Learjet 75, and I would like to clear up some misunderstandings. Let me start with your last post, quotes of it I have put below in italics:
“You used the phrase "suitable RNAV FMS," but that's not what you have installed in your aircraft”
Ryan, I did not say in that post what was installed in my aircraft. I took that phrase from the US AIM, “suitable RNAV System”, and added flight management words to clarify the type of system. If adding “flight management” confused you as to what I meant, I’m sorry, that was not my intention.
“You have an FMS. That FMS contains a suitable RNAV system”
I hope you are right that it is “suitable”. If Learjet agrees, then maybe they will change their “are prohibited” phrase. More information later on in this post.
“It also contains position sensors which include VOR receivers, loc/GS receivers, ADF, etc”
If you are talking about the FMS in the Learjet 75, that is incorrect.
“You've also mentioned deselecting navaids before.”
That is incorrect. I joked about deselecting certain gps satellites.
“These statements lead me to believe you may be operating under some confusion.”
I may not be the sharpest pilot, but nothing here confuses me Ryan.
Now before I get chastised for asking a public forum about nuances in a corporate jet AFM, please notice that this thread was about the disappearing “or GPS” approaches. I received some excellent information on this, thanks to all, and used the VOR approaches in KAVX (someone brought them up) as examples in my submission to Learjet to consider changes. The thread morphed into the L75 avionics discussion. Not what I intended.
There have been further developments Ryan that you will be unfamiliar with.
“at FSI/CAE? An instructor may be better equipped to address your concern”
Actually Ryan, that is quite ironic. It was at refresher about 3 weeks ago that our CAE instructor pulled out the AFM with the “are prohibited” wording to remind us that we cannot fly a VOR approach with the FMS unless it is annotated “or GPS”. Like you, I wondered why not? If our old Garmin 165 from 1996(?) TSO 129 could meet accuracy requirements of a VOR approach, shouldn’t a much later generation unit be able to?
I emailed Learjet to ask if we could fly a VOR approach through the FMS that is not annotated “or GPS”. I received a reply from a production test pilot that
“the short answer is no”.
Shortly after, the chief pilot for Production Test sent me an email, unsolicited, that for a VOR approach that is not or GPS,
“The AFM makes it clear the green needle CDI needs to be active on the pilot flying’s PFD”
Ryan, for this to happen, the only way would be when the FMS is not providing guidance to the pilot flying.
Then I had a telephone call. Then I took KAVX as an example of a VOR approach that was not "or GPS" (and also where no other RNAV approach was available), and the quote from the US AIM about a suitable Rnav system, asked them if ours was “suitable” and asked if they could reconsider allowing a VOR approach without “or GPS” in the L75. And, further, if they could update their wording since apparently “or GPS” approaches are almost gone.
I note that Learjet is not the only manufacturer to restrict non precision approaches in the same manner. Add Dassault to that list.
Our falcon 2000 AFM states:
“In particular, the FMS is approved to fly the following GNSS / GPS approach procedures:
- GNSS / GPS Non Precision Approaches,
- GNSS / GPS overlay of Non Precision Approach Procedures”
And under the title “FMS based approaches” there are no other approaches listed.
I note here that Dassault used the term “overlay”, whereas I see on Jepp charts for US airports that “or GPS” is used.
Of course, a “raw data”, as I call it, VOR or NDB approach is always allowed. However that is not FMS based in either of our aircraft.
Ryan, should you wish to hear about this first hand, I am sorry but at the present time I’m not prepared to give out names and contact info. However, you could follow the same procedure that I did. Call Bombardier Customer Support at 316 946 2874, or email them at ac.ict@aero.bombardier.com that worked very well for me.
Stan
“You used the phrase "suitable RNAV FMS," but that's not what you have installed in your aircraft”
Ryan, I did not say in that post what was installed in my aircraft. I took that phrase from the US AIM, “suitable RNAV System”, and added flight management words to clarify the type of system. If adding “flight management” confused you as to what I meant, I’m sorry, that was not my intention.
“You have an FMS. That FMS contains a suitable RNAV system”
I hope you are right that it is “suitable”. If Learjet agrees, then maybe they will change their “are prohibited” phrase. More information later on in this post.
“It also contains position sensors which include VOR receivers, loc/GS receivers, ADF, etc”
If you are talking about the FMS in the Learjet 75, that is incorrect.
“You've also mentioned deselecting navaids before.”
That is incorrect. I joked about deselecting certain gps satellites.
“These statements lead me to believe you may be operating under some confusion.”
I may not be the sharpest pilot, but nothing here confuses me Ryan.
Now before I get chastised for asking a public forum about nuances in a corporate jet AFM, please notice that this thread was about the disappearing “or GPS” approaches. I received some excellent information on this, thanks to all, and used the VOR approaches in KAVX (someone brought them up) as examples in my submission to Learjet to consider changes. The thread morphed into the L75 avionics discussion. Not what I intended.
There have been further developments Ryan that you will be unfamiliar with.
“at FSI/CAE? An instructor may be better equipped to address your concern”
Actually Ryan, that is quite ironic. It was at refresher about 3 weeks ago that our CAE instructor pulled out the AFM with the “are prohibited” wording to remind us that we cannot fly a VOR approach with the FMS unless it is annotated “or GPS”. Like you, I wondered why not? If our old Garmin 165 from 1996(?) TSO 129 could meet accuracy requirements of a VOR approach, shouldn’t a much later generation unit be able to?
I emailed Learjet to ask if we could fly a VOR approach through the FMS that is not annotated “or GPS”. I received a reply from a production test pilot that
“the short answer is no”.
Shortly after, the chief pilot for Production Test sent me an email, unsolicited, that for a VOR approach that is not or GPS,
“The AFM makes it clear the green needle CDI needs to be active on the pilot flying’s PFD”
Ryan, for this to happen, the only way would be when the FMS is not providing guidance to the pilot flying.
Then I had a telephone call. Then I took KAVX as an example of a VOR approach that was not "or GPS" (and also where no other RNAV approach was available), and the quote from the US AIM about a suitable Rnav system, asked them if ours was “suitable” and asked if they could reconsider allowing a VOR approach without “or GPS” in the L75. And, further, if they could update their wording since apparently “or GPS” approaches are almost gone.
I note that Learjet is not the only manufacturer to restrict non precision approaches in the same manner. Add Dassault to that list.
Our falcon 2000 AFM states:
“In particular, the FMS is approved to fly the following GNSS / GPS approach procedures:
- GNSS / GPS Non Precision Approaches,
- GNSS / GPS overlay of Non Precision Approach Procedures”
And under the title “FMS based approaches” there are no other approaches listed.
I note here that Dassault used the term “overlay”, whereas I see on Jepp charts for US airports that “or GPS” is used.
Of course, a “raw data”, as I call it, VOR or NDB approach is always allowed. However that is not FMS based in either of our aircraft.
Ryan, should you wish to hear about this first hand, I am sorry but at the present time I’m not prepared to give out names and contact info. However, you could follow the same procedure that I did. Call Bombardier Customer Support at 316 946 2874, or email them at ac.ict@aero.bombardier.com that worked very well for me.
Stan
