Not Garmin? Not legal.

flyingcheesehead

flyingcheesehead

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
24,256
Location
UQACY, WI
Display Name
Display name:
iMooniac
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2007/070524gps.html

Only three GPS models — the Garmin 400-, 500-, and G1000-series — are legal, according to the FAA documents. 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 "noncompliant."

Many members have removed ADF and DME navigation equipment from their aircraft because of the 1996 policy, and they will no longer have access to conventional and precision approaches where the equipment is a required element. Complicating matters further, the older GPS boxes are prohibited from flying RNAV routes and terminal RNAV procedures.
Click to expand...
 
Guess the price of my DME and ADF just went up if I decide to sell it.:mad:

Really stupid and ignorant move. Used to own one of the units that is no longer approved and it works great.
 
This has to be a case of unintended consequences. I mean, you can't use the first TSO-146 certified device (the 480) to find an NDB? Please.

Either that, or Garmin has found a way to simultaneously corner the market and get rid of it's pesky technical support problem for UPSAT-designed units.

Glass if half-full for me. I have a GX-60 (which I like quite nicely, thank you), but have a working ADF.

-Rich
 
Good thing lots of folks still have their old reliable ADF for "primary navigation" and their new unreliable handheld for "backup situational awareness"!
 
just when you think they couldn't get any stupider, they go and do something like this. sigh.
 
So you legally cannot file direct /G using something like a GX-50? That is how it sounds to me. Suckage.
 
thats not how i understood the article bill. seemed that you couldnt use your GX-50 in lieu of ADF or DME. So if you want to shoot the ILS into Ames, IA, you'd have to have an ADF now, just the GPS wouldnt work, unless it was a 400 series, 500 series, or G1000 garmin
 
Bill Jennings said:
So you legally cannot file direct /G using something like a GX-50? That is how it sounds to me. Suckage.
Click to expand...
I think what it is saying is you cannot use a GX-50 in lieu of a DME or ADF for fixes. You can use the Garmin 400, 500, 1000 etc though.

Edit: I've attached the chart showing what units are approved and which are not.
 

Attachments

  • gps-chart.jpg
    gps-chart.jpg
    73.1 KB · Views: 29
Last edited:
Well I guess this means I will have to keep the ancient, and folks even all of the airport bums comment on how ancient the ADF is, for a bit longer while I get my Instrument rating.

I was hoping to pull it and clean up the plane a bit....I guess not. This is stupid, my 155XL was good enough but now it is not?
 
Bill Jennings said:
So you legally cannot file direct /G using something like a GX-50? That is how it sounds to me. Suckage.
Click to expand...

tonycondon said:
thats not how i understood the article bill. seemed that you couldn't use your GX-50 in lieu of ADF or DME. So if you want to shoot the ILS into Ames, IA, you'd have to have an ADF now, just the GPS wouldnt work, unless it was a 400 series, 500 series, or G1000 garmin
Click to expand...
I interpreted it the same way as you Tony.....still sucks though
 
NC Pilot said:
I think what it is saying is you cannot use a GX-50 in lieu of a DME or ADF for fixes. You can use the Garmin 400, 500, 1000 etc though.

Edit: I've attached the chart showing what units are approved and which are not.
Click to expand...

Quoted from the AOPA article linked above in Kent's post:

"Complicating matters further, the older GPS boxes are prohibited from flying RNAV routes and terminal RNAV procedures."

Prohibited from flying RNAV routes sounds like no direct /G to me.

EDIT: OK, maybe mybad. AC says you cannot use the GPS to fly Q or T routes, but doesn't mention /G, so maybe we're ok?
 
Last edited:
I actually got a yellow tag ADF to replace mine, but after sinking several hundred more bucks, it's still *thisclose* to working.

I keep cursing myself for wasting that money. Now, once more it may turn out to have been a good investment. It's looking worthwhile to get it fixed the rest of the way.

I wonder what's behind this? Did the FAA test the installs?

I'll bet it's something like whether the original manufacturers cooperated and supplied test untis or new test data. Garmin and other could have decided the cost's weren't worth it for the old units...and "don't throw me into that there Briar Patch" and force our customers to buy new units.

Computer makers are good at that. We are supossed buy new $nnM hardware from them when they say the old stuff isn't supported anymore. Of course, they risk that a smart * like me will buy something else from another maker as a replacement.
 
In other news, the FAA has determined that digital clocks are not compliant with regulations, as they lack a sweep second hand. Effective immediately, digital clocks in cockpits must be labeled INOPERATIVE and may not be used for timing approaches, determining local or zulu time, or any other related usage. Only approved manually-wound spring-driven analog clocks are acceptible.

Furthermore, it has been determined that radios using so-called "solid state" electronics do not meet tech specs from FAA regulation 1924-05, as they lack crystals. Effective immediately, transistor-based and digital radios are considered non-compliant and may not be used in navigation or communication.

Ugh.
 
Let me see if I understand this correctly... a 1950's era VOR receiver which still tracks accurately is acceptable while a GPS receiver (with a current database) built in the late 1990's is not acceptable? :confused:
 
KennyFlys said:
Let me see if I understand this correctly... a 1950's era VOR receiver which still tracks accurately is acceptable while a GPS receiver (with a current database) built in the late 1990's is not acceptable? :confused:
Click to expand...

Where is a VOR accepted in lieu of ADF? What changed is GPS in lieu of ADF.
 
...meanwhile, out on the A-N range...
 
My first thought was "man, Garmin has a great lobbyist..."
 
wsuffa said:
My first thought was "man, Garmin has a great lobbyist..."
Click to expand...

That is still my first thought. :)

Guess those folks thinking about upgrading their GPS will get a 430/530 instead of brand X. To continue with my conspiracy theory, they had to kill the 480 in that list as well since it is really a CNX-80. Those owners will have to purchase a 430 to replace it.

So does that mean I can pick up a CNX-80 cheap now?
 
my boss should be happy now that he kept his original cessna ADF when he did his panel upgrade. IMO the 480 has many benefits above the 430/530, he likes his. Ames ILS requires ADF. i wonder if this is fueled more by what boxes still have factory support?
 
tonycondon said:
my boss should be happy now that he kept his original cessna ADF when he did his panel upgrade. IMO the 480 has many benefits above the 430/530, he likes his. Ames ILS requires ADF. i wonder if this is fueled more by what boxes still have factory support?
Click to expand...

What I'm saying.

If the FAA went to the manufacturers on the former list and told them to supply current boxes and data, then the makers that aren't there and the boxes that didn't have new data supplied are off the list.
 
Someone over on the Red Board is saying that the excluded boxes are because the manufacturers didn't send in some sort of compliance paperwork on those boxes yet.

BTW, the list itself is FUBAR, it doesn't include the KLN94 on either the included OR the excluded lists. Lots of NavII 'hawks and 'Lanes with THAT GPS on board...

This will get sorted out, quickly, but the FAA.

Jim G
 
Bill Jennings said:
EDIT: OK, maybe mybad. AC says you cannot use the GPS to fly Q or T routes, but doesn't mention /G, so maybe we're ok?
Click to expand...

I can't figure out how Q and T airways differ from J and V airways in terms of protected airspace. That would be the only reason the supposed better nav performance of the newer units would make a difference. And even the OLD ones had lateral error measured in tens of feet.
 
So what about GPS approaches with non-Garmin systems? No longer allowed as well?
 
i dont think it dissallows GPS approaches with those boxes, at least gawd i hope not. seemed to me that it takes away the ability to use it in lieu of DME or ADF. so for that approach that requires ADF, your non Garmin wont cut it anymore, have to have the actual ADF.
 
I suspect somebody goofed, and this will be corrected. Note that the main issue is paperwork the manufacturer must do.
 
Bill Jennings said:
Quoted from the AOPA article linked above in Kent's post:

"Complicating matters further, the older GPS boxes are prohibited from flying RNAV routes and terminal RNAV procedures."

Prohibited from flying RNAV routes sounds like no direct /G to me.

EDIT: OK, maybe mybad. AC says you cannot use the GPS to fly Q or T routes, but doesn't mention /G, so maybe we're ok?
Click to expand...

I think you've got it Bill. That's really weird tho!

TMetzinger said:
And how they can enforce it on part 91 operators is a question too.
Click to expand...

Legal's legal no matter which part you're operating under isn't it? I mean, a handheld GPS isn't legal for part 91 either...

Patch said:
So what about GPS approaches with non-Garmin systems? No longer allowed as well?
Click to expand...

That's covered by AC 90-94, which to my knowledge hasn't changed. That makes this all the more ironic! You can shoot an approach down to a very low altitude using these things, but you can't use 'em to even determine if you've passed the FAF on other approaches. :dunno:
 
i dont think tim was doubting legality. but like most FARs this one is almost impossible to enforce, except post-accident
 
I'm kind of suspicious about how this was "sprung" on us. It seems it will take a lot of GA piston planes out of the IFR system.
 
It seems it will take a lot of GA piston planes out of the IFR system.
Click to expand...
I suspect the impact is that until things are sorted out, when we need to use our IFR GPS to substitute for ADF or DME on ILS or VOR approaches, we'll do it any way, but feel a little guilty about it afterwards.
-harry
 
Just spoke with the folks at AFS-410 -- the people who write the rules on GPS use. According to them, the ONLY things affected are RNAV SID's and RNAV STAR's -- and there ain't many of them. Substitution of GPS for ADF/DME is NOT affected, and use of approach-certified units for approaches is NOT affected. He said AOPA is blowing this all out of proportion, and reading into the AC stuff that isn't there. Also, there is no change to the GPS substitution table (Table 1-1-6) in the AIM.

IOW, keep doing business like you always have.
 
Ron Levy said:
Just spoke with the folks at AFS-410 -- the people who write the rules on GPS use. According to them, the ONLY things affected are RNAV SID's and RNAV STAR's -- and there ain't many of them. Substitution of GPS for ADF/DME is NOT affected, and use of approach-certified units for approaches is NOT affected. He said AOPA is blowing this all out of proportion, and reading into the AC stuff that isn't there. Also, there is no change to the GPS substitution table (Table 1-1-6) in the AIM.

IOW, keep doing business like you always have.
Click to expand...


Ron. Thanks for the level headed clarification. There has been lots of misinformation going around.
 
Ron Levy said:
Just spoke with the folks at AFS-410 -- the people who write the rules on GPS use. According to them, the ONLY things affected are RNAV SID's and RNAV STAR's -- and there ain't many of them. Substitution of GPS for ADF/DME is NOT affected, and use of approach-certified units for approaches is NOT affected. He said AOPA is blowing this all out of proportion, and reading into the AC stuff that isn't there. Also, there is no change to the GPS substitution table (Table 1-1-6) in the AIM.

IOW, keep doing business like you always have.
Click to expand...

Thanks for looking into that for us Ron.
Is AFS-410 going to be putting that in writing. I have read the AC and am more confused than I was to begin with.

Thanks again

Mark B
 
Ron Levy said:
Dunno, but usually these clarifications get distributed by AOPA, which means eating some crow over their Chicken Little pronouncements on the subject.
Click to expand...

Not trying to seem argumentative but if they are willing to give it verbally what is the big deal about putting it in writing?
I am missing something


Mark B
 
markb5900 said:
Not trying to seem argumentative but if they are willing to give it verbally what is the big deal about putting it in writing?
Click to expand...
It's not in the FAA's job description to make press releases announcing that someone else has misinterpreted what the FAA said in their regs and AC's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top