Small change in FAA GPS approach policy
- Thread starter flhrci
- Start date
SbestCFII
Line Up and Wait
Since all the IFR GPS units have had RAIM prediction since the first one was installed, I've done this several times at alternates anyway when the RAIM calculation was good. Leave it to the FAA to remain at least 10 years behind. The written IRA exam is still riddled with mass quantities of questions on NDB approaches and only a mere handful on GPS, the backbone of NextGen.
If you want progressiveness, the FAA allow pilots flying under Part 91 with portable GPS units to fly direct with the units under IFR (require ships power and an external antenna if you like), to use these same units in lieu of DME on approaches, and allow pilots with certified units fly non-precision NDB approaches with a certified GPS unit regardless of their being an overlay (on it's worst day, a GPS is more accurate than an NDB approach).
The reason we have never been able to do this legally is because they have not be "evaluated" by the FAA. We practice these in VFR frequently and they work perfectly.
If you want progressiveness, the FAA allow pilots flying under Part 91 with portable GPS units to fly direct with the units under IFR (require ships power and an external antenna if you like), to use these same units in lieu of DME on approaches, and allow pilots with certified units fly non-precision NDB approaches with a certified GPS unit regardless of their being an overlay (on it's worst day, a GPS is more accurate than an NDB approach).
The reason we have never been able to do this legally is because they have not be "evaluated" by the FAA. We practice these in VFR frequently and they work perfectly.
azure
Final Approach
Doesn't sound like this affects WAAS units at all. Or does it?
Captain
Final Approach
WAAS is just part of GPS.
The article simply speaks to the requirement of not having GPS only at the alternate. This totally affects me...I think. I've forwarded the article to our training department and Chief Pilots Office. Hopefully we can get this relief as it's a pain to have to look up the approaches offered at the alternate.
Thanks for posting.
The article simply speaks to the requirement of not having GPS only at the alternate. This totally affects me...I think. I've forwarded the article to our training department and Chief Pilots Office. Hopefully we can get this relief as it's a pain to have to look up the approaches offered at the alternate.
Thanks for posting.
azure
Final Approach
To be more exact: I don't think it affects TSO C-146a units. You can already flight plan for RNAV (GPS) approaches at your alternate if you have one of those. You just have to use non-precision minimums (800-2 or nonstandard, if nonstandard alternate minimums are published), even if the approach you count on using has ILS-like LPV minimums.
Also, with that kind of unit you can already flight plan for RNAV (GPS) approaches at both your destination and your alternate. TSO C-146a GPS units are sole source.
azure
Final Approach
Okay there's a discussion of this over on the RB and it seems what I wrote is not quite correct. The new policy sounds like it allows pilots with C146a units with baro-VNAV capability/training to plan for a RNAV (GPS) approach at the alternate that has LNAV/VNAV minimums using precision alternate minimums (600-2 unless nonstandard minimums are published).
The 600-2 is someone's interpretation; the NOTAM doesn't explicitly say that, it says you can use the LNAV/VNAV minimums, which seems weird to me since even for an ILS you're limited to 600-2 (at best).
It's all moot to me personally since I just have plain old WAAS, so I'm still limited to 800-2.
The 600-2 is someone's interpretation; the NOTAM doesn't explicitly say that, it says you can use the LNAV/VNAV minimums, which seems weird to me since even for an ILS you're limited to 600-2 (at best).
It's all moot to me personally since I just have plain old WAAS, so I'm still limited to 800-2.
jesse
Touchdown! Greaser!
According to the AIM -- if you have a non-waas GPS you cannot file an alternate that has GPS only approaches.
From AIM 1-2-3:
I've found next to no-one realizes it says that in the AIM.
JeffDG
Touchdown! Greaser!
Basically permit any GPS for encounters phase, and require certified for approaches?
Can't say I would have any issue with that.
azure
Final Approach
Correct. And this contradicts what I said how? I was talking specifically about TSO C146a units -- which are WAAS.
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
I assume you mean "permit any GPS for enroute phase.
When I suggested this on the red board a couple of years ago, the idea didn't seem to be very popular.
bbchien
Touchdown! Greaser!
That is a miniscule change if I've ever seen it. For the TSO 129 GPS user, the alternate had to be non-GPS. Now you can just file the other way- to the non-GPS approach and use the GPS approach as an alternate.
That has NEVER been an operational issue.
FAA splitting hairs again, and calling the removal of a single split, "progress".
That has NEVER been an operational issue.
FAA splitting hairs again, and calling the removal of a single split, "progress".
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2007
- Messages
- 3,183
- Display Name
Display name:
Bob Gardner
The notice said that the AIM (and a bunch of other IFR-related pubs) was being revised to reflect the new policy, so quoting from the current AIM doesn't help.
Bob Gardner
azure
Final Approach
Depends on what it's supposed to help. Since I was talking about what you can ALREADY do, quoting the AIM would have been quite acceptable... if he'd quoted the right section.
jesse
Touchdown! Greaser!
Depends on what it's supposed to help. Since I was talking about what you can ALREADY do, quoting the AIM would have been quite acceptable... if he'd quoted the right section.
I misread what you had written - my mistake.
Jeanie
Pattern Altitude
If you file to the non gps approach but when you get there can you still do the gps approach?. Is it just a matter of how you file to take into account a needed alternate not necessarily what happens when you arrive?
Does that make sense?
Does that make sense?
azure
Final Approach
No problem.
azure
Final Approach
I think so. Filing an alternate is all about making sure you have enough fuel to cover reasonable weather-forced diversions. The conditions that an alternate must meet are all about what you can count on. The FAA doesn't want you to count on RAIM being available at both your destination and alternate (or vertical guidance on the approach, for WAAS). You can fly whatever approach is actually available and flyable once you're actually there. And of course, you don't even have to go to your alternate if you can make it into your destination, you can go anywhere else the weather looks good enough that you think you can get in, and fly any approach there that's available and flyable.
I think it does.
Jeanie
Pattern Altitude
Thanks. I thought I was correct in that understanding...
azure
Final Approach
Change "can make it into your destination" to can't.
ja_user
Pattern Altitude
So just to be clear to everyone, Filing an alternate doesn't mean you are actually going to go there.. If you go missed at your destination and still have communication with ATC, then you just tell them your next preferred destination, it doesn't have to be what you filed. This is just a filling requirement..
gismo
Touchdown! Greaser!
The alternate requirements are pretty much just a fuel planning issue. If you can't get into your planned destination or simply decide enroute to go somewhere else first you can use any available approach that your airplane is equipped for (except in some rare instances where the pilot needs extra training).