Is your IFR GPS still legal for use?

On May 25, 7:24 am, "Aluckyguess" wrote:
"ArtP" wrote in message

... On Fri, 25 May 2007 09:24:41 -0400, Ron Natalie
wrote:

What's new about the 480? It's been on the market as the Garmin 480
(with WAAS and C146 certification) for nearly four years now and is
identical to the UPSAT branded units before that. There' has been
one whopping software revision in the interim (the one that fixes the
256 LPV approach limit).

That unit was specifically mentioned by AOPA as not approved.

I was thinking of getting one of them. I wonder what the difference is.

Its totally different software. Flying behind the 480 you wouldn't
even think it was a Garmin product (in fact it wasn't until Garmin
bought it). However, I believe it was the first WAAS approved GPS and
it also has cool things that the 430 forgot (user defined holds,
airways, etc).

-Robert, CFII

B A R R Y wrote:
Roy Smith wrote:

But it's legal to fly those very same approaches with a 30 year old
ADF which points vaguely in the direction of either 1) the radio
beacon, 2) the nearest T-storm, or 3) some other random propagation
anomaly, and an equally ancient DME which is doing good if it's
correct to within 1/4 mile. Gotta love the FAA.

I always wondered the same thing.

You'd think a 196 on the yoke would outperform the ADF is some
situations.

If not MOST situations.

B A R R Y wrote:
Roy Smith wrote:

But it's legal to fly those very same approaches with a 30 year old
ADF which points vaguely in the direction of either 1) the radio
beacon, 2) the nearest T-storm, or 3) some other random propagation
anomaly, and an equally ancient DME which is doing good if it's
correct to within 1/4 mile. Gotta love the FAA.

I always wondered the same thing.

You'd think a 196 on the yoke would outperform the ADF is some situations.

I can't think of a single situation where it wouldn't, under normal
operating conditions.


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame
## CP-ASEL, AGI
## insert tail number here
## KHAO, KISZ
"Our aim is to show the essential elements of the language in real
programs, but without getting bogged down in detail, rules, and
exceptions."
-- The C Programming Language, Kernighan and Ritchie

On Fri, 25 May 2007 17:43:32 -0400, "Mark T. Dame"
wrote:

I can't think of a single situation where it wouldn't, under normal
operating conditions.


I was being polite. G

"john smith" wrote in message
...
AvWeb has an article in todays issue saying that only the GPS 400/500
series and G1000 are the only IFR certified navigators that are legal to
use.

Does anyone know the rationale for why the GPS receivers can not longer be
used as ADF or DME subs? Or is there any rationale stated by the FAA?

Danny Deger

On May 25, 2:03 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Bob Moore writes:
The action means up to 26,000 GPS users no
longer comply with a 1996 FAA policy that allows GPS to be used in lieu of
ADF or DME.

If the FAA declares that all aircraft must be encrusted in diamonds to be
certified to fly, does the entire aviation world just roll over and spring for
the diamonds? What ever happened to checks and balances?

You don't fly, fjukktafrd, it doesn't concern you.


Bertie

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Danny Deger wrote:

"john smith" wrote in message
...

AvWeb has an article in todays issue saying that only the GPS 400/500
series and G1000 are the only IFR certified navigators that are legal to
use.


Does anyone know the rationale for why the GPS receivers can not longer
be used as ADF or DME subs? Or is there any rationale stated by the FAA?



It does not affect those operations. Read the AC carefully.

In article , "Mark T. Dame"
wrote:

B A R R Y wrote:
Roy Smith wrote:

But it's legal to fly those very same approaches with a 30 year old
ADF which points vaguely in the direction of either 1) the radio
beacon, 2) the nearest T-storm, or 3) some other random propagation
anomaly, and an equally ancient DME which is doing good if it's
correct to within 1/4 mile. Gotta love the FAA.

I always wondered the same thing.

You'd think a 196 on the yoke would outperform the ADF is some situations.

I can't think of a single situation where it wouldn't, under normal
operating conditions.

You can't get the ball score on the 196.

On Fri, 25 May 2007 22:13:27 -0400, Roy Smith wrote:


You can't get the ball score on the 196.

You can with the 396 and 496. G

On Fri, 25 May 2007 18:45:19 -0500, "Danny Deger"
wrote:

Does anyone know the rationale for why the GPS receivers can not longer be
used as ADF or DME subs? Or is there any rationale stated by the FAA?

"We're from the FAA, and we're not happy until you're not happy"?
--ron