FAA advisory voids IFR certification for GPS's!!!

Prime wrote:
I'm surprised nobody has posted about this.

Many GPS panel models are "no longer" IFR certified! Anybody else affected
by this, posted on AOPA web site? It's courtesy your FAA!

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite...070524gps.html

We have a Garmin 300XL, which is one of the units supposedly no longer IFR
compliant. Needless to say all three of us in the partnership are besides
ourselves. We only put this in our plane a couple of years ago!

And how are you handling it? I assume that there's a good chance enough
complaints will cause this to be reversed.

I heard a birdie suggest to me that it was good so many pilots are unaware
of this, they might go ahead and keep flying IFR with those units! The
reasons are nitpicky for voiding the units, it is not a safety of flight
issue.

Prime

Latest word is that the AOPA jumped the gun on this one. The new AC
addresses some RNAV (as in Flight Management Systems) specific Arrival
and Departure procedures, and NOT the enroute use of a GPS to identify
DME and NDB fixes, nor the use of approach approved GPS's for approaches.

Keep studying the news reports, but it seems to me that we who have
approach certified GPS's can continue to use them as we have been using
them.

Rich

On Sat, 26 May 2007 19:39:50 -0400, Rich wrote:

Prime wrote:
I'm surprised nobody has posted about this.

Many GPS panel models are "no longer" IFR certified! Anybody else affected
by this, posted on AOPA web site? It's courtesy your FAA!

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite...070524gps.html

We have a Garmin 300XL, which is one of the units supposedly no longer IFR
compliant. Needless to say all three of us in the partnership are besides
ourselves. We only put this in our plane a couple of years ago!

And how are you handling it? I assume that there's a good chance enough
complaints will cause this to be reversed.

I heard a birdie suggest to me that it was good so many pilots are unaware
of this, they might go ahead and keep flying IFR with those units! The
reasons are nitpicky for voiding the units, it is not a safety of flight
issue.

Prime

Latest word is that the AOPA jumped the gun on this one. The new AC
addresses some RNAV (as in Flight Management Systems) specific Arrival
and Departure procedures, and NOT the enroute use of a GPS to identify
DME and NDB fixes, nor the use of approach approved GPS's for approaches.

Keep studying the news reports, but it seems to me that we who have
approach certified GPS's can continue to use them as we have been using
them.

Rich

Look at AIM 1-2-3. Use of Area Navigation (RNAV) Equipment on Conventional
Procedures and Routes

....
b. Allowable RNAV Equipment. Subject to the requirements in this paragraph,
operators may use the following types of RNAV equipment as a substitute or
alternate means of navigation guidance:

1. An RNAV system with GPS or DME/DME/IRU inputs, installed in accordance
with appropriate airworthiness installation requirements, and compliant
with the equipment provisions of AC 90-100, U.S. Terminal and En Route Area
Navigation (RNAV) Operations. Standalone GPS systems, compliant with AC
90-100, are included in this set of equipment. A list of compliant systems
is available under "Policies & Guidance" at the following website:

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...afs400/afs410/

2. An RNAV system with GPS or DME/DME/IRU inputs, lacking the capability to
automatically perform course-to-fix legs (also called path terminators),
installed in accordance with appropriate airworthiness installation
requirements, and otherwise compliant with the equipment provisions of AC
90-100. This subset of equipment includes some standalone GPS systems and
flight management systems that are authorized for instrument flight rules
(IFR) en route and terminal operations but not fully compliant with AC
90-100. However, these systems may not be used as a substitute or alternate
means of navigation guidance on segments of an instrument approach,
departure, or arrival procedure defined by a VOR course. This restriction
does not apply to routes, which may be selected by route name or
constructed by "stringing" together two or more waypoints from an onboard
navigation database. Many of these systems are identified on the
aforementioned website.

....

and the rest of it gets even more confusing. However, I believe it is the
reference to AC 90-100 compliance that is causing a lot of the angst.
--ron