GPS SUbstitute for DME or ADF

Someone in another forum said that it's okay to substitute certified GPS for
DME or ADF on an approach plate that depicts FAFs or intersecting points
using DME or ADF. I asked that person to back it up with a reference from
an official document like the FARs, AIM or something that the FAA puts out.
He can't do it. Does anyone know where this information may be located?

Thanks.

Simon

"S. Ramirez" wrote in message
m...

Someone in another forum said that it's okay to substitute certified GPS
for
DME or ADF on an approach plate that depicts FAFs or intersecting points
using DME or ADF. I asked that person to back it up with a reference from
an official document like the FARs, AIM or something that the FAA puts
out.
He can't do it. Does anyone know where this information may be located?


See AIM para 1-1-20.f.6.

http://www1.faa.gov/atpubs/AIM/Chap1/aim0101.html

AIM 1-1-21-f-5 through f-6 as published by ASA.

Confusingly, AOPA/Gleim lists these paragraphs under AIM 1-1-20, having
omitted the paragraph on FMS.

"S. Ramirez" wrote in message
m...
Someone in another forum said that it's okay to substitute certified GPS
for
DME or ADF on an approach plate that depicts FAFs or intersecting points
using DME or ADF. I asked that person to back it up with a reference from
an official document like the FARs, AIM or something that the FAA puts
out.
He can't do it. Does anyone know where this information may be located?

Thanks.

Simon

"Robert Henry" wrote in message news:92YZa.1142$Ue.1019@lakeread05...
AIM 1-1-21-f-5 through f-6 as published by ASA.

Confusingly, AOPA/Gleim lists these paragraphs under AIM 1-1-20, having
omitted the paragraph on FMS.

Because it is 1-1--20. Your ASA book is obsolete. The FMS was moved into 1-2-1
as of Chagne 3 (August 7, 2003).

In article ,
(Snowbird) writes:

Someone is correct.

The information is in the AIM, 1-1-21 f. 6.

The regulatory documents authorizing this are the approved flight
manual supplement installed by 337 along with the GPS, and
a NOTAM published by the FAA several years back, and available
from your local FSDO or from AOPA (Gen5, published 7-16-98). The
NOTAM is the principle regulatory basis authorizing this. It
is "effective until further notice".

Guess this aplies only to US. Does anyone know if it is alos true in Canada?

Chuck

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...

"Robert Henry" wrote in message
news:92YZa.1142$Ue.1019@lakeread05...
AIM 1-1-21-f-5 through f-6 as published by ASA.

Confusingly, AOPA/Gleim lists these paragraphs under AIM 1-1-20, having
omitted the paragraph on FMS.

Because it is 1-1--20. Your ASA book is obsolete. The FMS was moved
into 1-2-1
as of Chagne 3 (August 7, 2003).


Well, add that to the privilege of membership. Comparably, the ASA update
notice is only through 16 July.

(PaulaJay1) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Snowbird) writes:
The information is in the AIM, 1-1-21 f. 6.

The regulatory documents authorizing this are the approved flight
manual supplement installed by 337 along with the GPS, and
a NOTAM published by the FAA several years back, and available
from your local FSDO or from AOPA (Gen5, published 7-16-98). The
NOTAM is the principle regulatory basis authorizing this. It
is "effective until further notice".

Guess this aplies only to US. Does anyone know if it is alos true in Canada?

Very sorry, Chuck, no clue.

Regards,
Sydney

(PaulaJay1) wrote:

Does anyone know if it is also true in Canada?

Yup. An enroute/terminal-approved IFR GPS can be
used to substitute for DME and ADF fixes during an
IFR approach in Canada. It's not anywhere in the
CARs, see your AIP. There was a "Supplement" that
came out in the last year or so that dealt specifically
with this issue, plus alternate planning.

--
ATP www.pittspecials.com

Does anyone know if it is also true in Canada?

Yup. An enroute/terminal-approved IFR GPS can be
used to substitute for DME and ADF fixes during an
IFR approach in Canada. It's not anywhere in the
CARs, see your AIP. There was a "Supplement" that
came out in the last year or so that dealt specifically
with this issue, plus alternate planning.

The ONLY waypoints that can NOT be substituted by approved GPS in
Canada are NDBs and VORs used for Missed Approaches (i.e. you must
have an NDB or VOR as the case may be or request different missed
approach instructions). Weird but true.

A.I.P. 3.16.4.3.1. says "GPS may be used to identify all fixes defined
by DME, VOR, VOR/DME and NDB, including fixes that are part of any
IAP, to navigate to and from these fixes, ..." So far, so good. Next
paragraph: "For these approaches [NDB and VOR approaches without a GPS
overlay], and for approaches based on a LOC for lateral guidance,
pilots shall not use GPS for missed approach guidance when the missed
approach procedure requires tracking to or from an NDB or VOR."

Gerd
T182 C-FDOW

(gwengler) wrote in message . com...

A.I.P. 3.16.4.3.1. says "GPS may be used to identify all fixes defined
by DME, VOR, VOR/DME and NDB, including fixes that are part of any
IAP, to navigate to and from these fixes, ..." So far, so good. Next
paragraph: "For these approaches [NDB and VOR approaches without a GPS
overlay], and for approaches based on a LOC for lateral guidance,
pilots shall not use GPS for missed approach guidance when the missed
approach procedure requires tracking to or from an NDB or VOR."

Truly wierd. Any idea what the thinking is here?

Cheers,
Sydney