Garmin 430 and ILS

wrote:

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 05:11:11 GMT, Greg Esres
wrote:

The directive to pilots is that only approaches labeled "GPS" can be
flown with GPS.

What does this mean, exactly?

Must I turn off my GPS if I am flying a VOR or NDB approach?

Will I lose my certificate if I look at my GPS during the approach?
Will I lose my certificate if I look at the GPS more than I do the
OBS/ADF?

These generalized statements one finds in the AIM and elsewhere need
to be examined for specific meanings. When that is done, one finds
that most of them are absolute garbage.

The AIM is written by many different FAA departments. Which one it's
assigned to depends upon the subject matter. There is no broad editorial
or content oversight. It just "happens."

Industry groups have managed to get an occasional section cleaned up by
taking them to the semi-annual Aeronautical Charting Forum (FAA/Industry
meeting in DC area) and laborously working the issue. It's not easy.
(You could submit your concerns to AOPA and ask that they submit it to
the Aeronautical Charting Forum. That would require that AOPA show up,
though, which they don't often do.)

The FAA is a federal agency that is fractured and dysfunctional in the
best of times. Since 911 the budget pressures on them have been
awesome. The controller workforce is trying to grab more and more of a
shrinking pie. The airports funding has been robbed by the White House
budget managers. This week's Aviation Week has a good editorial about it
all.

Bottom line: Don't expect this stuff to get better.

Off subject a bit: I hope I am wrong, but I expect WAAS to disappear
within a few years. None of the smart money is chasing WAAS. New
high-end biz jets are coming off the line today with no WAAS capibility
installed or planned. They are betting on GPS and Baro VNAV (requires
GPS only) or ILS.

In article ,
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 05:11:11 GMT, Greg Esres
wrote:

The directive to pilots is that only approaches labeled "GPS" can be
flown with GPS.


What does this mean, exactly?

Must I turn off my GPS if I am flying a VOR or NDB approach?

Will I lose my certificate if I look at my GPS during the approach?
Will I lose my certificate if I look at the GPS more than I do the
OBS/ADF?

These generalized statements one finds in the AIM and elsewhere need
to be examined for specific meanings. When that is done, one finds
that most of them are absolute garbage.

The AIM recommends that any unauthorized instruments have their displays
covered with a ham sandwich when passing the final approach fix.

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 09:19:28 -0500, Roy Smith wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 05:11:11 GMT, Greg Esres
wrote:

The directive to pilots is that only approaches labeled "GPS" can be
flown with GPS.


What does this mean, exactly?

Must I turn off my GPS if I am flying a VOR or NDB approach?

Will I lose my certificate if I look at my GPS during the approach?
Will I lose my certificate if I look at the GPS more than I do the
OBS/ADF?

These generalized statements one finds in the AIM and elsewhere need
to be examined for specific meanings. When that is done, one finds
that most of them are absolute garbage.

The AIM recommends that any unauthorized instruments have their displays
covered with a ham sandwich when passing the final approach fix.


I don't believe this is true.

It has been demonstrated that some people navigate better with a ham
sandwich than they can with either ADF or VOR. Therefore the ham
sandwich would also be illegal.

In article ,
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 09:19:28 -0500, Roy Smith wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 05:11:11 GMT, Greg Esres
wrote:

The directive to pilots is that only approaches labeled "GPS" can be
flown with GPS.


What does this mean, exactly?

Must I turn off my GPS if I am flying a VOR or NDB approach?

Will I lose my certificate if I look at my GPS during the approach?
Will I lose my certificate if I look at the GPS more than I do the
OBS/ADF?

These generalized statements one finds in the AIM and elsewhere need
to be examined for specific meanings. When that is done, one finds
that most of them are absolute garbage.

The AIM recommends that any unauthorized instruments have their displays
covered with a ham sandwich when passing the final approach fix.


I don't believe this is true.

It has been demonstrated that some people navigate better with a ham
sandwich than they can with either ADF or VOR. Therefore the ham
sandwich would also be illegal.

Only if you mount it face side out.

No, we were talking about how Garmin posts a cautionary note about
not using GPS for the final approach segment of an ILS or localizer
type IAP.

That isn't what it says. Here it is verbatim:

"GPS guidance is for monitoring only. Activate approach?"

It says nothing here about "final approach." How could this be more
clear?

You want to enter into a consulting agreement?

For a phone number? Harsh. ;-)

These generalized statements one finds in the AIM and elsewhere need
to be examined for specific meanings. When that is done, one finds
that most of them are absolute garbage.

If you're deliberately being obtuse.

The AIM is clear that you may not use GPS for flying LOC, ILS, SDF and
non-overly approaches using the GPS as your primary means of
navigation. You must be monitoring the underlying navaid.

Greg Esres wrote:

No, we were talking about how Garmin posts a cautionary note about
not using GPS for the final approach segment of an ILS or localizer
type IAP.

That isn't what it says. Here it is verbatim:

"GPS guidance is for monitoring only. Activate approach?"

It says nothing here about "final approach." How could this be more
clear?

"Activate *approach*" in GPS paralance means the final approach
segment. If you can get Approach Mode active for other than the final
approach segment, let us know.



You want to enter into a consulting agreement?

For a phone number? Harsh. ;-)

"Activate *approach*" in GPS paralance means the final approach
segment. If you can get Approach Mode active for other than the final
approach segment, let us know.

Geez, "Activate Approach" for Garmin means to make the IAF the active
waypoint. That has nothing to do with "Approach Active".

Your answer was bull**** and you know it.

I suspect that you agree that there is no authorization to use these
boxes in this fashion and you just don't want to acknowledge it.

What does "primary means" mean EXACTLY?

You're trying to use semantics in order to escape from any restriction
from doing something you want to do. Teenagers are very good at this.
;-) I don't have much interest in playing this game, because your
goal isn't understanding, but winning.

As I told you in another post, this issue here is using the GPS as
your sole means of navigation on the initial segment and portions of
the intermediate segment of a non-overlay approach procedure.

Greg Esres wrote:

"Activate *approach*" in GPS paralance means the final approach
segment. If you can get Approach Mode active for other than the final
approach segment, let us know.

Geez, "Activate Approach" for Garmin means to make the IAF the active
waypoint. That has nothing to do with "Approach Active".

Your answer was bull**** and you know it.

I suspect that you agree that there is no authorization to use these
boxes in this fashion and you just don't want to acknowledge it.

Since you choose to denigrate the conversation to the use of profanity,
and further you seem to think you can read my mind, there isn't much left
in the form of an intelligent discussion. "Activate Approach" provides
both terminal routes and arms the final approach segment for Approach
Mode. That cannot happen with an ILS/LOC type procedure.

The airlines have been flying the RNAV overlays of the conventional
terminal routes on an ILS for over 20 years. They switch to LOC guidance
not later than the P-FAF, and often the IF. This practice has been
subject to considerable oversight by the FAA. Flying a terminal route
prior to the FAA is no different than flying an airway. You don't need to
be checking underlying nav facilities during such an operation.

It sounds like your both anal retentive and spring-loaded to being
unreasonably argumentative, yet you are unwilling to do your own leg work
to get to the folks in the FAA who can answer your unnecessary question.