Is your IFR GPS still legal for use?

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.

"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.

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

"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

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.

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

"Danny Deger" wrote in message
...

"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
Certainly the case in parts of Europe especially the UK.

john smith wrote in news:4656d17a$0$2829
:

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.

From the way I am reading it, it sounds like the restriction is only for
certain types of GPS-specific procedures, such as RNAV-STARs, RNAV-SIDs, and
Q-Routes and T-Routes. I'm not sure what a Q-Route or a T-Route is, but I
have heard of RNAV-STARs and RNAV-SIDs. I've never used them up to now, and
it doesn't worry me much that I won't be able to use them with my current
GPS.

Normal routes (even off-airway, which is specifically mentioned) and normal
STARs, SIDs, and other procedures, even GPS approaches, don't seem to be
covered in this AC.

I'm no lawyer, nor even an expert, but that's how I read it...

Did AOPA get wind of a specific paragraph that is more broad than this?

On Sat, 26 May 2007 17:38:54 GMT, Judah wrote:

john smith wrote in news:4656d17a$0$2829
:

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.

From the way I am reading it, it sounds like the restriction is only for
certain types of GPS-specific procedures, such as RNAV-STARs, RNAV-SIDs, and
Q-Routes and T-Routes. I'm not sure what a Q-Route or a T-Route is, but I
have heard of RNAV-STARs and RNAV-SIDs. I've never used them up to now, and
it doesn't worry me much that I won't be able to use them with my current
GPS.

Normal routes (even off-airway, which is specifically mentioned) and normal
STARs, SIDs, and other procedures, even GPS approaches, don't seem to be
covered in this AC.

I'm no lawyer, nor even an expert, but that's how I read it...

Did AOPA get wind of a specific paragraph that is more broad than this?

A T-Route is a low altitude RNAV route. I believe they can be numbered
from 200-500 (e.g T200).

A Q-Route is a high altitude RNAV route.

So far as the restriction people have been stating having to do with not
being able to use the uncertified GPS units as a substitute for ADF/DME,
that stems from the AIM (1-2-3) (and possibly a change that has not been
published) restricting this type of usage to units that are compliant with
AC90-100.

--ron

Ron Rosenfeld wrote in
:

So far as the restriction people have been stating having to do with not
being able to use the uncertified GPS units as a substitute for ADF/DME,
that stems from the AIM (1-2-3) (and possibly a change that has not been
published) restricting this type of usage to units that are compliant
with AC90-100.

Ahh... Now I get why I didn't see it.

But the AIM is not regulatory, is it?

If it is, it's a stupid rule. One of the ILSs at my home airport actually
requires an ADF. What a pain.