Authorized GPS?

[akpilot907]

What type of GPS is required for IFR flight in IMC conditions? I know garmin 430/530's are certified to do GPS Direct, but what makes them certified.. What says I can't use my IPad with updated charts and approaches with a Stratus WAAS ADS-B receiver.. Is this legal to use in IMC conditions while flying IFR? I know that we are authorized handheld GPS devices in VMC on an IFR fltplan for situational awareness..

Can I take my IPAD, with a WAAS ADS-B receiver and do GPS direct? Thanks

 

[FORANE]

Avweb has an article on this:
http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/182076-1.html
I believe the consensus is it is acceptable to "request heading 123 vectors direct XYZ". Just do not file /G or fly a gps approach with a non-certified gps.
To be certified for IFR a gps must have TSO:

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgTSO.nsf/0/e560cd9c6acf8ba186256dc700717e0f/$FILE/C129a.pdf

 

[Velocity173]

Get on AOPA and take their VFR & IFR GPS courses. Takes about 30 mins a piece and have plenty of good info there. Short answer, no you can't use your Ipad stuff for primary IFR navigation operations.

 

[akpilot907]

Get on AOPA and take their VFR & IFR GPS courses. Takes about 30 mins a piece and have plenty of good info there. Short answer, no you can't use your Ipad stuff for primary IFR navigation operations.

Thanks!

 

[flyingron]

IFR GPS are approved for three regimes of flight: Enroute, Terminal, and Approach. There are some that are approved for Enroute and Terminal only (these can be used for going Direct to some fix, substitute for DME and ADF in many cases even on approach, etc..). The 430/480/530/650/750/... all have the ability to be certified for approach.

Note that just installing the GPS isn't enough. There's an STC that needs to be complied with to get IFR approval (mostly involves making sure you've followed the installation guidance for what other equipment, etc.. is required and a flight test).

And no, the FAA does not approve any sort of handheld gps for any regime of IFR flight.

 

[John Collins]

FAR 91.205 requires "Two-way radio communication and navigation equipment suitable for the route to be flown". In this context, equipment means installed. Suitability is described in various documents provided by the FAA including the AIM in sections 1-1-19 and 1-1-20. AC 20-138A and later describe the installation requirements for the equipment for IFR use. AC 90-105, 90-107, and 90-108 describe what equipment qualifies for what use in the US national airspace system. Portable equipment does not qualify for IFR use except as supplementary information.

 

[frfly172]

I have used a portable while IFR for direct to given by act by putting in the remarks section that you have a portable GPS aboard.Then did the approach the old fashion way with nav radios.Have since purchased a plane with a was GPS ,but still carry a portable just in case,also use an I pad to stay on the airways.

 

[CT Arrow]

What type of GPS is required for IFR flight in IMC conditions? I know garmin 430/530's are certified to do GPS Direct, but what makes them certified.. What says I can't use my IPad with updated charts and approaches with a Stratus WAAS ADS-B receiver.. Is this legal to use in IMC conditions while flying IFR? I know that we are authorized handheld GPS devices in VMC on an IFR fltplan for situational awareness..

Can I take my IPAD, with a WAAS ADS-B receiver and do GPS direct? Thanks

In the US the FAA uses two specifications for IFR GPS installations they are covered by a technical standard order, TSO C129 (A1) and TSO C129 (A2). A1 being en route, terminal and non-precision approach-certified (A2) drops the approach ability. Those TSO's have specific installed requirements and tests. You simply can't meet those requirements with a portable unit, RAIM (Receiver Autonomous Integrity Monitoring) is one area where portables have issues among others.

Even the remote altimeter requires wiring as does the required remote display head (CDI) and soon you have so many wires that HAVE TO CONNECT there is no easy quick way to have the unit still portable.

You can read the TSO at http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidan…

With the costs of getting a unit approved under those orders, which is not insignificant, there are no portables that have done it nor is there a good reason for the manufacturer to do it and accept the liability involved.

 

[poadeleted20]

Avweb has an article on this:
http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/182076-1.html
I believe the consensus is it is acceptable to "request heading 123 vectors direct XYZ".

I don't know what the "consensus" is, but the position of the FAA Flight Standards Service is that you can request vectors to anything you could find by yourself (e.g., if you have only VOR's, you can get vectors to a VOR station you are not already receiving, or to join a Victor airway), but not to something you could not eventually navigate to straight line by yourself (e.g., an intersection or NDB if all you have are VOR's). That is what they say "navigation equipment suitable for the route to be flown" means, and the Chief Counsel does not disagree. Of course, you can still go direct to an intersection via one of the defining VOR radials, (e.g., "fly heading 120, join the Moosebutt 150 radial to BUNGO intersection" when the Moosebutt 150 radial is one of the defining radials for BUNGO) but not otherwise.

To be certified for IFR a gps must have TSO:

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_G...0cd9c6acf8ba186256dc700717e0f/$FILE/C129a.pdf

It also must have an approved installation in your aircraft documented with a Form 337 and an approved flight manual supplement.

 

[poadeleted20]

I have used a portable while IFR for direct to given by act by putting in the remarks section that you have a portable GPS aboard.

The fact that ATC has approved such does not mean it's legal. It is not their responsibility to ensure you have the legally required equipment -- that's the PIC's responsibility alone, and it is only the PIC who gets in trouble if the PIC chooses to accept a clearance for which s/he does no have the legally required equipment. See Administrator v. Fausak on that point.

 

[chemgeek]

All been said here. You need a TSO certified GPS to use it as sole means of navigation while IFR. If you want to navigate direct to a fix using your non-TSO GPS for situational awareness you need to request and follow a vector to be squeaky-clean and safe in the eyes of the FAA. You may or may not get such said vector.

 

[poadeleted20]

All been said here. You need a TSO certified GPS to use it as sole means of navigation while IFR. If you want to navigate direct to a fix using your non-TSO GPS for situational awareness you need to request and follow a vector to be squeaky-clean and safe in the eyes of the FAA. You may or may not get such said vector.

And the vector must be to something to which you can eventually navigate yourself (i.e., have a means of determining lateral deviation and arrival) using only the IFR approved gear you have. So, with only VOR's, you can only accept vectors to a VOR or to intercept a VOR radial (or, of course, to within eyesight of an airport for a visual approach).

 

[flyingron]

So you are saying you can't navigate to an airway intersection. I seem to remember tricks for visualizing where the intersection is based on the relative needle deflections from both vors.

 

[poadeleted20]

So you are saying you can't navigate to an airway intersection.

Other than along one of the defining radials, no, not without a "suitable RNAV system," and a handheld GPS isn't that. As I said above, ATC isn't responsible for knowing whether you have the gear for a clearance or not, so the fact that they issue a clearance for which you do not have the legally required equipment is not their problem -- the problem is yours for accepting it.

Now, if nothing goes wrong, odds are nobody else will ever know or care -- had Fausak managed to stay on the approach, ATC would never have called the FSDO. But if, like Fausak, you screw it up and that causes a problem for ATC, you can expect a PD report to be filed with the FSDO, and then the legalities will matter.

I seem to remember tricks for visualizing where the intersection is based on the relative needle deflections from both vors.

You may have learned that trick for situational awareness, but it is not a legal navigational method for our purposes (oceanic and other long range navigation methods with a rated Flight Navigator aboard notwithstanding). Ditto the old BDHI "pencil" method we learned in military flight training many decades ago -- per an agreement between the military and the FAA, that is no longer authorized for complying with ATC clearances in the US NAS, and a letter to that effect went out from the military to its pilots some time back.

 

[Banjo33]

Ron, that's the first I've heard that point to point nav (pencil on the BDHI) wasn't authorized. In fact, when I left the training command 3 months ago we were still teaching it. Do you have a reference to the letter you speak of? I wonder if it was disseminated appropriately.

 

[poadeleted20]

Ron, that's the first I've heard that point to point nav (pencil on the BDHI) wasn't authorized. In fact, when I left the training command 3 months ago we were still teaching it. Do you have a reference to the letter you speak of? I wonder if it was disseminated appropriately.

It's authorized for military use outside the FAA IFR system, and that's why it's still taught. However, from the AFFSA:

SUBJECT: FIX-TO-FIX GUIDANCE

1. AFFSA RESEARCH HAS CONCLUDED THAT THE NAVIGATION PROCEDURE OF PROCEEDING DIRECT TO A RADIAL/DME (FIX-TO-FIX) IS NOT A BASIC REQUIREMENT TO OPERATE IN THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM (NAS) NOR DOES IT COMPLY WITH FAA ACCEPTED PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES. BEYOND INITIAL PILOT TRAINING, AFFSA ASSERTS THAT THE USAF DEVOTES AN EXCESSIVE AMOUNT OF VALUABLE TIME AND RESOURCES IN CONTINUING TO TRAIN AND EVALUATE THIS NAVIGATION PROCEDURE.

2. IN ORDER TO LEGALLY CONFORM TO NAS AREA NAVIGATION PROCEDURES AND THE NATIONAL ROUTE PROGRAM (NRP) AS OUTLINED IN FLIP GP CHAPTER 4 AND FAA AC 90-91, USAF PILOTS AND AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS SHOULD NOT FILE, GIVE, OR ACCEPT A CLEARANCE (AS APPLICABLE) THAT REQUIRES AN AIRCRAFT TO NAVIGATE DIRECT TO A RADIAL/DME FIX (PERFORM A FIX-TO-FIX) EXCEPT UNDER THE FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES:

A. THE PRIMARY NAVIGATION EQUIPMENT ONBOARD THE AIRCRAFT IS EITHER AREA NAVIGATION (RNAV) OR ADVANCED RNAV CAPABLE AND OPERATING NORMALLY.

B. FLIGHT WILL BE CONDUCTED WHERE RADAR MONITORING BY AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL (ATC) IS AVAILABLE.

C. LOCALLY DEFINED ARRIVAL/DEPARTURE PROCEDURES REQUIRE THE NAVIGATION TO/FROM A RADIAL-DME FIX FOR THE SEQUENCING OF AIRCRAFT AS AUTHORIZED BY FAA ORDER 7110.65R, PARA 4-4-6 (SEE NOTE). LOCALLY DEFINED PROCEDURES MUST BE EVALUATED BY TERPS AND FLIGHT CHECKED IF FLOWN IN INSTRUMENT METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS (IMC) AND RADAR MONITORING IS NOT AVAILABLE.

D. OPERATIONAL NECESSITY DICTATES (I.E. FILING AND FLYING AN AIR REFUELING TRACK) OR CONFORMS TO MILITARY ENROUTE OPERATIONS AS DEFINED IN FAA ORDER 7110.65R, PARA 4-4-3.

3. WHEN OPERATING IN THE NAS AND GIVEN A CLEARANCE TO PROCEED TO A RADIAL/DME FIX, UNLESS THE AIRCRAFT CAPABILITY OR OPERATIONS MEET THE PARAMETERS DEFINED IN PARA 2, SUBPARA A THRU D OF THIS MESSAGE, PILOTS SHOULD REPLY WITH “UNABLE” AND STATE THE APPROPRIATE SUFFIX CODE DEFINED IN FLIP GP CHAPTER 4. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, ATC SHOULD PROVIDE NAVIGATION GUIDANCE TO THE RADIAL/DME FIX EITHER VIA RADAR VECTORS OR AN ALTERNATE ROUTING.

4. SINCE PROCEEDING DIRECT TO A RADIAL/DME FIX IS NOT A BASIC REQUIREMENT TO OPERATE IN THE NAS, TO MEET THE INTENT OF AFI 11-202 VOL 1, PARA 5.2.1.2 AND AFI 11-202 VOL 2, PARA 5.2.9.4, MAJCOMS SHOULD REDUCE THE EMPHASIS PLACED ON THE TRAINING OF THE FIX-TO-FIX PROCEDURE AND DELETE, WHERE APPLICABLE, THE REQUIREMENT TO PERFORM THE MANEUVER AS PART OF THE FLIGHT EVALUATION.

I don't know whether the Army or Navy put out similar guidance, but the FAA's position is clearly noted in the AFFSA message, and that would apply to all services.

 

[Velocity173]

It's authorized for military use outside the FAA IFR system, and that's why it's still taught. However, from the AFFSA:
I don't know whether the Army or Navy put out similar guidance, but the FAA's position is clearly noted in the AFFSA message, and that would apply to all services.

If so equipped, Army aircraft are authorized point to point with the same provisions above. The aircraft will file /G and unlike civilian requirements has to have a current database (DAFIF) and operate in the PPS (Y code) mode.

Not all aircraft have an IFR certified GPS so obviously they file /U. With this they can still use it as supplemental NAV but given a vector to a NAVAID outside the service volume, they are to use the certified (VOR) equipment upon getting reception range. Obviously must be under radar monitoring during that time as well.

Now in the real world are there pilots relying on some portable 496 that they brought with them??? :wink2:

 

[poadeleted20]

Now in the real world are there pilots relying on some portable 496 that they brought with them??? :wink2:

Like R&W said about SVT -- there will always be some who will try to use the tools they have for things for which the tool is not supposed or allowed to be used.

 

[Palmpilot]

I don't know what the "consensus" is, but the position of the FAA Flight Standards Service is that you can request vectors to anything you could find by yourself (e.g., if you have only VOR's, you can get vectors to a VOR station you are not already receiving, or to join a Victor airway), but not to something you could not eventually navigate to straight line by yourself (e.g., an intersection or NDB if all you have are VOR's).

Is the person who expressed that opinion still employed by the FAA Flight Standards Service?

Of course, you can still go direct to an intersection via one of the defining VOR radials, (e.g., "fly heading 120, join the Moosebutt 150 radial to BUNGO intersection" when the Moosebutt 150 radial is one of the defining radials for BUNGO) but not otherwise.

If ATC told the pilot of a /U or /A aircraft "Fly heading 120, direct BUNGO intersection when able," eventually the aircraft would intercept a defining radial, at which point the pilot would be able to fly directly to the intersection.

 

[flyingron]

It's authorized for military use outside the FAA IFR system, and that's why it's still taught. However, from the AFFSA:
I don't know whether the Army or Navy put out similar guidance, but the FAA's position is clearly noted in the AFFSA message, and that would apply to all services.

You've lost me. Where in that guidance does it imply the FAA's position? Participation in the NRP is not obligatory. I can't see anything in 90-91 or the controllers handbook that supports that conclusion either. The only thing in the handbook about degree/distance fixes specifically applies to the military (and I suspect highly that the military were the origin of those restrictions anyhow).

 

[poadeleted20]

You've lost me. Where in that guidance does it imply the FAA's position? Participation in the NRP is not obligatory. I can't see anything in 90-91 or the controllers handbook that supports that conclusion either. The only thing in the handbook about degree/distance fixes specifically applies to the military (and I suspect highly that the military were the origin of those restrictions anyhow).

The guy at AFFSA who sent me that message said was the result of USAF/FAA discussions about the practice. No, I have no proof of that, but it fits with the result.

 

[SbestCFII]

Depends on the TSO. The TSO C129 GPS receivers are certified for IFR enroute (a) and non-presicion approaches (b), but they are not "sole means" navigators. You are still required to have another approved means of navigation operating on board (i.e. VORs with the required receiver checks and all that). Under TSO C146 WAAS-approved GPS receivers are approved as "stand alone" navigators and may be used for enroute navigation without need of another approved means of navigation operating on board. These latterunits are also approved for approaches with ILS-like precision, i.e. the LNAV and LNAV-VNAV approaches.

VFR panel mounted GPS and portable receivers may be used under IFR as an "aid to situational awareness," which is to say you can use them anyway you want as long as you're not using them to replace your primary navigation system or for approach guidance. The reason these devices are not approved for anything else, is not that they are any less accurate than the certified units, but that the FAA has not "evaluated" these units.

I use a Garmin 396 side-by-side with a Bendix-King KLN94 (TSO C129) and a Garmin 430W (TSO-146) and I can tell you that the portable unit is every bit as accurate as either certified unit. If you're not flying with an IFR panel-mount, I would recommend getting your avionics shop to help install a suitable mount with connections to ships power and an external antenna.

 

[flyingron]

C129 certed units are not necessarily even good for non-precision approaches. That TSO allows the unit to only be approved for enroute and terminal as well. You need to check the installation information on your particular aircraft.

 

[John Collins]

Early WAAS units such as the GNS430W were not initially approved for sole source of IFR navigation. I keep coming across these units in customers aircraft with down level software and antenna. It takes software version 3.X or later, a compliant antenna, and an updated AFMS for the GNS430W/530W to be used for sole source of IFR navigation.

 

[flyingron]

Early WAAS units such as the GNS430W were not initially approved for sole source of IFR navigation. I keep coming across these units in customers aircraft with down level software and antenna. It takes software version 3.X or later, a compliant antenna, and an updated AFMS for the GNS430W/530W to be used for sole source of IFR navigation.

Weren't they initially approved and then restricted by a "mandatory" service bulletin that modded the flight manual supplement to require the supplemental means?

 

[John Collins]

Weren't they initially approved and then restricted by a "mandatory" service bulletin that modded the flight manual supplement to require the supplemental means?

That is true of the GNS480, the GNS430W/530W started out with the requirement for supplemental means. At version 3.0 for the W and 2.3 for the 480, the restriction could be removed if there was a compliant antenna installed.

 

[Piloto]

When dealing with aviation computer based equipment it is very important that the software and hardware complies with minimum certain requirementa detailed in DO-178 at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DO-178B

Otherwise you may be at risk.

As an example: An iPad may freeze the image without any warning to the pilot and the pilot may continue flying his approach thinking everything is OK and that is on the proper path when in fact he may be off and hit the mountain.

Keep in mind that an iPad does not need to comply with DO-178 since is not used on safety critical environment.

José