No more "or GPS

P

pstan

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
May 17, 2009
Messages
168
Display Name
Display name:
Stan
What happened to all the "or GPS" approaches? In the not so distant past, these seemed to be prevalent. For example, KTEB VOR 24 no longer has "or GPS" in the title. And many others in the US also seem to have lost this in their title.

Our aircraft Flight Manual specifically says we can fly VOR or NBB approaches through our FMS only if the chart title includes "or GPS" in it.

Can anyone shed some light on this?

These non precision approaches no longer safe for an IFR approach approved receiver?

Stan
 
pstan said:
What happened to all the "or GPS" approaches? In the not so distant past, these seemed to be prevalent. For example, KTEB VOR 24 no longer has "or GPS" in the title. And many others in the US also seem to have lost this in their title.

Our aircraft Flight Manual specifically says we can fly VOR or NBB approaches through our FMS only if the chart title includes "or GPS" in it.

Can anyone shed some light on this?

These non precision approaches no longer safe for an IFR approach approved receiver?

Stan
Click to expand...

Don’t know exactly why, but they did away with that a few years ago. Any that remain will have an older Amendment or Original Date on them. Can’t speak for your Flight Manual, but it should be legal to do it as long as you have a VOR or ADF in the plane and you monitor the Final Approach Course with it while using the whiz box to fly it.
 
Why wouldn’t you just use the rnav 24?
 
Neodosha Ks still has one. VOR or GPS 02
 
IIRC, the “or gps” overlay approaches were just a transitional thing, and they were only going to be temporary.
 
Last edited:
MauleSkinner said:
IIRC, the “or gps” overlay approaches were just a transitional thing, and we’re only going to be temporary.
Click to expand...

This is true. The "or GPS" approaches, with the exception of a few notables like the VOR-B into KVNY, have been replaced by RNAV GPS approaches.
 
N1120A said:
This is true. The "or GPS" approaches, with the exception of a few notables like the VOR-B into KVNY, have been replaced by RNAV GPS approaches.
Click to expand...

That’s not an ‘or GPS’ Approach and there are no RNAV Approaches to KVNY. The VOR/DME or GPS B was replaced with the VOR B with a DME required note and the ‘or GPS’ was dropped.
 
Last edited:
pstan said:
What happened to all the "or GPS" approaches? In the not so distant past, these seemed to be prevalent. For example, KTEB VOR 24 no longer has "or GPS" in the title. And many others in the US also seem to have lost this in their title.

Our aircraft Flight Manual specifically says we can fly VOR or NBB approaches through our FMS only if the chart title includes "or GPS" in it.

Can anyone shed some light on this?

These non precision approaches no longer safe for an IFR approach approved receiver?

Stan
Click to expand...
pstan said:
What happened to all the "or GPS" approaches? In the not so distant past, these seemed to be prevalent. For example, KTEB VOR 24 no longer has "or GPS" in the title. And many others in the US also seem to have lost this in their title.

Our aircraft Flight Manual specifically says we can fly VOR or NBB approaches through our FMS only if the chart title includes "or GPS" in it.

Can anyone shed some light on this?

These non precision approaches no longer safe for an IFR approach approved receiver?

Stan
Click to expand...
Known as overlay approaches. Several thousand were established in one fell swoop to jump start RNAV GPS. As a runway or airport has an RNAV IAP published any VOR or NDB IAP with "...or GPS" has the "or GPS" removed. Having said that, there still some overlay approaches in the system.
 
pstan said:
What happened to all the "or GPS" approaches?
Click to expand...

They are cleaning the names up. I read something about it a couple of months ago but didn't pay much attention. The capabilities stay the same, they're just calling them RNAV now.

I think. Like I said, I didn't pay much attention at the moment.
 
bflynn said:
They are cleaning the names up. I read something about it a couple of months ago but didn't pay much attention. The capabilities stay the same, they're just calling them RNAV now.

I think. Like I said, I didn't pay much attention at the moment.
Click to expand...
Actually, all the RNAV approaches are being renamed to RNP. And the RNP approaches are being renamed RNP (AR). AR for "Authorization Required."
 
Thanks to all, very informative. Salty, you asked why I would fly a VOR approach when an Rnav was available, it was what my instructor asked of me. I planned to load the VOR approach from the FMS database (it was an option, IIRRC), however the Flight Manual said only if the title said "or GPS". Stan
 
pstan said:
I planned to load the VOR approach from the FMS database (it was an option, IIRRC), however the Flight Manual said only if the title said "or GPS".
Click to expand...
What is the exact wording from your Flight Manual?
 
Last edited:
pstan said:
What happened to all the "or GPS" approaches? In the not so distant past, these seemed to be prevalent. For example, KTEB VOR 24 no longer has "or GPS" in the title. And many others in the US also seem to have lost this in their title.

Our aircraft Flight Manual specifically says we can fly VOR or NBB approaches through our FMS only if the chart title includes "or GPS" in it.

Can anyone shed some light on this?

These non precision approaches no longer safe for an IFR approach approved receiver?

Stan
Click to expand...


1. WAAS allowed for LPV
2. TAA allowed for seamless approaches without a feeder route.
 
N1120A said:
Yes, I know that. There was a GPS overlay approach there previously, but no longer.
Click to expand...

Guess I misconstrued the “...or GPS" approaches, with the exception of...”. Thought maybe you had an old plate that said ‘or GPS.’
 
Sluggo63 said:
Actually, all the RNAV approaches are being renamed to RNP. And the RNP approaches are being renamed RNP (AR). AR for "Authorization Required."
Click to expand...

Agghhh!!! Not again, another renaming convention. We’ll probably never get to the point where it’s all caught up and there aren’t old ones still out there.
 
bflynn said:
They are cleaning the names up. I read something about it a couple of months ago but didn't pay much attention. The capabilities stay the same, they're just calling them RNAV now.

I think. Like I said, I didn't pay much attention at the moment.
Click to expand...
No. RNAV are an entirely different TERPs criteria.
 
I guess they also figure that the rules allowing primary navigation with GPS and/or FMS on non precision radio based approaches obviate the need for overlays (so long as you have a VLOC needle to monitor)

luvflyin said:
Agghhh!!! Not again, another renaming convention. We’ll probably never get to the point where it’s all caught up and there aren’t old ones still out there.
Click to expand...

It is apparently an ICAO standardization effort. Our GPS systems are already certified to a certain RNP standard, so there's that. My guess is they want to leave RNAV as a term for en route navigation and then RNP for approaches.
 
N1120A said:
I guess they also figure that the rules allowing primary navigation with GPS and/or FMS on non precision radio based approaches obviate the need for overlays (so long as you have a VLOC needle to monitor)



It is apparently an ICAO standardization effort. Our GPS systems are already certified to a certain RNP standard, so there's that. My guess is they want to leave RNAV as a term for en route navigation and then RNP for approaches.
Click to expand...

Here we go again, letting the rest of the World push us around. First it was Alphabet Soup Airspace. Now this. Don’t they know we are ‘merica and they should be doing it our way!
 
As others have said, the whole "or GPS" thing was always intended as a temporary measure, a way to get some kind of GPS approaches into the system for use with the early-generation GPS receivers.

While there are still something like 50 "or GPS" approaches in the U.S. inventory, as they are amended for other reasons they are generally being split apart into the two type of procedures (so a VOR approach and an RNAV (GPS) approach, for instance)

bflynn said:
They are cleaning the names up. I read something about it a couple of months ago but didn't pay much attention. The capabilities stay the same, they're just calling them RNAV now.

I think. Like I said, I didn't pay much attention at the moment.
Click to expand...

The capabilities are not the same. Current RNAV (GPS) procedures are evaluated using different criteria than "GPS" approaches were, and most importantly, can have vertical guidance like LPV minimums.

Sluggo63 said:
Actually, all the RNAV approaches are being renamed to RNP. And the RNP approaches are being renamed RNP (AR). AR for "Authorization Required."
Click to expand...

That's not quite correct, not in the U.S. yet at least. The name is staying "RNAV (GPS)" and "RNAV (RNP)" but the equipment notes box is indicating "RNP APCH" for RNAV (GPS) and "RNP AR APCH" for RNAV (RNP). Yes, this is confusing. It's an unfortunate use of the term "RNP" in two situations with different meanings.
 
RussR said:
While there are still something like 50 "or GPS" approaches in the U.S. inventory, as they are amended for other reasons they are generally being split apart into the two type of procedures (so a VOR approach and an RNAV (GPS) approach, for instance)
Click to expand...
What I don’t understand is the lack of a production plan for KAVX.
 
pstan said:
Our aircraft Flight Manual specifically says we can fly VOR or NBB approaches through our FMS only if the chart title includes "or GPS" in it.



Stan
Click to expand...

pstan said:
upload_2021-3-10_13-47-12-png.94537
Click to expand...
That's not what that says. It just says that you can't fly the final approach segment using GPS.
 
Sluggo63 said:
Actually, all the RNAV approaches are being renamed to RNP. And the RNP approaches are being renamed RNP (AR). AR for "Authorization Required."
Click to expand...

The procedure names are not changing, they are still RNAV (GPS) Rwy XX. The PBN navigation specification is being added to the PBN equipment box. The PBN specification name is RNP APCH. In the rest of the world, they are changing the approach names to RNP (GNSS), but the USA declined as they have almost 7000 procedures. It is an easy task when a country has 4 RNAV procedures to rename them all, so this is a non issue for all the Johnny come lately countries new to the GPS game.
 
PPC wrote "That's not what that says. It just says that you can't fly the final approach segment using GPS."

So....how can I legally fly the final approach with the FMS then? Not sure it would be legal to deselect the gps satellites.....

Mauleskinner, 2 CDIs, one in front of each pilot
 
pstan said:
PPC wrote "That's not what that says. It just says that you can't fly the final approach segment using GPS."

So....how can I legally fly the final approach with the FMS then? Not sure it would be legal to deselect the gps satellites.....

Mauleskinner, 2 CDIs, one in front of each pilot
Click to expand...

If one is a certificated operator such as 121, 135, or 91-K, there are Opspecs that allow this. Operating just under part 91, does not, and the VOR or NDB must be operating and a CDI/RMI of the raw data must be available to the pilot to fly the final approach course using a GPS.
 
But John, the Flight manual forbids it.
 
Mauleskinner, as per the AFM, the VOR data needs to be on the PF's CDI.
 
2 pilot. Learjet 75. either pilot can fly. Garmin 5000. So the right side pilot can fly with VOR on his CDI, left seat with the FMS seems possible
 
upload_2021-3-10_13-47-12-png.94537


While far from being an outlier, this is certainly not the best written guidance I've ever seen. :) Also, in isolation it may not be sufficient to determine the requirements you're attempting to pin down.

This snippet, if in fact it comes from the subject aircraft's current AFM (has it been revised since?) and depending from whence it comes within that AFM (is it from a Flight Manual Supplement?) is perhaps now somewhat of an anachronism given the reference to the phrase "or GPS." But, by my careful, and repeated reading, this does not appear to apply any stipulation not currently found in AIM 1-2-3 other than specifying that the PF's "CDI" must contain the "reference" data of any ground-based navaid approach.

The detail I'd focus on is this specific line:

"or any other type of approach not approved for "or GPS" navigation..."
​
That's not quite the same thing as saying "approaches with "or GPS" in the procedure title." I suspect they're really trying to align the guidance with AIM 1-2-3 with this statement, but have written it in a less than precise way.

A VOR or NDB approach may be flown completely from the IAF to missed approach by use of a "suitable RNAV system" so long as the underlying navaid is operational and "... monitored" for final segment course alignment. This statement which you say comes from the AFM does not actually contradict that.

The only differentiation from AIM 1-2-3 I pull from this is that it must be the PF's CDI with the LOC/LOC-BC/LDA/SDF guidance. (We don't actually have any MLS' in the NAS, do we? Russ?)
 
pstan said:
Mauleskinner, as per the AFM, the VOR data needs to be on the PF's CDI.
Click to expand...

I just realized a point of possible confusion. The second sentence is just as byzantine as the first if it's not carefully interpreted.

"When using the VOR/LOC/GS receivers to fly the final approach segment, VOR/LOC/GS navigation data must be selected and presented on the CDI of the pilot flying."
​
How about typography modifiers to highlight a couple of things...

"When using the VOR/LOC/GS receivers to fly the final approach segment, VOR/LOC/GS navigation data must be selected and presented on the CDI of the pilot flying."
​
Good question. So, when will you use the VOR/LOC/GS receiver to fly the final approach segment?

When you're flying an ILS, LOC, LOC-BC, LDA, SDF, or MLS.

"... or any other type of approach not approved for "or GPS" navigation."
​
In the civil aviation world I'm only aware of two others in reasonably common use, that's NDB or VOR, and they're both approved for "or GPS" navigation per AIM 1-2-3.

You need not deselect any receivers in your FMS. In practical terms what it really boils down to is the pilot flying needs to have "green needles" up during the final segment if he's flying an ILS or other localizer based approach. If he's flying an RNAV approach, or VOR or NDB for that matter, he can do so using his "suitable RNAV system" so long as a bearing pointer or something like that is showing the bearing to the navaid, and it doesn't really matter whether the PF or the PM has it up.

Clear as mud?
 
pstan said:
2 pilot. Learjet 75. either pilot can fly. Garmin 5000. So the right side pilot can fly with VOR on his CDI, left seat with the FMS seems possible
Click to expand...

What if the CDI on the right side doesn’t agree with the FMS on the left side? I don’t think the ol’ 1-2-3 actually gives guidance on this. Just says ya gotta monitor the ‘raw data.’ Seems obvious though that the intent is the raw data trumps the whiz box data. Anyway, if there’s a discrepancy, hopefully the right seat dude and the left seat dude communicate and don’t fight with yoke like theses guys did.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Air_Flight_3591
 
Ryan, I have trouble following your thoughts. Yes it's in the AFM, not a supplement. Yes it is the current AFM. And I agree not worded very eloquently.

I note that while AIM 1-2-3 allows manufacturers to use a suitable RNAV FMS for final approach of (for example) a VOR approach, Bombardier has not approved it. Hence we (L75 pilots) cannot fly a non precision approach through the FMS that is strictly VOR. Or NDB. I believe that is the end of the story.
 
pstan said:
Ryan, I have trouble following your thoughts. Yes it's in the AFM, not a supplement. Yes it is the current AFM. And I agree not worded very eloquently.

I note that while AIM 1-2-3 allows manufacturers to use a suitable RNAV FMS for final approach of (for example) a VOR approach, Bombardier has not approved it. Hence we (L75 pilots) cannot fly a non precision approach through the FMS that is strictly VOR. Or NDB. I believe that is the end of the story.
Click to expand...

Sorry if anything I'm saying isn't come through clearly. On what basis do you make the statement that "Bombardier has not approved it?" Was it something not mentioned here? Short of some other information you haven't shared, I am quite confident that you can in fact fly a "strictly VOR approach" using the avionics suite installed in the Lear 75, which I believe is called "Bombardier Vision," but is made by Garmin. The only exception would be company OpSpec or some other limitation vis-a-vis an LOA or somesuch, but in a purely Part 91 operation with no other limitations applied, there's absolutely nothing preventing you from flying a VOR or NDB approach, unless your avionics suite does not have a VOR or ADF sensor (which would be highly unlikely.)

You used the phrase "suitable RNAV FMS," but that's not what you have installed in your aircraft. You have an FMS. That FMS contains a suitable RNAV system. It also contains position sensors which include VOR receivers, loc/GS receivers, ADF, etc. You've also mentioned deselecting navaids before. The only time you'd ever need to deselect VORs would be on an RNP AR approach or for some other operational reason, such as when a subject navaid is NOTAM'd OTS. These statements lead me to believe you may be operating under some confusion.

When you select a ground-based navaid as your navigation source and choose to present that on a given PFD (on the HSI, the "CDI" as Bombardier put it) you are navigating based purely on that signal. Only when you're navigating using GPS are other inputs potentially considered by the FMS, depending on its mode of operation.

You don't have anything special here... the avionics suite is modern, it's capable of allowing you to fly a VOR or NDB approach if the sensors are installed, and you're not subject to any special limitations based on the AFM passage you shared. Are you earning a type rating at FSI/CAE? An instructor may be better equipped to address your concern in person. It is sometimes difficult for things to come across plainly via a web board.

Best regards,
 
Ryan F. said:
The only time you'd ever need to deselect VORs would be on an RNP AR approach...
Click to expand...
In the latest and greatest, the FMS will automatically shed VOR and DME as RNP sensors when an RNP AR IAP is selected.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top