Is your IFR GPS still legal for use?

[john smith[_2_]]

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.

[Peter R.]

On 5/25/2007 8:07:17 AM, john smith wrote:

> 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.

Admittedly I didn't read the entire circular (I have a Garmin GNS430), but my
quick skim of it seemed to indicate that the non-compliant models are no
longer allowed to use GPS in lieu of ADF or DME, where that is applicable,
unless alternate instructions are provided by ATC. This would imply that for
home-grown RNAV approaches these units would still be legal. Did I interpret
incorrectly?

--
Peter

[Bob Moore]

john smith wrote
> 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.

Not exactly what AvWeb said.....


Many previously IFR-certified GPS receivers might now be unapproved for
flying many instrument procedures due to recent FAA policy changes,
according to AOPA. On Thursday, the association said the FAA's Advisory
Circular 90-100A, issued in March, indicates that only three GPS models --
the Garmin 400, 500 and G1000 series -- are now legal. Other models made by
Garmin, including the new GNS 480 WAAS receiver, as well as receivers
manufactured by Chelton, Honeywell, Northstar, and Trimble are listed as
"noncompliant," AOPA said. The action means up to 26,000 GPS users no
longer comply with a 1996 FAA policy that allows GPS to be used in lieu of
ADF or DME.

Bob Moore

[Roy Smith]

In article 8>,
Bob Moore > wrote:

> john smith wrote
> > 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.
>
> Not exactly what AvWeb said.....
>
>
> Many previously IFR-certified GPS receivers might now be unapproved for
> flying many instrument procedures due to recent FAA policy changes,
> according to AOPA. On Thursday, the association said the FAA's Advisory
> Circular 90-100A, issued in March, indicates that only three GPS models --
> the Garmin 400, 500 and G1000 series -- are now legal. Other models made by
> Garmin, including the new GNS 480 WAAS receiver, as well as receivers
> manufactured by Chelton, Honeywell, Northstar, and Trimble are listed as
> "noncompliant," AOPA said. The action means up to 26,000 GPS users no
> longer comply with a 1996 FAA policy that allows GPS to be used in lieu of
> ADF or DME.
>
> Bob Moore

But it's legal to fly those very same approaches with a 30 year old ADF
which points vaguely in the direction of either 1) the radio beacon, 2) the
nearest T-storm, or 3) some other random propagation anomaly, and an
equally ancient DME which is doing good if it's correct to within 1/4 mile.
Gotta love the FAA. A fine example of why getting all the government
you've paid for is a bad thing.

[Mxsmanic]

Bob Moore writes:

> The action means up to 26,000 GPS users no
> longer comply with a 1996 FAA policy that allows GPS to be used in lieu of
> ADF or DME.

If the FAA declares that all aircraft must be encrusted in diamonds to be
certified to fly, does the entire aviation world just roll over and spring for
the diamonds? What ever happened to checks and balances?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Ron Natalie]

Bob Moore wrote:
< new GNS 480 WAAS receiver,

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).

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Roy Smith wrote:
>
> But it's legal to fly those very same approaches with a 30 year old ADF
> which points vaguely in the direction of either 1) the radio beacon, 2) the
> nearest T-storm, or 3) some other random propagation anomaly, and an
> equally ancient DME which is doing good if it's correct to within 1/4 mile.
> Gotta love the FAA.

I always wondered the same thing.

You'd think a 196 on the yoke would outperform the ADF is some situations.

[ArtP]

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.

[Aluckyguess]

"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.
>

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>
> If the FAA declares that all aircraft must be encrusted in diamonds to be
> certified to fly, does the entire aviation world just roll over and spring
> for
> the diamonds? What ever happened to checks and balances?
>

Haven't you found a job yet?

[Robert M. Gary]

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

[Gig 601XL Builder]

B A R R Y wrote:
> Roy Smith wrote:
>>
>> But it's legal to fly those very same approaches with a 30 year old
>> ADF which points vaguely in the direction of either 1) the radio
>> beacon, 2) the nearest T-storm, or 3) some other random propagation
>> anomaly, and an equally ancient DME which is doing good if it's
>> correct to within 1/4 mile. Gotta love the FAA.
>
> I always wondered the same thing.
>
> You'd think a 196 on the yoke would outperform the ADF is some
> situations.

If not MOST situations.

[Mark T. Dame]

B A R R Y wrote:
> Roy Smith wrote:
>>
>> But it's legal to fly those very same approaches with a 30 year old
>> ADF which points vaguely in the direction of either 1) the radio
>> beacon, 2) the nearest T-storm, or 3) some other random propagation
>> anomaly, and an equally ancient DME which is doing good if it's
>> correct to within 1/4 mile. Gotta love the FAA.
>
> I always wondered the same thing.
>
> You'd think a 196 on the yoke would outperform the ADF is some situations.

I can't think of a single situation where it wouldn't, under normal
operating conditions.


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame >
## CP-ASEL, AGI
## <insert tail number here>
## KHAO, KISZ
"Our aim is to show the essential elements of the language in real
programs, but without getting bogged down in detail, rules, and
exceptions."
-- The C Programming Language, Kernighan and Ritchie

[B A R R Y]

On Fri, 25 May 2007 17:43:32 -0400, "Mark T. Dame" >
wrote:
>
>I can't think of a single situation where it wouldn't, under normal
>operating conditions.


I was being polite. <G>

[Danny Deger]

"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

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On May 25, 2:03 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Bob Moore writes:
> > The action means up to 26,000 GPS users no
> > longer comply with a 1996 FAA policy that allows GPS to be used in lieu of
> > ADF or DME.
>
> If the FAA declares that all aircraft must be encrusted in diamonds to be
> certified to fly, does the entire aviation world just roll over and spring for
> the diamonds? What ever happened to checks and balances?

You don't fly, fjukktafrd, it doesn't concern you.


Bertie
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Newps]

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.

[Roy Smith]

In article >, "Mark T. Dame" >
wrote:

> B A R R Y wrote:
> > Roy Smith wrote:
> >>
> >> But it's legal to fly those very same approaches with a 30 year old
> >> ADF which points vaguely in the direction of either 1) the radio
> >> beacon, 2) the nearest T-storm, or 3) some other random propagation
> >> anomaly, and an equally ancient DME which is doing good if it's
> >> correct to within 1/4 mile. Gotta love the FAA.
> >
> > I always wondered the same thing.
> >
> > You'd think a 196 on the yoke would outperform the ADF is some situations.
>
> I can't think of a single situation where it wouldn't, under normal
> operating conditions.

You can't get the ball score on the 196.

[B A R R Y]

On Fri, 25 May 2007 22:13:27 -0400, Roy Smith > wrote:

>
>You can't get the ball score on the 196.

You can with the 396 and 496. <G>

[Ron Rosenfeld]

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

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> But it's legal to fly those very same approaches with a 30 year old ADF
> which points vaguely in the direction of either 1) the radio beacon, 2)
> the
> nearest T-storm, or 3) some other random propagation anomaly, and an
> equally ancient DME which is doing good if it's correct to within 1/4
> mile.
> Gotta love the FAA. A fine example of why getting all the government
> you've paid for is a bad thing.
>

You can't substitute GPS for ADF on an NDB approach.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
>
> Admittedly I didn't read the entire circular (I have a Garmin GNS430), but
> my quick skim of it seemed to indicate that the non-compliant models are
> no longer allowed to use GPS in lieu of ADF or DME, where that is
> applicable, unless alternate instructions are provided by ATC. This would
> imply that for home-grown RNAV approaches these units would still be
> legal. Did I interpret incorrectly?
>

I didn't read the entire AC either, but I don't see how you or AOPA
conclude that use of GPS to substitute for ADF or DME is now limited in all
cases to the cited Garmin units. The subject of AC 90-100A is "U.S.
Terminal and En Route Area Navigation (RNAV) Operations." The AC says it
"applies to operation on U.S. Area Navigation (RNAV) routes (Q-routes and
T-routes), Departure Procedures (Obstacle Departure Procedures and Standard
Instrument Departures), and Standard Terminal Arrivals (STARs)." The AOPA
letter states, "Pilots have removed ADF and DME systems from their aircraft
and they will no longer have access to any conventional approaches that
require them." I can find nothing that suggests the previous approval to
substitute GPS for ADF or DME has been rescinded for IAPs.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Steven P. McNicoll > posted:

> "Roy Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> But it's legal to fly those very same approaches with a 30 year old
>> ADF which points vaguely in the direction of either 1) the radio
>> beacon, 2) the
>> nearest T-storm, or 3) some other random propagation anomaly, and an
>> equally ancient DME which is doing good if it's correct to within 1/4
>> mile.
>> Gotta love the FAA. A fine example of why getting all the government
>> you've paid for is a bad thing.
>>
>
> You can't substitute GPS for ADF on an NDB approach.
>
Of course not. If one did that kind of thing, they might actually arrive
at their intended destination.

Neil

[Jim Burns[_2_]]

I "tried" to read that AC... it is the biggest collection of gibberish that
the FAA has published in a long time. If anybody in the group needs a real
big headache, give it a shot, then report back to the group with your
conclusion.
Jim

[Judah]

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?

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Jim Burns" > wrote:

> I "tried" to read that AC... it is the biggest collection of gibberish that
> the FAA has published in a long time. If anybody in the group needs a real
> big headache, give it a shot, then report back to the group with your
> conclusion.
> Jim

some things to consider:

1) AC 90-100A only cancels 90-100. It doesn't cancel
AC 20-130A, for example, or any of the AIM.

2) The AC is for RNAV routes. This does not conflict with the
AIM paragraph on using an appropriately certified GPS installation
in lieu of a VOR, DME, or ADF for non-RNAV routes.

3) Historically, the FAA does not update advisory circulars that also
de-certify the airworthiness of existing equipment, including the
authorization to use it. If they did, the various alphabet soups and
aviation companies would NOT participate in developing new
standards, etc.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Ron Rosenfeld]

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

[Judah]

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.

[Chris]

"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.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sat, 26 May 2007 19:48:19 GMT, Judah > wrote:

>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.

Yeah, but there isn't any regulation allowing substitution of GPS for other
NAVAID's.

I think the AIM revision was just published today on the FAA web site. I
find it pretty confusing in terms of which units are allowed to do what.
--ron

[Chris]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
t...
> Recently, Steven P. McNicoll > posted:
>
>> "Roy Smith" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> But it's legal to fly those very same approaches with a 30 year old
>>> ADF which points vaguely in the direction of either 1) the radio
>>> beacon, 2) the
>>> nearest T-storm, or 3) some other random propagation anomaly, and an
>>> equally ancient DME which is doing good if it's correct to within 1/4
>>> mile.
>>> Gotta love the FAA. A fine example of why getting all the government
>>> you've paid for is a bad thing.
>>>
>>
>> You can't substitute GPS for ADF on an NDB approach.
>>
> Of course not. If one did that kind of thing, they might actually arrive
> at their intended destination.
>
> Neil
>

The reason the FAA have done this is set out in the AC it is to harmonise
with ICAO.

"This criterion is consistent with the ICAO guidance material for the
implementation of area navigation (RNAV 1 and RNAV 2) operations. AC 90-100
became effective 7 January 2005. Since then, ICAO has continued to harmonize
area navigation (RNAV) performance criteria. AC 90-100A reflects these
harmonized ICAO performance-based navigation criteria as well as lessons
learned from the initial US RNAV implementation. "



US aircraft had real difficulty operating under IFR in Europe as AC90-96A
and JAA TGL -10 shows.

One of the reasons why Cirrus and the like have been having to fit ADF and
DME into their Europe bound aircraft.

[Jose]

> US aircraft had real difficulty operating under IFR in Europe as AC90-96A
> and JAA TGL -10 shows.

Is this due to the laws of physics or the laws of Europe?

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Judah]

Ron Rosenfeld > wrote in
:

> Yeah, but there isn't any regulation allowing substitution of GPS for other
> NAVAID's.
>
> I think the AIM revision was just published today on the FAA web site. I
> find it pretty confusing in terms of which units are allowed to do what.

But if the AIM is not regulatory, why does it matter?

IIRC, the Regs only say that you must have the equipment necessary for the
specific navigation being used.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Mon, 28 May 2007 02:54:04 GMT, Judah > wrote:

>Ron Rosenfeld > wrote in
:
>
>> Yeah, but there isn't any regulation allowing substitution of GPS for other
>> NAVAID's.
>>
>> I think the AIM revision was just published today on the FAA web site. I
>> find it pretty confusing in terms of which units are allowed to do what.
>
>But if the AIM is not regulatory, why does it matter?
>
>IIRC, the Regs only say that you must have the equipment necessary for the
>specific navigation being used.

The lack of regulatory power of the AIM is one of those arguments that goes
on from time to time. But I believe that, regardless of how we may want to
interpret things, the FAA would have a pretty good case, if they wanted to,
if you, for example, landed out of an approach requiring an ADF, and you
did not even have a functioning ADF on board, nor an FAA approved
equivalent.

If I were the FAA lawyer arguing, I would point out the following:

-------------------------
91.205

a) General. ... no person may operate a powered civil aircraft with a
standard category U.S. airworthiness certificate in any operation described
in paragraphs (b) through (f) of this section unless that aircraft contains
the instruments and equipment specified in those paragraphs (or
FAA-approved equivalents) for that type of operation, and those instruments
and items of equipment are in operable condition.

(d) Instrument flight rules. For IFR flight, the following instruments and
equipment are required:

(2) ... navigational equipment appropriate to the ground facilities to be
used.
------------------------------

It is the AIM that effectively gives the FAA-approved equivalent (specified
in para (a)) for the navigational equipment specified in para (d)(2). And
the AIM specifically requires, for GPS equivalents, that they be compliant
with the AC.

I'm sure someone will write that a GPS that has been specifically listed as
UNapproved for an approach related operation in the AIM can be used for it
because it is somehow "appropriate to the ground facility being used" and
the AIM is not regulatory. I would prefer to be on the other side of that
argument.

Hopefully, the AIM, and possibly the AC, will be changed to again indicated
that previously approved FAA-equivalents are continuing to be approved.
--ron

[Judah]

Ron Rosenfeld > wrote in
:

> The lack of regulatory power of the AIM is one of those arguments that
> goes on from time to time. But I believe that, regardless of how we may
> want to interpret things, the FAA would have a pretty good case, if they
> wanted to, if you, for example, landed out of an approach requiring an
> ADF, and you did not even have a functioning ADF on board, nor an FAA
> approved equivalent.

My guess is that it won't actually come up until someone has an accident
surrounding an NDB approach...

> If I were the FAA lawyer arguing, I would point out the following:
>
> -------------------------
> 91.205
>
> a) General. ... no person may operate a powered civil aircraft with a
> standard category U.S. airworthiness certificate in any operation
> described in paragraphs (b) through (f) of this section unless that
> aircraft contains the instruments and equipment specified in those
> paragraphs (or FAA-approved equivalents) for that type of operation, and
> those instruments and items of equipment are in operable condition.
>
> (d) Instrument flight rules. For IFR flight, the following instruments
> and
> equipment are required:
>
> (2) ... navigational equipment appropriate to the ground facilities to
> be
> used.
> ------------------------------
>
> It is the AIM that effectively gives the FAA-approved equivalent
> (specified in para (a)) for the navigational equipment specified in para
> (d)(2). And the AIM specifically requires, for GPS equivalents, that
> they be compliant with the AC.

And since I'm not a lawyer, I would probably respond that paragraph 1-2-3
(b)(2) specifically permits GPS units that are not fully compliant with AC
90-100, although it defines certain restrictions. However, AC 90-100
compliance is not required for equipment to be represented as "appropriate
to the ground facilities being used."

> I'm sure someone will write that a GPS that has been specifically listed
> as UNapproved for an approach related operation in the AIM can be used
> for it because it is somehow "appropriate to the ground facility being
> used" and the AIM is not regulatory. I would prefer to be on the other
> side of that argument.

Compliance with AC 90-100 is only required for use "on segments of an
instrument approach, departure, or arrival procedure defined by a VOR
course" except those "which may be selected by route name or constructed by
'stringing' together two or more waypoints from an onboard navigation
database". Therefore these GPSes are not specifically UNapproved except for
a certain very specific type of operation. To say that this restriction
disqualifies the GPS from use for NDB approaches, for example, is non-
sequiter.

> Hopefully, the AIM, and possibly the AC, will be changed to again
> indicated that previously approved FAA-equivalents are continuing to be
> approved. --ron

Yes, hopefully this whole mess will be cleared up quickly so that if
nothing else we can all go back to using our GPS without fear of being
ramp-checked. :)

[texasflyer]

On May 25, 4:43 pm, "Mark T. Dame" > wrote:
> B A R R Y wrote:
>
> > Roy Smith wrote:
>
> >> But it's legal to fly those very same approaches with a 30 year old
> >> ADF which points vaguely in the direction of either 1) the radio
> >> beacon, 2) the nearest T-storm, or 3) some other random propagation
> >> anomaly, and an equally ancient DME which is doing good if it's
> >> correct to within 1/4 mile. Gotta love the FAA.
>
> > I always wondered the same thing.
>
> > You'd think a 196 on the yoke would outperform the ADF is some situations.
>
> I can't think of a single situation where it wouldn't, under normal
> operating conditions.
>

I can.

The 196 cannot pick up AM broadcast radio stations and play them thru
your audio panel.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Filling in for Bertie > wrote in
:

> MX****FORBRAINS WROTE:
>
>> What ever happened to checks and balances?
>
> First, you balance your account, second, you write the check to the
> electric company. Looks like you ****ed up that one earlier this
> month, giving us a nice little break from your drivel.

Thanks d00d I needed the rest.


Bertie