Garmin 430 and ILS

Greg Esres wrote:

If you can retrieve it from a current database with an IFR
approach-approved GPS, it is legal to use. You will note the warning
message Garmin provides when you pull up and ILS approach.

I checked with the AIM again, and what it says seems on point:

-------Snip------
Do not attempt to fly an approach unless the procedure is...identified
as "GPS" on the approach chart...The navigation database may contain
information about nonoverlay approach procedures that is intended to
be used to enhance position orientation, generally by providing a map,
while flying these approaches using conventional NAVAIDs.
-------Snip-----

Garmin's position, as you know, is that you aren't "established" on
the approach until you're on final. Are you aware of any
justification for this position at all?

I think I have covered it, but let me try again: for purposes of TERPS
and regulatory requirements to be established, an IAP can begin as early
as a feeder fix (before an IAF, where there is a feeder fix).

For purposes of the specifications for IFR GPS avionics, the "approach" is
*only* the final approach segment. The other segments are terminal
routes, and use terminal CDI scaling/sensitivity/RAIM. Only the approach
mode uses approach scaling/sensitivity/RAIM.

You won't find a regulation that says this, nor will you find an FAA
document that proclaims this to pilots. Nonetheless, all TSO-C129
avionics and all higher-end LNAV/FMS platform treat the final approach
segment as the "approach," per se.

wrote in message ...

You won't find a regulation that says this, nor will you find an FAA
document that proclaims this to pilots. Nonetheless, all TSO-C129
avionics and all higher-end LNAV/FMS platform treat the final approach
segment as the "approach," per se.


The AIM sorta kinda maybe alludes to it when talking about WAAS units.

" The pilot enters a unique 5-digit number provided on the approach chart,
and the receiver recalls the matching final approach segment from the
aircraft database. ....... The pilot should confirm that the correct final
approach segment was loaded by cross checking the Approach ID, which is also
provided on the approach chart. "

wrote in message ...


I think I have covered it, but let me try again: for purposes of TERPS
and regulatory requirements to be established, an IAP can begin as early
as a feeder fix (before an IAF, where there is a feeder fix).

Example : GUMLE at Juneau (JNU) GPS V RWY 8.
http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0501/01191RV8.PDF

For purposes of the specifications for IFR GPS avionics, the
"approach" is *only* the final approach segment. The other segments
are terminal routes, and use terminal CDI scaling/sensitivity/RAIM.
Only the approach mode uses approach scaling/sensitivity/RAIM.

None of that is relevant. You're talking about how this stuff is
stored in the database.

The directive to pilots is that only approaches labeled "GPS" can be
flown with GPS. The word "approach" clearly refers to a pilot's
understanding of what an approach is.

Got a phone number for the guys that write this section in the AIM?

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.

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.

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.