AC 90-100 Compiance (GNS-XLS)

[Dangerkitty]

Hey bud, good to see ya! I don't think TEB is the only problem. LAS has a myriad of RNAV SID/STARs that, from what I'm seeing, will be affected also.

Dangerkitty, go to www.nbaa.org and check out the "Airmail" section. This particular thread is under the AvMgr section.

2000Flyer

Thanks 2000,

Is it the thing where you get about 1000 emails a day in your e-mail box? Or is it a message board set up like this?

Thanks in advance!!

DK

 

[SabreFlyR]

SabreFlyR, I'm sure you have a better understanding about this than myself. I have a couple of questions. Our Sabre 65 has dual GNXxls and RVSM.

1. If not /Q what /W?

2. If it's OK to accept SID's or STAR's that are for terrain or noise and certain
R-Nav SID's or STAR's, but not class A or B, how do know which to accept
using Jepps? Should I load the SID and compare the FMS to the chart to
verify that all waypoints were loaded (by the FMS) before accepting?

3. Is this the fault of the GNS-XLS or the monthly updates?I realize that
Honeywell's customer support is at an all time low, but could they not
correct this on their next monthly update? The box has SID's &
STAR's but only a few waypoints are missing on only a few procedures.

Thanks in advance for your answers and anyone who can help me understand these fast changing rules.

HEADWIND

Here's a post on the subject from someone on the NBAA site who has much more experience in this area than I. Up until now you should be filing as a /L, now heck I don't even know. I would assume that if you are not going to an airport that is using a Type A or B sid/star you would be a /L, otherwise I guess it would be /w that's the one I see that fits now.

Re: the FAA's disallowment of the GNS-XLS to fly RNAV SIDs and STARs

All,

I'm just off the phone with Honeywell.

Looks like Honeywell engineers and the FAA are in disagreement on what the language of AC90-100 requires an RNAV box to do.

Honeywell sees the requirement for accuracy, FAA wants certain leg types encoded with no pilot intervention.

Example: VA (Heading to Altitude) or CF (Course to Fix) or CA (Course to Altitude) can be pilot flown or pilot manipulated. The FAA does not want that.

Right now the GNS-XLS operating system does not support these leg terminators. They are looking at an operating system software upgrade to do this.

It would be useful for Honeywell to know the level of customer demand for such an upgrade so the 2500 or so units out there are not excluded from the airspace modernization plan.

Still to be answered (by the FAA): How do GNS-XLS operators file flight plans today? Since a the ATC host computer will assign RNAV SIDs and STARs to any RNAV-suffix aircraft, should these so equipped aircraft file as VOR/DME/(RVSM) aircraft only?

 

[SabreFlyR]

Thanks 2000,

Is it the thing where you get about 1000 emails a day in your e-mail box? Or is it a message board set up like this?

Thanks in advance!!

DK

Naw it's usually only 500 or so Some days it can get to be a bit much other days there will hardly be any activity, I just look at the subject lines and delete the ones with topics that don't interest me.

 

[pilotmiketx]

If you are RVSM + RNAV but without the appropriate RNP documentation from your airframe/avionics manufacturer (ie Gulfstream, Boeing as previously noted), then the correct suffix is "L".

There was some additional clarification recently published by the FAA that basically said you can still fly the RNP SIDs/STARs if you're "L" and in radar contact. You'll notice that the notes on the plates have changed to indicate this. If I can dig up the letter, I'll publish it or a link to it here.

I'm not sure what the "off-route" fixes have to do with this mess. I can't see how you could be assigned one without pilot intervention. When you are assigned one of those fixes (on the Jaike arrival, for instance), you are being taken off the arrival and then you will rejoin the arrival at a subsequent fix.

If anyone else has a different take, I'm all ears (or is it eyes?)

 

[501261]

Re: the FAA's disallowment of the GNS-XLS to fly RNAV SIDs and STARs

All,

I'm just off the phone with Honeywell.

Looks like Honeywell engineers and the FAA are in disagreement on what the language of AC90-100 requires an RNAV box to do.

Honeywell sees the requirement for accuracy, FAA wants certain leg types encoded with no pilot intervention.

Example: VA (Heading to Altitude) or CF (Course to Fix) or CA (Course to Altitude) can be pilot flown or pilot manipulated. The FAA does not want that.

Right now the GNS-XLS operating system does not support these leg terminators. They are looking at an operating system software upgrade to do this.

It would be useful for Honeywell to know the level of customer demand for such an upgrade so the 2500 or so units out there are not excluded from the airspace modernization plan.

Still to be answered (by the FAA): How do GNS-XLS operators file flight plans today? Since a the ATC host computer will assign RNAV SIDs and STARs to any RNAV-suffix aircraft, should these so equipped aircraft file as VOR/DME/(RVSM) aircraft only?

Good old Keith G., he really needs to get an award for all the work he does!

Now that explantion finally makes sense, that the FAA didn't like that GNS's can't fly headings automatically to an altitude (he called it VA) and such. That's much more plausible than that JAIKE stuff.

 

[2000flyer]

Thanks 2000,

Is it the thing where you get about 1000 emails a day in your e-mail box? Or is it a message board set up like this?

Thanks in advance!!

DK

Yep, you get them by email once subscribed. It varies by debate, obviously. I've come home to only 5-6 emails, to several hundred (depends on the length of the trip )

 

[Dangerkitty]

Another question. We are P-RNAV approved. Does that mean we satisfy AC-90-100?

 

[501261]

Another question. We are P-RNAV approved. Does that mean we satisfy AC-90-100?

This is just my opinion, and I could be completely wrong, but isn't your P-RNAV approval is based on your GNS being approved, not the other way around. And since GNS's no longer "meet" AC 90 100 criteria due to "path terminators", you might have issues. Think of it this way if your GNS went inop would you still be P-RNAV approved?

 

[Dangerkitty]

This is just my opinion, and I could be completely wrong, but isn't your P-RNAV approval is based on your GNS being approved, not the other way around. And since GNS's no longer "meet" AC 90 100 criteria due to "path terminators", you might have issues. Think of it this way if your GNS went inop would you still be P-RNAV approved?

Well I guess I should have clarified my statement. In the Falcon 50EX we use the Collins 6100. We have been approved by the feds for P-RNAV so I am guessing that automatically makes us approved under AC 90-100? Am I correct?

 

[501261]

You're fine

Well I guess I should have clarified my statement. In the Falcon 50EX we use the Collins 6100. We have been approved by the feds for P-RNAV so I am guessing that automatically makes us approved under AC 90-100? Am I correct?

According to AC 90 100 the Collins 6100 is ok.

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/afs/afs400/afs410/policy_guidance/media/AC90_100compliance.pdf

This change only affects the 2500 or so Global GNS-XLS users out there .

 

[2000flyer]

Well I guess I should have clarified my statement. In the Falcon 50EX we use the Collins 6100. We have been approved by the feds for P-RNAV so I am guessing that automatically makes us approved under AC 90-100? Am I correct?

Speaking of P-RNAV...

Have you completed the training yet? I just got Falcon's FSA regarding P-RNAV this morning. The only airport requiring it is Schipol in the Netherlands and that is for night operations and transitioning their airspace.

2000Flyer

 

[Dangerkitty]

Speaking of P-RNAV...

Have you completed the training yet? I just got Falcon's FSA regarding P-RNAV this morning. The only airport requiring it is Schipol in the Netherlands and that is for night operations and transitioning their airspace.

2000Flyer

We did all the grunt work and were BLOWN away that out FSDO gave us the authorization only a week or so later.

We were/are worried that even though it really doesn't take effect until 2010, we are guessing that many European airports and countries might give you a hard time if you dont already have the authorization in the coming years. Since it was the Europeans idea they might get bent around the axel about it.

 

[puddlejumper]

If you are RVSM + RNAV but without the appropriate RNP documentation from your airframe/avionics manufacturer (ie Gulfstream, Boeing as previously noted), then the correct suffix is "L".

There was some additional clarification recently published by the FAA that basically said you can still fly the RNP SIDs/STARs if you're "L" and in radar contact. You'll notice that the notes on the plates have changed to indicate this. If I can dig up the letter, I'll publish it or a link to it here.

I'm not sure what the "off-route" fixes have to do with this mess. I can't see how you could be assigned one without pilot intervention. When you are assigned one of those fixes (on the Jaike arrival, for instance), you are being taken off the arrival and then you will rejoin the arrival at a subsequent fix.

If anyone else has a different take, I'm all ears (or is it eyes?)

This is from an earlier RNP discussion on these forums. http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread.php?t=61796

This is from the July 31, 2005 AFS-410 document revising the Aircraft Equipment Suffix Table. LINK /W aircraft are still expected to have limited RNAV capability, just not the Advanced RNAV to comply with Type A or B Terminal RNAV procedures.

c. Aircraft with RNAV Capability. For flight in RVSM airspace, aircraft with RNAV and RVSM capability, but not Advanced RNAV capability, will file “/W”. Filing “/W” will not preclude such aircraft from filing and flying direct routes in enroute airspace.

With the KLN-90A, we file /W and routinely get cleared direct as if we were GPS equipped, which we are, but just for enroute ops. The TSO-C129 I think says something about our unit being class A2 (from the AIM), which is technically approved for enroute and terminal ops, however, the CDI sensitivity is locked on 5nm, so that is clearly not right.

 

[SabreFlyR]

This is from an earlier RNP discussion on these forums. http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread.php?t=61796

This is from the July 31, 2005 AFS-410 document revising the Aircraft Equipment Suffix Table. LINK /W aircraft are still expected to have limited RNAV capability, just not the Advanced RNAV to comply with Type A or B Terminal RNAV procedures.

c. Aircraft with RNAV Capability. For flight in RVSM airspace, aircraft with RNAV and RVSM capability, but not Advanced RNAV capability, will file “/W”. Filing “/W” will not preclude such aircraft from filing and flying direct routes in enroute airspace.

With the KLN-90A, we file /W and routinely get cleared direct as if we were GPS equipped, which we are, but just for enroute ops. The TSO-C129 I think says something about our unit being class A2 (from the AIM), which is technically approved for enroute and terminal ops, however, the CDI sensitivity is locked on 5nm, so that is clearly not right.

The problem with filing as a /W is these units, GNSxls, KLN900, KLN90B etc. meet the deffinition of advanced RNAV. The only operation they are now not approved to do is RNAV type A or B sid/stars. You can still do enroute, Q & T routes, terminal operations - non RNAV sid/stars and nonprecision approaches. I do not think there is an answer from the FAA as to code we file now.

 

[GravityHater]

I'd been emailing a guy from Honeywell about the GNS-xLS 3 months ago. We had been doing a STAR that had one leg which stated, I think, "RNP-2 required between Xxxxx and Yyyyy".
I searched and could not find anything about the RNP values provided by the unit so I called and the rep had to talk to tech in order to learn that it is not an RNP navigator at all. And as such we were not legal to accept such a STAR. Kind of amazing that the unit will provide navigation over this route showing the legs and waypoints and tracking within 0.1nm the entire time but not be any more legal than a handheld GPS. I think I even posted here about it.
Anyway I learned of its [purported] limits and also that we are supposed to file /L not /Q or /W (we are RVSM capable).

I think this is a big mess that could easily have been predicted and was instead left for owners to sort out after the fact. I predict an expensive fix involving more than just software.