AC 90-100 Compiance (GNS-XLS)

[501261]

So basically what Mr. Lou Volchansky of the FAA is saying is because TEB has some screwy STAR that has waypoints, that aren't really waypoints all, GNS's are now pretty useless.

I'll go out the airport tomorrow and findout myself, but just out of curiousity what does a UNS show/do with RAIMY,CRRIS, SISSI on the JAIKE ONE STAR, that the GNS isn't.

 

[501261]

Sabre is correct, you CANNOT manually enter fixes. Also, as I understand it, you are not an "Q". Research, questions and debates lead us to file "L" and now that might be in question.

I'll agree that most of us are /L these days. But this revised AC basically turns airplanes with GNS into /A.

I completely agree you can not manually enter fixes on a STAR and be legal, but this appears to be 1 STAR with some odd ball fixes. Or is this a more serious problem with the GNS, whereas it has the the possibility of not shooting RNAV STARS and Approaches the right way?

 

[Lead Sled]

Sabre is correct, you CANNOT manually enter fixes. Also, as I understand it, you are not an "Q". Research, questions and debates lead us to file "L" and now that might be in question.

The lead on the Las Vegas RNAV group for their ATC is working with Honeywell trying to find an answer. Hopefully we'll hear something soon.

I sure hope so. We've been using "/L" but now I have no idea what we are. We're at FlightSafety this week, I'll ask around to see what, if any, guidance they can offer.

'Sled

 

[2000flyer]

I'll agree that most of us are /L these days. But this revised AC basically turns airplanes with GNS into /A.

I completely agree you can not manually enter fixes on a STAR and be legal, but this appears to be 1 STAR with some odd ball fixes. Or is this a more serious problem with the GNS, whereas it has the the possibility of not shooting RNAV STARS and Approaches the right way?

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

 

[Headwind]

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

 

[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.