Garmin Auto Pilots and Engine Instruments

[JimC]

My summary, which is worth every cent you're paying for it:

Your plane must be CAPABLE of meeting all of the RVSM requirements. ADS-B is used to confirm that you are ACTUALLY meeting RVSM requirements. In other words, if your static system sucks, or your autopilot porpoises a bit in altitude hold, this isn't a magic bullet. The plane has to be capable of performing at RVSM standards on every RVSM flight. If your altimeter isn't certified above 28,000 ft, section 9 doesn't make it suddenly acceptable. There are a few other requirements you can find in the AC, such as altitude alerting equipment.

The test flight simply confirms that the airframe ADS-B equipment was reporting altitude errors less than the maximum allowed for the short duration of the test flight, and that the aircraft flew a profile with altitude deviations less than the maximum allowed. Once the airframe is approved, you can file /w and fly in RVSM airspace, and the airframe is automatically re-tested on almost every flight.

The pilot also has to pass a knowledge test from an approved provider.

Section 9 is part of Appendix G of Part 91, so it's not valid for any operations other than part 91 (and is not recognized by any other nations.)

More info here:
FAA's official FAQ:
https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/air_traffic/separation_standards/rvsm/documentation/FAQs_RVSM_ADSB_v6_04222021.pdf

The AC: (Note there is a lot of info in here on operations OTHER than section 9 - you have to filter through to find the section 9 info.)
https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/air_traffic/separation_standards/rvsm/documentation/AC91_85B.pdf

The actual section 9:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/appendix-G_to_part_91

A list of the 1,620 planes that are section 9 approved as of today, including 4 Commanders and at least 3 experimentals:
https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/2022-10/NAARMO_US_IGA_RVSM%20Approvals_Part_91_Section_9_ADSB.pdf

There are some other surprises on this list, like two Southwest Boeing 737s. Both of the 737s have been used as test vehicles at some point in their life.

[donv]

This may be a semantic difference, but it is more than just being CAPABLE. If your AP-106 is tuned to perfection and your altimeters and static system are working perfectly and you are CAPABLE of meeting RVSM standards, that is not enough.

The aircraft must be certified as well-- either as part of the initial certification (not true for Commanders, obviously, but true for just about any jet or turboprop you can buy new today), or though an STC (supplemental type certification) process.

The ADS-B thing just allows you to skip the height monitoring. In the old days, I had to do this in a Falcon 50... we had a guy from ARINC come out with a suitcase of equipment and fly with us to verify the performance. There were (are?) also ground-based stations you could fly over which would verify your performance.

[JimC]

The aircraft must be certified as well

I don't think that's true with Section 9. Nothing in the actual section 9 talks about a current or previous airframe certification. There are two King Air 90's and 3 experimentals on the list. During my process, I communicated directly with individuals in both NAARMO and a FSDO and we chatted about the experimentals. Most experimentals (the Lancair IV-Ps) fail, because their static systems weren't designed to an acceptable standard and their errors are too high - but some pass (the early EPICs.)

You will generally not have to talk to anyone from NAARMO or a FSDO to get approved. My ADS-B system was a mess and I ended up bright and bleeping on their radar (literally and figuratively speaking.) They were very helpful in assisting me with finding my issues and getting them worked out. I didn't pass until my 3rd flight.


I also just found this tidbit, which was news to me:
Effective Aug. 31, 2021, height monitoring using ADS-B will only be conducted for flights occurring on Mondays. Aircraft due for periodic monitoring or that must verify performance can fly any Monday to obtain and record a monitoring result.

“The mandate for height monitoring remains unchanged and is required every two years or 1,000 hours,” said Brian Koester, CAM, NBAA’s director of flight operations and regulations. “If an aircraft is out of compliance, you’ll need to conduct a flight on a Monday to meet the height monitoring mandate.”


That explains why my height monitoring is several months out of date.

[donv]

Read Chapter 4 of the AC you linked. It specifically states that the aircraft has to be "RVSM-Compliant." It refers you to Chapter 2 to determine this.

Chapter 2 states "Aircraft may be produced RVSM-compliant or brought into compliance through the application of appropriate Service Bulletins (SB), Service Letters (SL), Engineering Change Orders (EO), or Supplemental Type Certificates (STC). For airworthiness guidance, see Appendix A, RVSM Airworthiness Certification."

It then refers you to Appendix A. Appendix A goes on to talk about "Group" and "Non-Group" aircraft, and also states this: "The monitoring program is independent of the airworthiness certification program." ADS-B is part of the monitoring program, not the certification program.

I would love it if it were otherwise!

[JimC]

The place everyone gets stuck (and I understand there are plenty of opinions on this) is 4.1.1 (1) "The operator should determine the aircraft is RVSM-compliant." It's such a simple statement and yet there's soooo much behind it.

It doesn't say it has to be RVSM certified, just that it has be RVSM compliant. My aircraft was not produced compliant, but it was altered to be compliant by STC - *without* a specific RVSM STC. The final alteration that allowed compliance was the installation of two independent altimetry systems with ASE within RVSM tolerances (dual G600s.)

I went through the "Non-group" approval steps. At no point did anyone ask me for written verification of this process, but I did talk with officials about some of the steps when I had questions.

Under A.4.1.1, you'll find everything you need to have for approval. How did I know my G600 was accurate enough (A.4.1.1.5)? Because I tested it in RVSM airspace and my ASE was reported back to me (less than 20 ft.) I was not section 9 approved until I'd flown that test and found my ASE was within limits (remember, I failed the first two times.)


Again, my opinion is worth what you're paying for it - but I did communicate with the FSDO and NAARMO during this process. I also think it's possible that you could talk to two different FSDOs and get two different answers - as can happen with any FAR or AC interpretation.

[donv]

Chapter 2 tells you how to become RVSM compliant. It specifically says that you should refer to the Limitations section of your AFM.

"To determine eligibility for RVSM operations, the limitations section of the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) or AFM Supplement (AFMS) should indicate the aircraft has been determined to be capable of meeting the RVSM performance requirements of 14 CFR part 91 appendix G."

I don't know how you modify the limitations section of an AFM (or add an AFM supplement) without an STC, but maybe there is another way?

I certainly agree that two FSDOs (or even two inspectors!) could give you two (or more) different answers!

[Bruce Byerly]

At the end of the day, if the correction curves are within tolerance for the plane, and it’s performing correctly, it always seemed to me like the entire RVSM rule was over burdensome and archaic. That might have been recognized and factored in to a sliver of opportunity for those willing to prove it now that ADS-B is available where it wasn’t previously? 

Even if a plane maintained the same crew, the simple change of ownership name would cause it to no longer be RVSM certified and start the lengthy and expensive LOA process all over again. And I never saw one airplane of any kind fail the skin waviness test either.

So the original RVSM rule left a lot to be desired. Seems like they almost fixed it.

[JimC]

"To determine eligibility for RVSM operations, the limitations section of the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) or AFM Supplement (AFMS) should indicate the aircraft has been determined to be capable of meeting the RVSM performance requirements of 14 CFR part 91 appendix G."

I don't know how you modify the limitations section of an AFM (or add an AFM supplement) without an STC, but maybe there is another way?

Read that note carefully - it's not saying that your limitations must say you are RVSM certified, it only says that your limitations allow you to meet the performance requirements. Do you have any limitations that indicate that your airframe can't meet the requirements of 14-91-G-9? It's a pretty short list of performance requirements. If there is anything in there that says you can't, then stop - you're done. But I bet there's not.

My limitations section tells me I can't go above 35,000 feet. The G600 can meet RVSM requirements at higher altitudes, but my airframe can't. Nothing I do with section 9 can change that, so my RVSM altitudes are limited to FL350 and below.  A KA90 that goes through section 9 will only gain FL290 and FL300 due to an airframe service ceiling of 30,000 feet. Find every limitation on every piece of equipment you have installed. If any of them say you can't use it RVSM, then it's game over - you can't. But other than that, you can get the airframe approved through section 9 - subject to the same limitations you had before approval.

No experimental has ever been certified RVSM, and no experimental is ever given a limitations section that says you CAN meet RVSM requirements - yet the regulations give a clear and explicit path for experimentals (and other airframes) to become RVSM approved. It's not about modifying the plane or changing the TC. It's about first checking that you will meet the performance requirements, and then proving that you do meet the performance requirements. No changes are made to the AFM by STC or otherwise.

If you think "They never meant for it to be this easy" - read the notes in the federal register.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/12/21/2018-27401/use-of-automatic-dependent-surveillance-broadcast-ads-b-out-in-support-of-reduced-vertical

"This action recognizes the enhancements in aircraft monitoring resulting from the use of ADS-B Out systems and responds to requests from operators to eliminate the burden and expense of the current RVSM application process for aircraft equipped with qualified ADS-B Out systems."

"This action amends Appendix G of part 91 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to permit an operator of an aircraft equipped with a qualified ADS-B Out system meeting altitude keeping equipment performance requirements for operations in RVSM airspace to operate in that airspace without requiring a specific authorization. Under this action, the FAA considers a qualified ADS-B Out system to be one that meets the requirements of 14 CFR 91.227. The FAA is taking this action based on the technological advances provided by ADS-B Out systems. As a result of these advances, detailed applications and specific authorizations for operators of these aircraft to conduct operations in RVSM airspace are no longer necessary. The amendment also removes the detailed designations of airspace where revised RVSM may be applied that were previously found in Appendix G of part 91."

You HAVE to meet the performance requirements - but you're allowed to find out if you meet them with a simple test flight in RVSM airspace, instead of installing complex equipment and flying with a trailing cone. NONE of the regulations say that the plane must have been previously RVSM certified.

Yes, it is as easy* as it sounds, and 1,600 aircraft have figured this out. Go to your local FSDO and ask - the worst thing that can happen is they tell you I'm full of it and you leave non-RVSM just as you went in, but better informed.



*Easy is relative. It took me about 20 hours over 8 weeks to fix my ADS-B mess, plus 3 flights that I was taking anyway. Most Commander operators will pass on the first flight with about 2-4 hours total work.

[Bruce Byerly]

"To determine eligibility for RVSM operations, the limitations section of the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) or AFM Supplement (AFMS) should indicate the aircraft has been determined to be capable of meeting the RVSM performance requirements of 14 CFR part 91 appendix G."

I don't know how you modify the limitations section of an AFM (or add an AFM supplement) without an STC, but maybe there is another way?

Read that note carefully - it's not saying that your limitations must say you are RVSM certified, it only says that your limitations allow you to meet the performance requirements. Do you have any limitations that indicate that your airframe can't meet the requirements of 14-91-G-9? It's a pretty short list of performance requirements. If there is anything in there that says you can't, then stop - you're done. But I bet there's not.

My limitations section tells me I can't go above 35,000 feet. The G600 can meet RVSM requirements at higher altitudes, but my airframe can't. Nothing I do with section 9 can change that, so my RVSM altitudes are limited to FL350 and below.  A KA90 that goes through section 9 will only gain FL290 and FL300 due to an airframe service ceiling of 30,000 feet. Find every limitation on every piece of equipment you have installed. If any of them say you can't use it RVSM, then it's game over - you can't. But other than that, you can get the airframe approved through section 9 - subject to the same limitations you had before approval.

No experimental has ever been certified RVSM, and no experimental is ever given a limitations section that says you CAN meet RVSM requirements - yet the regulations give a clear and explicit path for experimentals (and other airframes) to become RVSM approved. It's not about modifying the plane or changing the TC. It's about first checking that you will meet the performance requirements, and then proving that you do meet the performance requirements. No changes are made to the AFM by STC or otherwise.

If you think "They never meant for it to be this easy" - read the notes in the federal register.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/12/21/2018-27401/use-of-automatic-dependent-surveillance-broadcast-ads-b-out-in-support-of-reduced-vertical

"This action recognizes the enhancements in aircraft monitoring resulting from the use of ADS-B Out systems and responds to requests from operators to eliminate the burden and expense of the current RVSM application process for aircraft equipped with qualified ADS-B Out systems."

"This action amends Appendix G of part 91 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to permit an operator of an aircraft equipped with a qualified ADS-B Out system meeting altitude keeping equipment performance requirements for operations in RVSM airspace to operate in that airspace without requiring a specific authorization. Under this action, the FAA considers a qualified ADS-B Out system to be one that meets the requirements of 14 CFR 91.227. The FAA is taking this action based on the technological advances provided by ADS-B Out systems. As a result of these advances, detailed applications and specific authorizations for operators of these aircraft to conduct operations in RVSM airspace are no longer necessary. The amendment also removes the detailed designations of airspace where revised RVSM may be applied that were previously found in Appendix G of part 91."

You HAVE to meet the performance requirements - but you're allowed to find out of you meet them with a simple test flight in RVSM airspace, instead of installing complex equipment and flying with a trailing cone. NONE of the regulations say that the plane must have been previously RVSM certified.

Yes, it is as easy* as it sounds, and 1,600 aircraft have figured this out. Go to your local FSDO and ask - the worst thing that can happen is they tell you I'm full of it and you leave non-RVSM just as you went in, but better informed.



*Easy is relative. It took me about 20 hours over 8 weeks to fix my ADS-B mess, plus 3 flights that I was taking anyway. Most Commander operators will pass on the first flight with about 2-4 hours total work.

I like your work on it and will give it a shot.   On the list, I think only the 980 may have done what you suggested, the others just wound up on that list somehow? They already had RVSM?

[JimC]

On the list, I think only the 980 may have done what you suggested, the others just wound up on that list somehow? They already had RVSM?

I do not think you can get on this list without a written request to NAARMO.

It's possible a previous owner made the request.  If I sell my plane, as long as the new owner keeps flying in US RVSM airspace at least one Monday every two years (and passing the ASE check) they'll stay on the list.

[donv]

That is not what it says. Maybe you did it, and maybe it's legal for you, or maybe it isn't-- but most likely unless you have an accident or a loss of separation in RVSM airspace, no one will check.

It does not say the airplane has to be CAPABLE. It says that the limitations section of the AFM or supplement "should indicate the aircraft HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CAPABLE of meeting RVSM performance requirements..."

So I ask you again, does your AFM limitations show that your aircraft has BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CAPABLE of meeting RVSM performance requirements? Or do you have a supplement that shows that?

Because otherwise, you are simply not meeting the requirement of the AC, and not legal to fly in RVSM airspace. But again, most likely no one will ever check.

I would guess the Commanders on that list have such a supplement, since we know that there are RVSM-qualified Commanders.

[JimC]

Don,

Your words are not falling on deaf ears. I'm definitely not the "MY WAY IS RIGHT!" kind of guy.

I think I'm going to suspend my RVSM flights until I re-establish contact with the FSDO and get my work verified. First I'm going to check with a lawyer to make sure I at least have some rear-end coverage for my past flights in case I was wrong.

Thanks for your comments.

Jim

[donv]

Jim, I will be interested to hear what you find out. I personally wouldn't put too much faith in what a single inspector says, since as you mentioned they can be all over the map.

I believe the intent of the ADS-B section was to greatly simplify the process for aircraft which came from the factory already RVSM-certified. I think pretty much all jets made since 2006 or so fall into this category, and maybe most of the modern turboprops. For those aircraft, it was absurd to make them go through a specialized height monitoring flight, etc.

[Bruce Byerly]

Don, I like Jim’s answer better!    Everyone was excited when the revision to the rule was first released.  It would be nice to have clarification but the cya mode will probably be engaged. It would seem reasonable that aircraft certified to operate in what is now RVSM airspace would be allowed to prove their performance and therefore compliance without the goofy STC’s but I also believe you are correct. Then there are the planes previously compliant with STC’s which now have equipment changes and are no longer compliant (G600 install) but which likely perform adequately.  It’s a shame they can’t be shown to comply performancewise and be legal.

And what equipment does 515AM have? Where is JMA when we need him?

[JimC]

Based on the number of pre 1997 airframes, as well as the experimentals, I’m hoping that I can get a written answer on how to get a non-certificated aircraft approved for RVSM due to meeting the performance standards.

Don has put enough doubt in my mind that I think I need more thorough and authoritative written support.

I’ll definitely report back, but it may be a while.