[Username Protected]

Embraer just sent out the AMOC (Alternate Method of Compliance) for the FAA AD 2021-23-12 for all Embraer models.

Phenom 100 and Phenom 300 attached.

[Username Protected]

Adding this here so there is twice the chance for all of us to read:

I can't emphasize too much, make sure any observed misbehavior is reported, both to ATC as well as to Embraer.
Perhaps most importantly, the FAA at this address:

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/nas/RADALT_reports/

[Username Protected]

Updating this thread... Embraer has newer AMOCs for the 500 and 505. The AMOCs are dated March 2022 and the Runway Cleared Lists are June 2022.

[Username Protected]

Notably, the Cleared Airport/Runway lists exclude many important airports, for example, DAL (Love Field), MDW (Midway), PHX (Sky Harbor), MIA (Miami International), LGB (Long Beach). Embraer has approval for these airports and many more for much (all?) of its commercial fleet that uses the same Honeywell KRA-405B radio altimeter we do but supplemented by a RFF 100 filter installed under an Embraer SB.

[Username Protected]

Thanks (Username Protected).

If I recall correctly the Phenom can't do any of the operations (Cat II/III etc) that the AD restricts, so I am not clear how this AMOC actually works?

Instrument Landing System (ILS) Instrument Approach Procedures (IAP) SA CAT I, SA CAT II, CAT II, and CAT III
• Required Navigation Performance (RNP) Procedures with Authorization
Required (AR), RNP AR IAP
• Automatic Landing operations
• Manual Flight Control Guidance System operations to landing/head-up display
(HUD) to touchdown operation
• Use of Enhanced Flight Vision System (EFVS) to touchdown under 14 CFR
91.176(a)

[Username Protected]

It's murky, for sure. As I read it, Embraer demonstrated that our radar altimeters are not subject to error from 5G interference within a certain distance from a 5G source, and the FAA came up with a list of runways whose approach volumes don't impinge on that limit. Presumably, to add runways to this basic list, either runway-specific testing has to be done or a smaller interference-immune distance has to be established.

My home base has been subject to a 5G NOTAM since January and I've not heard any reports of problems here. The 5G rollout is reportedly still delayed, so the NOTAM seems precautionary.

Although we're not doing the SA or AR approaches and the rest, it would be nice to know how likely we are to lose TAWS and TCAS (won't we lose callouts of AGL altitude and minimums, too? That's not listed in the FOL.) whenever 5G does get lit up. The MMEL lets us fly without the radar altimeter but it has to be repaired within 2 flight days.

(Username Protected)

[Username Protected]

Altitude callouts are considered part of TAWS I believe so are included defacto.

It's murky, for sure. As I read it, Embraer demonstrated that our radar altimeters are not subject to error from 5G interference within a certain distance from a 5G source, and the FAA came up with a list of runways whose approach volumes don't impinge on that limit. Presumably, to add runways to this basic list, either runway-specific testing has to be done or a smaller interference-immune distance has to be established.

My home base has been subject to a 5G NOTAM since January and I've not heard any reports of problems here. The 5G rollout is reportedly still delayed, so the NOTAM seems precautionary.

Although we're not doing the SA or AR approaches and the rest, it would be nice to know how likely we are to lose TAWS and TCAS (won't we lose callouts of AGL altitude and minimums, too? That's not listed in the FOL.) whenever 5G does get lit up. The MMEL lets us fly without the radar altimeter but it has to be repaired within 2 flight days.

(Username Protected)