"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news:hWG4g.174529$bm6.47479@fed1read04...

In your view of the world, lots of FSDO inspectors are irrational.


I don't know if lots of them are, but I do know that those I have
communicated with on this subject tend to be.



I won't go into the view that FSDO inspectors have of ATC personnel.


Well, I knew one that didn't like them at all. Of course, his view was of
someone that went to FSDO after washing out of ATC. I've heard of other
FSDO types that went there after washing out of ATC, I've never heard of
anyone washing out of FSDO and moving up to ATC.



As to all the point/counterpoint about handhelds and Part 23, we agree
that a "non-installed" handheld is not subject to any provision of Part
23. What you fail to understand is that, unless a particular item of
avionics that is to be used for primary IFR navigation is so certified, it
cannot be used for primary IFR navigation.


Please cite the applicable FAR.



Further, if it is certified
for primary IFR navigation, it then has to be installed in compliance with
Part 23. A handheld doesn't quite make the program.


Please cite the applicable FAR.



And, please, don't tell me to prove it. Your resource is any G/A
maintenance inspector at your local, friendly FAA FSDO.


I've already directed this question at a number of FSDOs. None of them
could cite the applicable FAR. The reason none of them could cite an
applicable FAR is there is none and thus use of a handheld GPS for IFR
enroute use in US controlled airspace is perfectly legal.