On Mon, 08 May 2006 08:59:03 -0400, Roy Smith wrote:


While the AIM may not be regulatory, it also doesn't lie. When a simple
declaratory statement is made such as, "hand-held GPS systems are not
authorized for IFR navigation, instrument approaches, or as a principal
instrument flight reference", it's a pretty good guess that there is some
regulation, somewhere that backs that up.

As Steven has so often pointed out, nobody has been able to cite that
regulation.

I applaud John Deakin and Steven for challenging commnonly held
assumptions they believe to be wrong, even if they do it in their own
particular style. It's one of the ways in which we learn.

Anybody who feels confident
enough that handheld GPS is good enough for IFR is welcome to invite an
FSDO guy to ride along with you for an inspection with a handheld as your
sole means of IFR navigation outside of DR, vectors, celestial, and a ham
sandwich. See how far you get. Then please post about it so we can all
share in your experience.

Until that time, all this talk about how the AIM is not regulatory and how
it's OK to fly IFR with a handheld is just a lot of masturbation.

No it's not. Chances are that you'd get a FSDO guy who assumes that
the AIM statement is based on a FAR. It's not worth the hassle or
expense of an airplane flight to try to persuade this one guy
otherwise.

What you do in the real world is up to you. Personally, on
reflection, I'd use the GPS to get the heading I want to fly, then ask
ATC for that vector. I believe the Direct routing is legal, but I see
no reason to stir up a possible hornet's nest in the air when the
alternative is so simple.

Tim.