In article t,
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
wrote in message
roups.com...

I suppose this means that this has come up before and you have a good
counterpoint for it? Besides throwing out the entire AIM, I hope.


Oh, it's come up many times. This is like a religion with some people, a
matter of faith. They insist use of handheld GPS during IFR enroute
operations in US controlled airspace is illegal and/or unsafe but none of
them can identify any regulation that prohibits it or any hazard caused by
such use.

sigh I guess I don't understand why someone would want to intentionally
operate outside of those guidelines set out in the AIM (barring an emergency
or other detriment to flight safety).

You are correct...there is no "regulation" (i.e. - rule in the FARs) that
state you can not use a hand-held GPS for IFR navigation. However, the
non-regulatory AIM makes it very clear. As I mentioned in a previous post,
there's also nothing in the FARs about requiring you to read back a hold
short instruction....just the AIM.

I'm certainly no legal expert (nor would I ever want to be), so I can't
make a professional interpretation as to the regulatory or legal status
of things like the AIM, Advisory Circulars, etc... However, it seems
reckless and irresponsible to operate outside of those guidelines.

You are also correct in that there is nothing that says that use of
a handheld for IFR operations is unsafe. However, more importantly,
there's nothing to indicate that it *is* safe! The TSO process exists
for a reason: to prove, via a documented and certified process, that
a piece of avionics will do what it is supposed to do, when it is supposed
to do it.

It's more a matter of faith to assume that the hand-held *is* safe and
will do what it's supposed to do than to assume it is illegal and/or unsafe.

-- Dane