Travis Marlatte wrote:

Ok. We agree that Part 95 does not govern tracking airways.

It also does not govern the ground facitilities that must be used to track
airways. The only thing Part 95 does is refer to the airways and that is
only to allow the use of GPS in areas when it is impossible to use VORs to
track the airways.

That is simply incorrect. Airways are described in great detail on
individual Forms 8260.16, which include the VOR stations, the IFR
altitudes, and the COPs. Each such amendment to an airway is an
amendment to Part 95, which is incorporated into the regulation through
the federal register by reference. This is virtually the same
rule-making procedure used to enact and amend instrument approach
procedures under Part 95.

I'm still missing the part where a regulation requires me to use a certified
GPS.

As a few examples of clarity, 91.181 requires that, during IFR flight, I fly
(a) on a airway or (b) a straight line to a fix. Note that it does not
stipulate the equipment I must use to accomplish that.



91.171 prohibits IFR navigation by reference to a VOR receiver unless it has
been checked.

91.205 requires that I have the appropriate equipment for the ground
facilities to be used.

And, what constitutes a VOR (Victor) Airway.

The point that many people are trying to make in this discussion is that
there is no similarly explicit statement about using certified GPS receivers
for enroute navigation.

You have stated that this is only an opinion. Actually, it is not an
opinion. It is an observation that has yet to be refuted.

Please understand that I am only debating the explicit regulation to use
certified GPS receivers. It is fact only in that no one has been able to
cite a regulation to the contrary. You have stated an opinion that GPS
receivers must be certified for IFR enroute navigation but you have not
cited a regulation to back up that opinion.

It is a body of TSO, ACs, and FAA policy postions. The FAA would never
feel the need to issue a regulation that states VFR GPS cannot be used
for IFR navigation. They see no reason for it, since the body of
directives make it clear that only IFR certified avionics can be used
for IFR operations.