"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news:wsY8g.176221$bm6.114875@fed1read04...

....

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.

Agreed. Airways are well defined with procedures and regulations to ensure
that they are safe and flyable. None of that says anything at all about how
you must track those well defined airways.

Are we talking about the same Part 95? Why would Part 95 get ammended when
an airway is redefined? All I see is the definition of altitudes and
mountainous areas that apply to all defined airways.

....


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.

Keep in mind that we have been debating the lack of a regulation that
prohibits the use of GPS receivers that are not IFR certified for use during
enroute, IFR navigation.

I see nothing in what you have stated that "makes it clear" as a regulation.
I will agree that the FAA has created the mechanisms to use an IFR-certified
GPS for enroute navigation but it still has not said that that is the only
way to go.

-------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
PWK