Peter Clark wrote:

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 12:16:32 -0600, Newps wrote:



Peter Clark wrote:


His intent clearly appears to be

using the handheld GPS for direct routing (otherwise why would there
be a comment in the flight plan and the request for direct enroute?)

Because you get the vector and then use your handheld. That is legal.


OK, but the original post didn't say anything about vectors. It said
"put a comment in the flight plan 'handheld gps onboard'" - to me that
implys the poster is attempting to tell ATC "I can do RNAV /G,

No, putting /G in your flightplan implies your /G. Handheld GPS will
get you the vector which is essentially a direct clearance.


I don't
really have that equipment so I can't file /G, but hey it's cool, you
can give me that direct routing anyway because I have this neat
handheld GPS". Is that legal?

Yes, because legally it's a vector, not a direct clearance.


If not, why bother with the "handheld
gps onboard" comment? It doesn't make any difference to ATC - vectors
are vectors, whatever you're using to turn to them, and if it's not
legal for RNAV it still doesn't matter whether you have it, right?


The pilot is not using GPS for the vector. He's telling ATC that a
particular heading will take him to where he wants to go. So ATC gives
him that heading, then the pilot promptly ignores it and flies the GPS
course line. That is the legal way to go direct with any GPS that is
not IFR certified.