![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
HANDHELD RADIO | [email protected] | Soaring | 22 | March 17th 16 03:16 PM |
Navcom - handheld VS panel ? | [email protected] | Home Built | 10 | October 31st 05 08:08 PM |
GPS Handheld | Kai Glaesner | Instrument Flight Rules | 2 | November 16th 04 04:01 PM |
Upgrade handheld GPS, or save for panel mount? | [email protected] | Owning | 7 | March 8th 04 03:33 PM |
Ext antenna connection for handheld radio | Ray Andraka | Owning | 7 | March 5th 04 01:10 PM |