How long before /G required for IFR?

Dan Thompson wrote:
This is an old horse and I almost hate to bring it up again, but are you
aware you can legally accept direct FUBAR as a /U under IFR, and monitor
your progress with a handheld GPS?

You're not cleared direct. You're given a vector that is essentially
direct. /G allows you to accept a clearance "direct FUBAR."



Currently the only reason one ever needs an IFR GPS is to fly a GPS
approach.

A terminal/enroute only box allows you to eliminate your ADF and DME
which is very handy if you fly a lot of ILS and VOR approaches anyways.

"Newps" wrote in message
...

You're not cleared direct. You're given a vector that is essentially
direct. /G allows you to accept a clearance "direct FUBAR."


No, you're cleared direct. There are no restrictions on direct clearances
based on the filed equipment suffix.

In a previous article, Newps said:
A terminal/enroute only box allows you to eliminate your ADF and DME
which is very handy if you fly a lot of ILS and VOR approaches anyways.

Don't get rid of your ADF and DME if you want to fly to Canada some time,
though.


--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"Harry very carefully read the manual - four times - because Snape would
cut off his breathing privs if he asked him a question that the manual
could answer..." -- Harry Potter and the Book Of The BOFH

"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...

Don't get rid of your ADF and DME if you want to fly to Canada some time,
though.


Or if you need to fly an NDB approach that has no GPS overlay, or an
approach similar to the VOR/DME RWY 15 at Martin State Airport.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

or an approach similar to the VOR/DME RWY 15 at Martin
State Airport.

Why this approach? To me it seems an IFR certified GPS and one VOR would
suffice.


--
Peter













----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Peter R." wrote in message
...

Why this approach? To me it seems an IFR certified GPS and one VOR would
suffice.


Because one of the restrictions to use of GPS in lieu of ADF or DME is use
as the principal instrument approach navigation source. In most VOR/DME
approaches track information is provided by a VOR and distance along the
track by DME, in this one it's just the opposite.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

In most VOR/DME
approaches track information is provided by a VOR and distance along
the track by DME, in this one it's just the opposite.

Is this true with all DME arcs? So, am I mistaken to believe that I can
legally fly this approach without a DME?

My understanding was that I use the VOR to provide radial information along
the arc, then use the IFR-certified GPS to provide the DME mileage to
remain within the confines of the arc.

This is how DME arcs were taught to me in an aircraft without DME two years
ago and I took away from this education that I would have been legal to fly
this approach.

--
Peter













----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Peter R." wrote in message
...

Is this true with all DME arcs? So, am I mistaken to believe that I can
legally fly this approach without a DME?


No, it's not true with all DME arcs. It's true with this one because DME is
the principal instrument approach navigation source. I'm not aware of any
other approach like this one.

Paul Tomblin wrote:

In a previous article, Newps said:
A terminal/enroute only box allows you to eliminate your ADF and DME
which is very handy if you fly a lot of ILS and VOR approaches anyways.

Don't get rid of your ADF and DME if you want to fly to Canada some time,
though.

More so for Mexico.