Being asked to "verify direct XXX"

"Patrick Dirks" wrote in message
news:no-spam-to-pwd-90E9E7.16470019042005@localhost...

FWIW it has been my understanding that ATC cannot legally assign you
"direct" to some fix you cannot navigate to using the equipment suffix
you've filed with; if you file /U or /A you can't be expected to
navigate directly to a fix not defined by VORs.


There is no such restriction.



Of course it is YOUR responsibility to figure out what you can navigate
to, and to tell ATC you're "unable" if ATC tries to clear you somewhere
that would require use of a GPS; a VFR hand-held GPS is irrelevant as
far as "official" navigation is concerned.


For IFR enroute navigation off-airways or beyond normal usable navaid limits
a VFR hand-held GPS is just as relevant as an IFR certified unit.



That said, I've also understood that adding "VFR GPS" in the remarks
might encourage ATC to give assign you a HEADING somewhere, maybe with
"direct when able" or something, on the assumption that with the aid of
your VFR GPS you'll be able to head somewhere with surprising accuracy,
which helps everyone.


You fly a heading with your DG, not your GPS. If you want to proceed direct
somewhere with your handheld GPS then just ask for direct.



You could also ask for "Radar vectors" to somewhere, perhaps as in
"request heading 242 degrees, radar vectors FUBAR"; with "VFR GPS" in
the remarks ATC might go along, assuming you'll end up making a nice
beeline for FUBAR.


Or you could drop all the silliness and just ask for direct FUBAR.



Officially you're on Radar Vectors and ATC retains
responsibility for you; in practice you're no added trouble because you
can head somewhere better than without your "VFR GPS" on board.


ATC is just as responsible for you if you're proceeding direct to FUBAR.



That's the reason I've always understood for "VFR GPS ON BOARD" and why
I occasionally specify it filing IFR.


"VFR GPS ON BOARD" tells ATC you have a VFR GPS on board and nothing else.
Stop playing these silly games. If you want to proceed direct them just
file direct. Doesn't matter if you file /U, /A, /G, or put "VFR GPS" in
remarks.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
For IFR enroute navigation off-airways or beyond normal usable navaid limits
a VFR hand-held GPS is just as relevant as an IFR certified unit.

negative.

AIM 1-1-21. Global Positioning System (GPS)
Part e. Section 1. GPS Navigation......Visual Flight Rules (VFR)
and hand-held GPS systems are not authorized for IFR navigation....
during IFR operations they may be considered only an aid to situational
awareness.


You fly a heading with your DG, not your GPS. If you want to proceed direct
somewhere with your handheld GPS then just ask for direct.

and in the case of lost comms, do you just dead reckon? Do you base
your life off of something completely untested? Note, all of this
I assume your talking about flying to a point 300 nm away where
all nav systems (other than IRU's, VOR-DME FMS, etc. that large
aircraft have) do not work at such long distance.


Gerald Sylvester

"G. Sylvester" wrote:
For IFR enroute navigation off-airways or beyond normal usable navaid
limits a VFR hand-held GPS is just as relevant as an IFR certified
unit.

negative.

AIM 1-1-21. ...

You're looking in the wrong book.

"G. Sylvester" wrote in message
m...

negative.

AIM 1-1-21. Global Positioning System (GPS)
Part e. Section 1. GPS Navigation......Visual Flight Rules (VFR)
and hand-held GPS systems are not authorized for IFR navigation....
during IFR operations they may be considered only an aid to situational
awareness.


The AIM is not regulatory and there is no requirement that limits usage to
authorized units.



and in the case of lost comms, do you just dead reckon?


Why would I switch from GPS to dead reckoning if I lost comms?



Do you base your life off of something completely untested?


Are tested units failure-proof?



Note, all of this
I assume your talking about flying to a point 300 nm away where
all nav systems (other than IRU's, VOR-DME FMS, etc. that large
aircraft have) do not work at such long distance.


Where is this place where all nav systems (other than IRU's, VOR-DME FMS,
etc. that large aircraft have) do not work?

The AIM is not regulatory and there is no requirement that limits usage to
authorized units.

That is definitely incorrect. TSO-C129. GPS units
have to be certified to use under IFR. Otherwise
I could pick up a golf ball on a string and call
it an attitude indicator and say that meets the minimum
requirement for an AI under IFR flight. Or I can pick
up a sextant and call it a FMS and then file slant-whatever it is.

I spent literally 2 minute searching but couldn't find that TSO
but this is from the FAA and has many references saying
that GPS's are required to be certified for use under IFR.

http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/faa/8400/...4/4_001_02.pdf

I'll have to do some more research to find the exact regulation.

I do realize that the AIM is not regulatory but
GPS's definitely need to be certified otherwise some
GPS's (Garmin 430 which I"m most familiar with) wouldn't
need to be placarded as "VFR only" when the owner didn't
go through the IFR certification for the unit.

Do you base your life off of something completely untested?
Are tested units failure-proof?

absolutely not but at least they have been tested and designed
to a standard for aviation use and no standard other than being
light, convenient and as cheap as possible for the hiking crowd.
What you are saying is my Garmin V designed for automobile
navigation is legal to fly under IFR even though it updates
about once every 4 seconds.


Another person wrote:
My sextant isn't authorized either. Doesn't mean I can't use it to
navigate under IFR.

incorrect unless there is a TSO for it.

and just what is "situational awareness" anyway?

Well navigation is being able to follow a vector
(speed and in 3D). The situational awareness is what is happening
elsewise such as are mountains nearby, how high above the ground
you are, weather, etc. the both are helpful to know of course but are
independent. You can navigate by being at the right position all day
long without knowing what the heck is going on around you.

Lastly, I have to admit I'm far from an expert. In fact
my IFR checkride is in 2 weeks. But this stuff is almost a given.


Gerald Sylvester

"G. Sylvester" wrote:
Lastly, I have to admit I'm far from an expert.

That is well established.

In fact my IFR checkride is in 2 weeks.

Good luck.

Dan Luke wrote:
"G. Sylvester" wrote:
Lastly, I have to admit I'm far from an expert.
That is well established.

at least I'm humble.

Now I think I understand what you guys are doing. For
an intersection defined by 2 VOR's within receiving range
of the VOR for your current position, you would tune-ident-twist
for each radial defining the intersection. fly to it and
have the needles center. that is your intersection. If
you have a TSO-C129 GPS, you can tell it to go to that
intersection and you are good to go. Nice and easy. If
you have a handheld, then you tell it to go but you still
must use the VOR's as your GPS database could be 12 years
old. Basically you are using the handheld to just help
you out to get to the point. Your VOR's are your primary
means of defining that that intersection though. That
is pretty logical and normal as if you didn't have a handheld.

Now if the intersection is 500 nm away and out of VOR reception,
then the handheld is your primary means and only means of navigation.
The FAA might very well say you are legal but reckless. You can
say you monitored VOR's along the way but I'd have a hard time
seeing the FAA not seeing you as reckless without an TSO'd GPS,
INS, Loran, etc. But I'm not the judge. Do as you see fit
and hopefully you never have to sit at the end of a table
with men in black suits and dark sunglasses.

BTW, I asked the DPE I'm using for my checkride about this. He said
he would have failed me if I used a non-TSO'd GPS for IFR operations.
He's not a court of law though.

Cheers,

Gerald Sylvester

G. Sylvester wrote:


Now if the intersection is 500 nm away and out of VOR reception,
then the handheld is your primary means and only means of navigation.
The FAA might very well say you are legal

No, they wouldn't say that.


but reckless.

Can't see how unless you somehow manage to wreck the plane because of
your handheld.



BTW, I asked the DPE I'm using for my checkride about this. He said
he would have failed me if I used a non-TSO'd GPS for IFR operations.
He's not a court of law though.

He is correct.

"G. Sylvester" wrote in message
.. .

at least I'm humble.

Now I think I understand what you guys are doing. For
an intersection defined by 2 VOR's within receiving range
of the VOR for your current position, you would tune-ident-twist
for each radial defining the intersection. fly to it and
have the needles center. that is your intersection. If
you have a TSO-C129 GPS, you can tell it to go to that
intersection and you are good to go. Nice and easy. If
you have a handheld, then you tell it to go but you still
must use the VOR's as your GPS database could be 12 years
old. Basically you are using the handheld to just help
you out to get to the point. Your VOR's are your primary
means of defining that that intersection though. That
is pretty logical and normal as if you didn't have a handheld.

Now if the intersection is 500 nm away and out of VOR reception,
then the handheld is your primary means and only means of navigation.
The FAA might very well say you are legal but reckless. You can
say you monitored VOR's along the way but I'd have a hard time
seeing the FAA not seeing you as reckless without an TSO'd GPS,
INS, Loran, etc. But I'm not the judge. Do as you see fit
and hopefully you never have to sit at the end of a table
with men in black suits and dark sunglasses.


Being reckless isn't enough, at least not according to the regulation. FAR
91.13(a) states; "No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or
reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another." Whose
life or property is endangered by the use of a handheld GPS for IFR enroute
operations?

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 01:49:13 GMT, "G. Sylvester"
wrote:

The AIM is not regulatory and there is no requirement that limits usage to
authorized units.

That is definitely incorrect. TSO-C129. GPS units
have to be certified to use under IFR. Otherwise
I could pick up a golf ball on a string and call

I use my 295 on a yoke mount to legally fly en route IFR regularly.

Well, not all that regularly the past year, but It's still legal as I
have the equipment required for the routes being flown even if I were
out of RADAR contact.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com