Being asked to "verify direct XXX"

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

"Roger" wrote in message
...

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.


What equipment is required for the routes you're flying even if you're out
of RADAR contact?

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

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.


TSO C-129a is available online at: http://makeashorterlink.com/?A238150FA

TSOs are not regulations, they are Technical Standard Orders. TSOs are not
binding unless there is an FAR that requires the TSO to be complied with, so
says FAR 21.601. There are TSOs in existence that cover the "approval" of a
great many things, but you don't have to use "approved" equipment in any
operation unless required to do so by the FARs. What FAR requires
compliance with TSO-C129a?



PART 21--CERTIFICATION PROCEDURES FOR PRODUCTS AND PARTS

Subpart O--Technical Standard Order Authorizations

Sec. 21.601 Applicability.

[snip]

(b) For the purpose of this subpart--

[snip]


(4) An article manufactured under a TSO authorization, an FAA letter of
acceptance as described in §21.603(b), or an appliance manufactured under a
letter of TSO design approval described in §21.617 is an approved article or
appliance for the purpose of meeting the regulations of this chapter that
require the article to be approved.




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.


If the avionics shop that installs a GPS lacking IFR certification adheres
to AC 20-138 it will affix a placard stating "GPS limited to VFR use only".
Use of a GPS with such a placard during IFR operations, even on a cloudless
day with no restrictions to visibility, would be a violation of FAR 91.9(a).
But a handheld GPS is not installed equipment.



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.


Actually, I'm just saying that which is not prohibited is legal and there's
no prohibition against use of a handheld GPS during IFR enroute flight.



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.


Please cite the regulation requiring the unit be TSO'd.