Being asked to "verify direct XXX"

"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?