Are handheld GPSes becoming a defacto primary nav source?

The AIM addresses the issue of flying direct when outside of NAVAID service
volume limits; see section 5-1-7, paragraphs c.4 and c.5. Also see
paragraph c.7 regarding obstacle clearance rsponsibility.

I raised this same issue with my flight instructor when taking IFR lessons.
He explained that although it's not permissable to FILE an IFR direct route
that requires GPS without having a certified unit, it's OK to request
"direct" if I have my hand-held and I'm in radar contact. So now I always
file a route that meets NAVAID requirements and request "direct" once
established on the filed route. I just let the controller know that "I have
GPS aboard" and my request has never been denied.


"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...
This week I did several IFR flights, some in IMC and most in VMC. On a
couple of those flights, ATC offered me direct to the next VOR after the
one I was navigating to, well before I could actually pick up the signal.
One time departing Rochester, they told me to go direct Elmira when I was
less than 500 feet off the ground and there are 2000 foot hills between me
and Elmira. So I turned to the approximate direction, and punched "GOTO"
on my handheld GPS, and followed the GPS's HSI until I climbed up high
enough to get a signal.

They don't offer a vector, or say "direct when able", they just say "05X,
go direct East Texas".

It seems to me that they know we can't recieve that VOR, but as long as
we've got the GPS on board, it doesn't matter to them. I guess as far as
legalities go, we're just ded reckoning in the right general direction
until we pick up the VOR.


--
Paul Tomblin , not speaking for anybody
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; give him a freshly-
charged Electric Eel and chances are he won't bother you for anything
ever again. -- Tanuki

I believe your instructor was wrong. It is permissible to file an IFR plan
with a direct route, even if all you have to navigate direct with is a
handheld or even just a tuna sandwich. You are working harder than you have
to, filing an airways or VOR route then requesting direct later. It doesn't
hurt you any, but you are wasting your time.
wrote in message
. ..
The AIM addresses the issue of flying direct when outside of NAVAID
service
volume limits; see section 5-1-7, paragraphs c.4 and c.5. Also see
paragraph c.7 regarding obstacle clearance rsponsibility.

I raised this same issue with my flight instructor when taking IFR
lessons.
He explained that although it's not permissable to FILE an IFR direct
route
that requires GPS without having a certified unit, it's OK to request
"direct" if I have my hand-held and I'm in radar contact. So now I always
file a route that meets NAVAID requirements and request "direct" once
established on the filed route. I just let the controller know that "I
have
GPS aboard" and my request has never been denied.


"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...
This week I did several IFR flights, some in IMC and most in VMC. On a
couple of those flights, ATC offered me direct to the next VOR after the
one I was navigating to, well before I could actually pick up the
signal.
One time departing Rochester, they told me to go direct Elmira when I
was
less than 500 feet off the ground and there are 2000 foot hills between
me
and Elmira. So I turned to the approximate direction, and punched
"GOTO"
on my handheld GPS, and followed the GPS's HSI until I climbed up high
enough to get a signal.

They don't offer a vector, or say "direct when able", they just say
"05X,
go direct East Texas".

It seems to me that they know we can't recieve that VOR, but as long as
we've got the GPS on board, it doesn't matter to them. I guess as far
as
legalities go, we're just ded reckoning in the right general direction
until we pick up the VOR.


--
Paul Tomblin , not speaking for anybody
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; give him a freshly-
charged Electric Eel and chances are he won't bother you for anything
ever again. -- Tanuki

wrote in message
. ..

I raised this same issue with my flight instructor when taking IFR
lessons. He explained that although it's not permissable to FILE
an IFR direct route that requires GPS without having a certified
unit, it's OK to request "direct" if I have my hand-held and I'm in
radar contact. So now I always file a route that meets NAVAID
requirements and request "direct" once established on the filed
route. I just let the controller know that "I have GPS aboard"
and my request has never been denied.


Your instructor is wrong, there's nothing that prohibits filing an IFR
direct route regardless of the status of your nav equipment. Whether or not
the controller can clear you on such a route depends upon radar coverage,
but if he can clear you direct once you're airborne he can also clear you
direct when you're still on the ground.

Your instructor is wrong, there's nothing that prohibits filing an IFR
direct route regardless of the status of your nav equipment. Whether or not
the controller can clear you on such a route depends upon radar coverage,
but if he can clear you direct once you're airborne he can also clear you
direct when you're still on the ground.

On the first day private flying was permitted after 9-11, I filed
direct from Rutland VT to Bloomsburg PA , about 250 miles, with "VFR
GPS in "remarks," and got it! I was quite surprised, but perhaps the
fact that there was extremely little traffic that day had something to
do with it.

But for many years, before GPS or even RNAV, I filed direct from UNV
(central PA) to MAPEL (about 100 miles) direct Dulles, and usually got
it.

I was never asked how I could do it. (I had noticed that the radial
out of IAD (Dulles) that went through MAPEL also went through UNV.)

Direct LISON Direct DCA also worked, for similar reason.

vince norris