VOR Check question

91.205(d)(2) is exactly the point. If a pilot is using VOR ground
facilities, a VOR receiver would be appropriate. If he's not (e.g.
using TACAN or GPS), a VOR receiver would not be appropriate and
therefore not required.

Support for the anti-requirement is in 91.205(e), which specifically
accounts for flying IFR without a VOR.

"Brien K. Meehan" wrote:

91.205(d)(2) is exactly the point. If a pilot is using VOR ground
facilities, a VOR receiver would be appropriate. If he's not (e.g.
using TACAN or GPS), a VOR receiver would not be appropriate and
therefore not required.

Support for the anti-requirement is in 91.205(e), which specifically
accounts for flying IFR without a VOR.

You're reading the regulation without the context of FAA policy. VOR is
still the primary en route nav aid. Write FAA Flight Standards in DC
and ask them if the regulation means what you think it means.

wrote in message ...

You're reading the regulation without the context of FAA policy. VOR is
still the primary en route nav aid. Write FAA Flight Standards in DC
and ask them if the regulation means what you think it means.


So is it FAA policy that the regulations mean what they say, or that the
regulations mean what FAA Flight Standards in DC say they mean?