Accuracy of GPS in Garmin 430/530

Steven,

You know, with all due respect, your "discussion style" is really weird
(annoying, too, if I may say so). How about giving answers instead of
only asking questions? If you think you know something, tell us instead
of smart-*ssing the group to death.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...

Steven,

You know, with all due respect, your "discussion style" is really weird
(annoying, too, if I may say so).


What do you find weird about it? In what way do you find it annoying?



How about giving answers instead of only asking questions?


What questions would you like me to answer?




If you think you know something, tell us instead
of smart-*ssing the group to death.


Haven't I done that? Didn't I tell you that no approval is required for
enroute use of a handheld GPS in the US? Didn't I tell you that the mere
existence of a TSO does not prohibit the use of equipment that hasn't been
demonstrated to meet the standard? Didn't I tell you TSOs are not binding
unless there is an FAR that requires the TSO to be complied with? Didn't I
tell you 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? Isn't telling you those things
telling you something?

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...

Steven,

You know, with all due respect, your "discussion style" is really weird
(annoying, too, if I may say so).



What do you find weird about it? In what way do you find it annoying?



How about giving answers instead of only asking questions?



What questions would you like me to answer?




If you think you know something, tell us instead
of smart-*ssing the group to death.



Haven't I done that? Didn't I tell you that no approval is required for
enroute use of a handheld GPS in the US? Didn't I tell you that the mere
existence of a TSO does not prohibit the use of equipment that hasn't been
demonstrated to meet the standard? Didn't I tell you TSOs are not binding
unless there is an FAR that requires the TSO to be complied with? Didn't I
tell you 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? Isn't telling you those things
telling you something?


You need to get a better grasp on your employer's policy and
implementation programs. Headquarters has made it abundantly clear that
GPS cannot be used for primary IFR navigation unless the device
complies with TSO 129, 145, or 146 (or is a certified FMS/LNAV
integrated platform). Then, the avionics manufactors of 129, 145, or
146 boxes must prove compliance before they receive certification. And,
then the device has to be installed in an approved manner to satisfy
Part 23.

The AIM material I cited reflects that policy.

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news:N1H4g.174532$bm6.101296@fed1read04...

You need to get a better grasp on your employer's policy and
implementation programs. Headquarters has made it abundantly clear that
GPS cannot be used for primary IFR navigation unless the device complies
with TSO 129, 145, or 146 (or is a certified FMS/LNAV integrated
platform).


Please cite the FAR in which that has been made clear.



Then, the avionics manufactors of 129, 145, or 146 boxes must
prove compliance before they receive certification. And, then the device
has to be installed in an approved manner to satisfy Part 23.


We're talking about handheld GPS.



The AIM material I cited reflects that policy.


When that policy is promulgated in an FAR it will become legally binding.

Please cite the FAR in which that has been made clear.

FAA Order 8360.38a says the equipment must comply with TSO C129. FAA Orders
are incorporated into CFR 14.


When that policy is promulgated in an FAR it will become legally binding.

I think a pilot using a handheld GPS (not complying with TSO C129) under IFR
would be cited with:
91.13 - Careless and Reckless
91.205(d)(2) - appropriate navigation equipment

"Cox" wrote in message
news:uRccg.31356$fG3.21351@dukeread09...

FAA Order 8360.38a says the equipment must comply with TSO C129. FAA
Orders are incorporated into CFR 14.


Title 1 CFR Part 51 provides for the incorporation of publications by
reference. One such example in the FARs is the incorporation of FAA Order
7400.9N, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, in FAR 71.1. Please
cite the FAR that incorporates FAA Order 8360.38A by reference.



I think a pilot using a handheld GPS (not complying with TSO C129) under
IFR would be cited with:
91.13 - Careless and Reckless
91.205(d)(2) - appropriate navigation equipment


FAR 91.13(a) prohibits the operation of an aircraft in a careless or
reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another. Use of a
handheld GPS under IFR in US controlled airspace does not endanger any life
or any property.

FAR 91.205(d)(2) requires a two-way radio communications system and
navigational equipment appropriate to the ground facilities to be used. It
does not prohibit the use of any equipment beyond what is required to be
installed.

"Cox" wrote in message


I think a pilot using a handheld GPS (not complying with TSO C129) under
IFR would be cited with:
91.13 - Careless and Reckless

That would be automatic in any enforcement case of this type.

Haven't I done that? Didn't I tell you that no approval is required
for
enroute use of a handheld GPS in the US? Didn't I tell you that the mere
existence of a TSO does not prohibit the use of equipment that hasn't been
demonstrated to meet the standard? Didn't I tell you TSOs are not binding
unless there is an FAR that requires the TSO to be complied with? Didn't I
tell you 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? Isn't telling you those things
telling you something?


Steven, since you are so sure of yourself please go make an IFR flight
in VFR conditions with an FAA type who can bust you for doing bad
things. Then while on an IFR flight plan resort to only using your
handheld and dare him to cite you.

Ron Lee

"Ron Lee" wrote in message
...

Steven, since you are so sure of yourself please go make an IFR flight
in VFR conditions with an FAA type who can bust you for doing bad
things.


Please define "bad things".



Then while on an IFR flight plan resort to only using your
handheld and dare him to cite you.


What do you think he'd cite me with?

Just do it Steven and report back to us.

Ron Lee




"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:


"Ron Lee" wrote in message
...

Steven, since you are so sure of yourself please go make an IFR flight
in VFR conditions with an FAA type who can bust you for doing bad
things.


Please define "bad things".



Then while on an IFR flight plan resort to only using your
handheld and dare him to cite you.


What do you think he'd cite me with?