IFR use of handheld GPS

Sam Spade wrote:


The "rule" is that direct routes initiated by ATC are limited to the
service volume of VOR (or rarely, NDBs) and the controller can assure
that MIAs will not be violated.

When the pilot makes the request, though, let the buyer beware.



It is irrelavant who makes the request, the rules are the same.

Newps wrote:


Sam Spade wrote:


The "rule" is that direct routes initiated by ATC are limited to the
service volume of VOR (or rarely, NDBs) and the controller can assure
that MIAs will not be violated.

When the pilot makes the request, though, let the buyer beware.




It is irrelavant who makes the request, the rules are the same.

That's sure what is says on paper. Still, let the "buyer beware" when
he makes the request.

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news:nTo6g.175187$bm6.57868@fed1read04...

The "rule" is that direct routes initiated by ATC are limited to the
service volume of VOR (or rarely, NDBs) and the controller can assure that
MIAs will not be violated.

When the pilot makes the request, though, let the buyer beware.


That's not correct. NAVAID usable distance limits are based on MSL
altitudes, service volumes are based on AGL altitudes. It doesn't matter if
the routing is initiated by ATC or requested by the pilot, radar monitoring
is required when operating outside of the specified altitude and distance
limitations in controlled airspace unless approval has been obtained from
the Frequency Management and Flight Inspection Offices to exceed them or the
requested routing is via an MTR.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news:nTo6g.175187$bm6.57868@fed1read04...

The "rule" is that direct routes initiated by ATC are limited to the
service volume of VOR (or rarely, NDBs) and the controller can assure that
MIAs will not be violated.

When the pilot makes the request, though, let the buyer beware.



That's not correct. NAVAID usable distance limits are based on MSL
altitudes, service volumes are based on AGL altitudes. It doesn't matter if
the routing is initiated by ATC or requested by the pilot, radar monitoring
is required when operating outside of the specified altitude and distance
limitations in controlled airspace unless approval has been obtained from
the Frequency Management and Flight Inspection Offices to exceed them or the
requested routing is via an MTR.



What did I say that is not correct, and inconsistent with 7110.65 4-1-1?

gregscheetah wrote:

Since direct can only be given under radar control (IFR GPS or
otherwise) ....


I am not sure where everyone is getting this information. Maybe it is
a 'rule' but I have often been given direct routes when out of ATC
radar and, for a while, out of ATC communications. And I don't have a
panel GPS. I use the handheld. But I always get a vector before hand,
not for legality, but in case the GPS craps out I have some idea of
what direction to fly.

You're not direct, you're on a vector. If you are on a random route
you're supposed to be in radar contact, some centers don't care. Salt
Lake frequently allows aircraft to go direct for hundreds of miles
without being in radar contact.

Newps,

If using a hand-held GPS as a significant IFR navigation tool is
against the spirit of the FARs, surely the FAA could put an end to the
practice very simply by strongly discouraging controllers from issuing
Direct-To clearances to /A and /U aircraft
(unless of course it's Direct-To a ground-based navaid and the plane
is within the service volume of the navaid).

It doesn't appear to have done so, even though the debate has been
going on since at least 1998.

I'd be very much interested in any insights you might be able to share
regarding the FAA's behavior here.

(As I said earlier, I'm here to learn.)

Regards,

Tim.



On Thu, 04 May 2006 11:46:11 -0600, Newps wrote:



gregscheetah wrote:

Since direct can only be given under radar control (IFR GPS or
otherwise) ....


I am not sure where everyone is getting this information. Maybe it is
a 'rule' but I have often been given direct routes when out of ATC
radar and, for a while, out of ATC communications. And I don't have a
panel GPS. I use the handheld. But I always get a vector before hand,
not for legality, but in case the GPS craps out I have some idea of
what direction to fly.

You're not direct, you're on a vector. If you are on a random route
you're supposed to be in radar contact, some centers don't care. Salt
Lake frequently allows aircraft to go direct for hundreds of miles
without being in radar contact.

Tim Auckland wrote:
Newps,

If using a hand-held GPS as a significant IFR navigation tool is
against the spirit of the FARs, surely the FAA could put an end to the
practice very simply by strongly discouraging controllers from issuing
Direct-To clearances to /A and /U aircraft

It's already there, the controller simply needs to read the book.



It doesn't appear to have done so, even though the debate has been
going on since at least 1998.

It's like anything else in the FAA, they don't care until you wreck
something. Then the FAA will buy part or all of your airplane when you sue.

"Tim Auckland" wrote in message
...

If using a hand-held GPS as a significant IFR navigation tool is
against the spirit of the FARs, surely the FAA could put an end to the
practice very simply by strongly discouraging controllers from issuing
Direct-To clearances to /A and /U aircraft
(unless of course it's Direct-To a ground-based navaid and the plane
is within the service volume of the navaid).

It doesn't appear to have done so, even though the debate has been
going on since at least 1998.


Why make it the controller's responsibility? If the FAA wanted to make IFR
use of handheld GPS illegal all they'd have to do is create an FAR
prohibiting it. Something like:

No person may operate a civil aircraft under IFR using an Area Navigation
System unless the equipment of that aircraft meets the requirements of
TSO-C60b, TSO-C115b, or TSO-C129A and is installed in accordance with AC
20-121, AC 20-130, or AC 20-138.

"Newps" wrote in message
. ..

If you are on a random route
you're supposed to be in radar contact, some centers don't care. Salt
Lake frequently allows aircraft to go direct for hundreds of miles without
being in radar contact.


An ARTCC is an entity incapable of caring. Some controllers are just poorly
trained, they don't know any better. Standards have fallen rather sharply
in the last fifteen years or so.

gregscheetah wrote:

I am not sure where everyone is getting this information. Maybe it is
a 'rule' but I have often been given direct routes when out of ATC
radar and, for a while, out of ATC communications.

The ATC folks like to quote FAA Order 7110.65R
http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/Chp5/atc0505.html#5-5-1 which says, among
other stuff that I don't understand, that "Radar separation shall be
applied to all RNAV aircraft operating on a random (impromptu) route at
or below FL 450..."