IFR use of handheld GPS

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.

Interesting. Thanks.

On Thu, 04 May 2006 16:01:11 -0600, Newps wrote:



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.

Newps wrote:


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.


And, part of the "they" is the controller workforce, except they don't
pay any part of the settlement.

Sam Spade wrote:



And, part of the "they" is the controller workforce, except they don't
pay any part of the settlement.

They is the US taxpayer. I cannot be sued.

Newps wrote:


Sam Spade wrote:



And, part of the "they" is the controller workforce, except they don't
pay any part of the settlement.


They is the US taxpayer. I cannot be sued.

You said previously "they don't care until you wreck something." I took
that to mean the FAA, given the context. The taxpayers aren't sued in
any case; it's the government.

Sam Spade wrote:


They is the US taxpayer. I cannot be sued.


You said previously "they don't care until you wreck something." I took
that to mean the FAA, given the context. The taxpayers aren't sued in
any case; it's the government.

Right, it wasn't your money to start with.

Newps,

By "the book" do you mean 7110.65R?
http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/index.htm

I was browsing this online last night and couldn't find the reference,
but that's hardly surprising given that it's the first time I've ever
looked at this tome.

Any chance you could provide a link or reference?

Many thanks,

Tim.

On Thu, 04 May 2006 16:01:11 -0600, Newps wrote:



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:

Newps,

By "the book" do you mean 7110.65R?
http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/index.htm

I was browsing this online last night and couldn't find the reference,
but that's hardly surprising given that it's the first time I've ever
looked at this tome.

It's a ridiculous piece of work as you saw. If you could clear anybody
direct an equipment suffix would be unnecessary. It's also a shared
thing. I have my rules, you have yours. You have to be able to fly
what you file. You'd be suprised to find out how many operators file a
direct clearance as a /A or /Q and then say they need a vector. Even
when it is legal because they would be within the service volume.