IFR use of handheld GPS

Dane Spearing wrote:

Section 1-1-19-d of the AIM addresses the general requirements
for conducting any GPS operations under IFR. Section 1-1-19-d1a
explicitly states (and I quote):

"Visual flight rules (VFR) and hand-held GPS systems are not authorized
for IFR navigation, instrument approaches, or as a principal instrument
flight reference."

Okay. Good find. Now, some will always bring up the fact that the AIM
is not regulatory, but it is an official FAA publication and therefore
cannot be disregarded. I somehow missed that sentence over the years.
So I suppose weaseling around it by claiming its really GPS-assisted
dead reckoning is necessary.

So if the AIM says that handhelds are not authorized for IFR
navigation, there must be a rule somewhere, right?

wrote:
Dane Spearing wrote:


Section 1-1-19-d of the AIM addresses the general requirements
for conducting any GPS operations under IFR. Section 1-1-19-d1a
explicitly states (and I quote):

"Visual flight rules (VFR) and hand-held GPS systems are not authorized
for IFR navigation, instrument approaches, or as a principal instrument
flight reference."


Okay. Good find. Now, some will always bring up the fact that the AIM
is not regulatory, but it is an official FAA publication and therefore
cannot be disregarded. I somehow missed that sentence over the years.
So I suppose weaseling around it by claiming its really GPS-assisted
dead reckoning is necessary.

So if the AIM says that handhelds are not authorized for IFR
navigation, there must be a rule somewhere, right?

Not necessarily. The AIM is meant to contain information that is "good
practice", not just regulatory information. The FARs are for
regulation. If the AIM was also regulatory and only contained
information already in the FARs, what would be the point of it?


Matt

In article ,
Matt Whiting wrote:

So if the AIM says that handhelds are not authorized for IFR
navigation, there must be a rule somewhere, right?

Not necessarily. The AIM is meant to contain information that is "good
practice", not just regulatory information. The FARs are for
regulation. If the AIM was also regulatory and only contained
information already in the FARs, what would be the point of it?

Yes, it's true that the AIM is "not regulatory". We all learned that and
regurgitated it back on some private pilot knowledge test long ago. But,
just because it doesn't cite chapter and verse from 14 CFR is no reason to
completely ignore what it says.

The paragraph in question is 1-1-19-d-1-(a):

1. Authorization to conduct any GPS operation under IFR requires that:

(a) GPS navigation equipment used must be approved in accordance with the
requirements specified in Technical Standard Order (TSO) TSO-C129, or
equivalent, and the installation must be done in accordance with Advisory
Circular AC 20-138, Airworthiness Approval of Global Positioning System (GPS)
Navigation Equipment for Use as a VFR and IFR Supplemental Navigation System,
or Advisory Circular AC 20-130A, Airworthiness Approval of Navigation or
Flight Management Systems Integrating Multiple Navigation Sensors, or
equivalent. Equipment approved in accordance with TSO-C115a does not meet the
requirements of TSO-C129. Visual flight rules (VFR) and hand-held GPS systems
are not authorized for IFR navigation, instrument approaches, or as a
principal instrument flight reference. During IFR operations they may be
considered only an aid to situational awareness.

While the AIM may not be regulatory, it also doesn't lie. When a simple
declaratory statement is made such as, "hand-held GPS systems are not
authorized for IFR navigation, instrument approaches, or as a principal
instrument flight reference", it's a pretty good guess that there is some
regulation, somewhere that backs that up. Anybody who feels confident
enough that handheld GPS is good enough for IFR is welcome to invite an
FSDO guy to ride along with you for an inspection with a handheld as your
sole means of IFR navigation outside of DR, vectors, celestial, and a ham
sandwich. See how far you get. Then please post about it so we can all
share in your experience.

Until that time, all this talk about how the AIM is not regulatory and how
it's OK to fly IFR with a handheld is just a lot of masturbation.

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...

Yes, it's true that the AIM is "not regulatory". We all learned that and
regurgitated it back on some private pilot knowledge test long ago. But,
just because it doesn't cite chapter and verse from 14 CFR is no reason to
completely ignore what it says.

The paragraph in question is 1-1-19-d-1-(a):

1. Authorization to conduct any GPS operation under IFR requires that:

(a) GPS navigation equipment used must be approved in accordance with the
requirements specified in Technical Standard Order (TSO) TSO-C129, or
equivalent, and the installation must be done in accordance with Advisory
Circular AC 20-138, Airworthiness Approval of Global Positioning System
(GPS)
Navigation Equipment for Use as a VFR and IFR Supplemental Navigation
System,
or Advisory Circular AC 20-130A, Airworthiness Approval of Navigation or
Flight Management Systems Integrating Multiple Navigation Sensors, or
equivalent. Equipment approved in accordance with TSO-C115a does not meet
the
requirements of TSO-C129. Visual flight rules (VFR) and hand-held GPS
systems
are not authorized for IFR navigation, instrument approaches, or as a
principal instrument flight reference. During IFR operations they may be
considered only an aid to situational awareness.

While the AIM may not be regulatory, it also doesn't lie. When a simple
declaratory statement is made such as, "hand-held GPS systems are not
authorized for IFR navigation, instrument approaches, or as a principal
instrument flight reference", it's a pretty good guess that there is some
regulation, somewhere that backs that up. Anybody who feels confident
enough that handheld GPS is good enough for IFR is welcome to invite an
FSDO guy to ride along with you for an inspection with a handheld as your
sole means of IFR navigation outside of DR, vectors, celestial, and a ham
sandwich. See how far you get. Then please post about it so we can all
share in your experience.

Until that time, all this talk about how the AIM is not regulatory and how
it's OK to fly IFR with a handheld is just a lot of masturbation.


You don't have to make an actual flight, a hypothetical will work just as
well for this purpose. I did just that some 6 1/2 years ago. The message
below was originally posted on December 4th, 1999, in this forum in the
thread "Going direct to an intersection":





I sent the following message to eleven of the fourteen FSDOs in the Great
Lakes Region:

"I have a question regarding the use of a handheld GPS receiver
during IFR enroute flight.


Let's say I file from MBS direct to SEA in my BE36/A. My Bonanza
has two nav/coms, ADF, GS receiver, DME, marker beacon receiver,
transponder, encoder, and an autopilot. But I intend to use my
handheld GPS receiver for enroute navigation, which I have previously
determined will not cause interference with the navigation or communication
system on my airplane. ATC clears me as filed and I proceed on my merry way
direct to Seattle.


Does this operation violate any FAR?"


I received E-mail responses from four FSDOs, I have changed only
identification of offices and individuals.


From FSDO "A":


Dear Steven,


Thank you for your question concerning GPS Navigation.


You must comply with the limitations of your GPS. There isn't
a handheld alive that is approved for IFR enroute or terminal
navigation, so to answer your question, no, you cannot use the
GPS for anything during your IFR Flight. I recommend that you
review your GPS Manual provided by the factory.


I hope this answers your question, Steven.


Sincerely,


John Doe
FSDO "A"


Dear Mr. Doe,


Thank you for your prompt response.


My question and scenario are completely hypothetical, I don't own a
GPS (or a Bonanza, unfortunately), so I have no GPS manual to
review. But I'm afraid you didn't answer my question; I wanted to
know what regulation, if any, was being violated in the scenario.
What FAR prohibits the use of a handheld GPS during enroute IFR
flight? What regulation requires me to comply with the limitations
of my GPS? What regulation requires the GPS, or any other nav
system for that matter, to be approved for IFR enroute flight?


Sincerely,
Steven P. McNicoll


No further messages were received from FSDO "A".


From FSDO "B":


Dear Steven,


Does this operation violate any FAR?


FAR - "singular" NO, "pural" YES


or only if the FAA accident investigation team has to pry it out of
your cold hands at the site of the crash, otherwise no one will know.


Sorry, but I just can't pass up to opportunity to put a little humor into
my work. Seriously here is the"spin" that most FAA types put on
the answer to this question.


Hand held GPS units are not approved for flight into IFR conditions. Panel
mount GPS units may be certified for enroute portions only,
or the high dollar units that meet all the FAA's certification
requirements can be used for enroute and approaches, these units
are also panel mounted units.


Further, the panel mounted units are to be installed by properly
certificated technicians and the equipment list, weight and balance
of the aircraft should reflect the additional equipment. (No the FAA
doesn't make it easy.)


So in the case of a handheld GPS for IFR flight, the unit is not
certified for that use and is not authorized by FARs.


Richard Roe
FSDO "B"


Dear Mr. Roe,


Thank you for your response.


I appreciate humor as much as anyone, but I don't see how we
arrived "at the site of the crash". This operation presents no
undue hazard.


I'm aware that hand held GPS units are not approved for flight
into IFR conditions, and that GPS installations CAN be approved
for IFR flight. But after an extensive search, I cannot find any
regulation REQUIRING that GPS have that approval in order to
be used during IFR enroute flight.


You say that this operation would violate several FARs, could
you cite them please?


Sincerely,
Steven P. McNicoll


No further messages were received from FSDO "B".


From FSDO "C":


Dear Steve,


I am forwarding your question to our Avionics Inspector;
Apollo Garmin. This is in his area of expertise.


Thank you for using our website.


Guy Fawkes
FSDO "C"


Steve,


I got together with our Avionics Inspector and have an
answer for you.


"A PORTABLE GPS CANNOT BE APPROVED IN THE
AIRCRAFT FOR INSTRUMENT FLIGHT RULES (IFR) OR
VISUAL FLIGHT RULES UNLESS THE COMPLETE SYSTEM
IS INSTALLED AND EVALUATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE INTERIM POLICY GUIDANCE DATED MARCH 20, 1992,
AS AMENDED, PERTAINING TO THE APPROVAL OF GPS
EQUIPMENT."


VFR only not IFR.


Let me know if we can be of any further assistance.


Guy Fawkes
FSDO "C"


Dear Mr. Fawkes,


Thank you for your response. I understand that a portable
GPS receiver cannot be approved for IFR flight, but what
regulation prohibits a non-approved GPS receiver from
being used during IFR flight?


Steven P. McNicoll


Steven,


Per my Avionics Inspector the following 14CFR Paragraph
answers your question (specifically para (b)(5):
----------------------------------
 91.21 _ Portable Electronic Devices.


(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no
person may operate, nor may any operator or pilot in command
of an aircraft allow the operation of, any portable electronic device
on any of the following U.S.-registered civil aircraft:


(1) Aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier operating
certificate or an operating certificate; or


(2) Any other aircraft while it is operated under IFR.


(b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to-


(1) Portable voice recorders;


(2) Hearing aids;


(3) Heart pacemakers;


(4) Electric shavers; or


(5) Any other portable electronic device that the operator of
the aircraft has determined will not cause interference with the
navigation or communication system of the aircraft on which it
is to be used.


(c) In the case of an aircraft operated by a holder of an air
carrier operating certificate or an operating certificate, the
determination required by paragraph (b)(5) of this section shall
be made by that operator of the aircraft on which the particular
device is to be used. In the case of other aircraft, the
determination may be made by the pilot in command or other
operator of the aircraft.
------------------------


Guy Fawkes
FSDO "C"


Dear Mr. Fawkes,


FAR 91.21(b)(5) permits the operation of any portable electronic
device, other than a portable voice recorder, hearing aid, heart pacemaker,
or electric shaver, that the operator of the aircraft has determined will
not cause interference with the navigation or communication system of the
aircraft on which it is to be used.
Recall that in my scenario I stated that I had previously determined
that my handheld GPS receiver does not cause interference with
the navigation or communication system on my airplane. It seems
to me that I have complied with FAR 91.21 to the letter.


Steven P. McNicoll


No further messages were received from FSDO "C"


From FSDO "D":


Dear Mr. Steven P. McNicoll


In response to your question, does this operation violate
any FAR?


Yes, it does.


You may file IFR as a (slant) /A.


The handheld GPS is not acceptable as RNAV and is contrary to:


14 Code of Federal Regulations(CFR), Part 21 sub part K and O.


14 CFR 23.1307


14 CFR 23.1309(b)


14 CFR 91.21


14 CFR 91.205


These are referenced in FAA pamphlet FAA-P-8000-3.


Thank you for your interest in aviation safety. Please call if you have any
questions, (987) 654-3210.


Inspector John Smith
FSDO "D"


Dear Mr. Smith,


Thank you for your response. Please see below for additional
questions and comments.


Steven P. McNicoll



Dear Mr. Steven P. McNicoll


In response to your question, does this operation violate
any FAR?


Yes, it does.


You may file IFR as a (slant) /A.


The handheld GPS is not acceptable as RNAV



What regulation specifies what is acceptable and what is not
acceptable as RNAV?


and is contrary to:
14 Code of Federal Regulations(CFR), Part 21 sub part K and O.



How can that be? A handheld GPS is not a part or an appliance,
it is not installed in or attached to the aircraft. To my knowledge
there is no regulation that requires a GPS receiver to comply with
a TSO.


14 CFR 23.1307



I don't see how Part 23 is applicable at all, this does not involve
any change to a type certificate.

A handheld GPS receiver is not equipment necessary for the
airplane to operate at the maximum operating altitude or in the
kinds of operations and meteorological conditions for which it
is certified. Why would it need to be included in the type design?
Given that it is a portable device, how could it be included in the
type design?



14 CFR 23.1309(b)



14 CFR 23.1309(b) refers to installed equipment, but a
handheld GPS is not installed equipment.


14 CFR 91.21



Recall that I had previously determined my handheld GPS does
not cause interference with the navigation or communication
system on my airplane.


14 CFR 91.205



How is this regulation being violated? My aircraft contains all
of the instruments and equipment specified 14 CFR 91.205 for
IFR operations, and those instruments and items of equipment
are in operable condition.


These are referenced in FAA pamphlet FAA-P-8000-3.



How may I obtain this pamphlet?


Thank you for your interest in aviation safety.
Please call if you have any questions, (987) 654-3210.


Inspector John Smith
FSDO "D"



Dear Mr. Steven P. McNicoll,

Your Bonanza was probably built in accordance with 14 CFR 23
(FAR 23), and if you intend to use the aircraft for IFR flight, it
should have the equipment specified in 14 CFR 91.205. The
hand-held GPS is not included in 91.205 because it is not
approved for IFR flight. In fact no GPS systems are mentioned
in 91.205, any GPS system that is approved for IFR use and is
going to be permanently installed in an aircraft needs to be
approved for that specific make and model of aircraft. The FAA
will not approve a GPS installation for IFR use if the GPS unit
wasn't manufactured to the minimum specifications of Technical
Standard Order-129A (TSO-C129A). At this point in time, no
hand-held GPS unit meets the minimum specifications spelled
out in TSO-C129A. TSO-C129A specifies the criteria by which
an installed GPS system, intended for certification in IFR
operations, will be built. A hand-held, portable GPS is not built
to these specifications.


The pamphlet(FAA-P-8000-3) we previously mentioned is available
at "http://gps.faa.gov/Library/gps1.pdf" on the Internet. In
FAA-P-8000-3, chapter 1, page 1-7, the first paragraph under
section 1.3. Hand-held or portable GPS receivers may be used
as a supplement to Visual Flight Rules only.


If you have any further questions you should contact your local F. A.
A. FSDO for more information. We are an Air Carrier Office and
deal with the airlines. Your local FSDO will have Inspectors who
deal with Part 91 operators. From the address on your e-mail it
appears that you are in the Milwaukee FSDO area. There phone
number is (414) 486-2920. They also have an Internet web-site.
The address is: "http://www.faa.gov/fsdo/mke".


Thank You,
Inspector John Smith
FSDO "D"


Dear Mr. Smith,


Thank you for your response. Please see additional comments
and questions below.


Sincerely,


Steven P. McNicoll



Dear Mr. Steven P. McNicoll,


Your Bonanza was probably built in accordance with
14 CFR 23 (FAR 23), and if you intend to use the aircraft
for IFR flight, it should have the equipment specified in
14 CFR 91.205.



Please understand that this is a completely hypothetical scenario,
I do not own a Bonanza. My hypothetical Bonanza contains all of
the instruments and equipment specified in 14 CFR 91.205.


The hand-held GPS is not included in 91.205 because it is
not approved for IFR flight.



If my aircraft contains all of the instruments and equipment
specified in 14 CFR 91.205, then I am in compliance with that
regulation. What regulation prevents me from using a device
that is not mentioned in 91.205?


In fact no GPS systems are mentioned in 91.205, any GPS
system that is approved for IFR use and is going to be
permanently installed in an aircraft needs to be approved for
that specific make and model of aircraft. The FAA will not
approve a GPS installation for IFR use if the GPS unit wasn't
manufactured to the minimum specifications of Technical
Standard Order-129A (TSO-C129A). At this point in time,
no hand-held GPS unit meets the minimum specifications
spelled out in TSO-C129A. TSO-C129A specifies the
criteria by which an installed GPS system, intended for
certification in IFR operations, will be built.


A hand-held, portable GPS is not built to these specifications.



I understand that, but I can find no regulation that requires a GPS
receiver that is used for IFR enroute flight to be permanently
installed in the aircraft or to meet the specifications of TSO C-129a.


The pamphlet(FAA-P-8000-3) we previously mentioned is
available at "http://gps.faa.gov/Library/gps1.pdf" on the
Internet.


In FAA-P-8000-3, chapter 1, page 1-7, the first paragraph
under section 1.3. Hand-held or portable GPS receivers
may be used as a supplement to Visual Flight Rules only.



I don't believe that pamphlet has the force of law. The FAA
publishes the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) to make
readily available to the aviation community the regulatory
requirements placed upon them. If a GPS receiver that did
not meet the standards of TSO C-129a was not to be used
during IFR flight, then there would be an FAR that required
any GPS receiver used during IFR flight to meet that standard.


If you have any further questions you should contact your local F. A.
A. FSDO for more information. We are an Air Carrier Office and
deal with the airlines. Your local FSDO will have Inspectors who
deal with Part 91 operators. From the address on your e-mail it
appears that you are in the Milwaukee FSDO area. There phone
number is (414) 486-2920. They also have an Internet web-site.
The address is: "http://www.faa.gov/fsdo/mke".


Thank You,
Inspector John Smith
FSDO "D"



I have contacted eleven of the fourteen FSDOs in the Great Lakes Region. I
gave them all this same scenario and asked them all the
same question. Seven of them responded, all stating that
navigation by handheld GPS receiver during enroute flight under
IFR is illegal, but none of them could cite any law that would be
violated by such use! It seems to me that if it is illegal, then there
must be a regulation that is being violated; if there is no regulation
being violated, then it is not illegal.

Sincerely,
Steven P. McNicoll


No further messages were received from FSDO "D".

"Steven P. McNicoll" writes:

The hand-held GPS is not included in 91.205 because it is
not approved for IFR flight.

If my aircraft contains all of the instruments and equipment
specified in 14 CFR 91.205, then I am in compliance with that
regulation. [...]

Perhaps your scenario is self-contradictory. 91.205.d.2 appears to
require "... navigational equipment appropriate to the ground
facilities to be used ...". If you're filing to a far-away ground
facility (far away airport or navaid) that you don't have appropriate
nagivational equipment (super-duper VOR receiver or substitutable GPS)
to guide yourself to, you may be in violation right there.

It may be interesting to other readers that in other parts of the
world, it is sometimes required to carry sufficient *extra*
navigational equipment that would enable an instrument letdown to an
alternate in the case of a failure of any one.

- FChE

"Frank Ch. Eigler" wrote in message
...

Perhaps your scenario is self-contradictory. 91.205.d.2 appears to
require "... navigational equipment appropriate to the ground
facilities to be used ...". If you're filing to a far-away ground
facility (far away airport or navaid) that you don't have appropriate
nagivational equipment (super-duper VOR receiver or substitutable GPS)
to guide yourself to, you may be in violation right there.


I'm in full compliance with FAR 91.205 in that regard, I have two fully
functional VOR receivers aboard.

"Steven P. McNicoll" writes:

Perhaps your scenario is self-contradictory. 91.205.d.2 appears to
require "... navigational equipment appropriate to the ground
facilities to be used ...". [...]

I'm in full compliance with FAR 91.205 in that regard, I have two fully
functional VOR receivers aboard.

But those ordinary VOR receivers will do approximately nothing for
you, when flying direct to a faraway VOR they cannot pick up yet, thus
they are not "appropriate to the ground facilities to be used".

- FChE

On Mon, 08 May 2006 08:59:03 -0400, Roy Smith wrote:


While the AIM may not be regulatory, it also doesn't lie. When a simple
declaratory statement is made such as, "hand-held GPS systems are not
authorized for IFR navigation, instrument approaches, or as a principal
instrument flight reference", it's a pretty good guess that there is some
regulation, somewhere that backs that up.

As Steven has so often pointed out, nobody has been able to cite that
regulation.

I applaud John Deakin and Steven for challenging commnonly held
assumptions they believe to be wrong, even if they do it in their own
particular style. It's one of the ways in which we learn.

Anybody who feels confident
enough that handheld GPS is good enough for IFR is welcome to invite an
FSDO guy to ride along with you for an inspection with a handheld as your
sole means of IFR navigation outside of DR, vectors, celestial, and a ham
sandwich. See how far you get. Then please post about it so we can all
share in your experience.

Until that time, all this talk about how the AIM is not regulatory and how
it's OK to fly IFR with a handheld is just a lot of masturbation.

No it's not. Chances are that you'd get a FSDO guy who assumes that
the AIM statement is based on a FAR. It's not worth the hassle or
expense of an airplane flight to try to persuade this one guy
otherwise.

What you do in the real world is up to you. Personally, on
reflection, I'd use the GPS to get the heading I want to fly, then ask
ATC for that vector. I believe the Direct routing is legal, but I see
no reason to stir up a possible hornet's nest in the air when the
alternative is so simple.

Tim.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Okay. Good find. Now, some will always bring up the fact that the AIM
is not regulatory, but it is an official FAA publication and therefore
cannot be disregarded. I somehow missed that sentence over the years.
So I suppose weaseling around it by claiming its really GPS-assisted
dead reckoning is necessary.

So if the AIM says that handhelds are not authorized for IFR
navigation, there must be a rule somewhere, right?


One would think so, but there isn't.

In article t,
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
wrote in message
roups.com...
So if the AIM says that handhelds are not authorized for IFR
navigation, there must be a rule somewhere, right?

One would think so, but there isn't.

There's a lot of stuff in the AIM that isn't backed up by a rule in the FARs.
My favorite example is "Land and Hold Short" operations. There's nothing
in the FARs about this, but the AIM explains it at length, including the
"requirement" to read back all hold short instructions. So, if it's not in the
FARs, then I don't actually have to read back that hold short instruction,
right?!? (Yeah...try that at a busy airport and see how far you get...)

-- Dane