IFR use of handheld GPS

Travis Marlatte wrote:

Ok. We agree that Part 95 does not govern tracking airways.

It also does not govern the ground facitilities that must be used to track
airways. The only thing Part 95 does is refer to the airways and that is
only to allow the use of GPS in areas when it is impossible to use VORs to
track the airways.

That is simply incorrect. Airways are described in great detail on
individual Forms 8260.16, which include the VOR stations, the IFR
altitudes, and the COPs. Each such amendment to an airway is an
amendment to Part 95, which is incorporated into the regulation through
the federal register by reference. This is virtually the same
rule-making procedure used to enact and amend instrument approach
procedures under Part 95.

I'm still missing the part where a regulation requires me to use a certified
GPS.

As a few examples of clarity, 91.181 requires that, during IFR flight, I fly
(a) on a airway or (b) a straight line to a fix. Note that it does not
stipulate the equipment I must use to accomplish that.



91.171 prohibits IFR navigation by reference to a VOR receiver unless it has
been checked.

91.205 requires that I have the appropriate equipment for the ground
facilities to be used.

And, what constitutes a VOR (Victor) Airway.

The point that many people are trying to make in this discussion is that
there is no similarly explicit statement about using certified GPS receivers
for enroute navigation.

You have stated that this is only an opinion. Actually, it is not an
opinion. It is an observation that has yet to be refuted.

Please understand that I am only debating the explicit regulation to use
certified GPS receivers. It is fact only in that no one has been able to
cite a regulation to the contrary. You have stated an opinion that GPS
receivers must be certified for IFR enroute navigation but you have not
cited a regulation to back up that opinion.

It is a body of TSO, ACs, and FAA policy postions. The FAA would never
feel the need to issue a regulation that states VFR GPS cannot be used
for IFR navigation. They see no reason for it, since the body of
directives make it clear that only IFR certified avionics can be used
for IFR operations.

Sam Spade wrote:

Airways are described in great detail on
individual Forms 8260.16,

Are the forms 8260.16 available to the public somewhere?

Thanks,

Dave

Google is your friend!

Damn, that's empowering to say!!

Karl
ATP CFI EC
"Curator" N185KG


"Dave Butler" wrote in message
news:1147439954.376983@sj-nntpcache-5...
Sam Spade wrote:

Airways are described in great detail on individual Forms 8260.16,

Are the forms 8260.16 available to the public somewhere?

Thanks,

Dave

karl gruber wrote:
Google is your friend!

Well, since apparently google is *your* friend and finding the 8260.16s is so
effortless for you, would you mind elaborating a little? OK, I'll admit to being
clueless, where are the 8260.16s (or at least, what search argument did you use
on your friend)?

Damn, that's empowering to say!!

Glad I was able to brighten your day.

Dave

There's a link to 8260.16 on:

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...idance/orders/

The actual link takes you to:

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...dia/826016.pdf

which doesn't have anything about airways.

Tim.



On Fri, 12 May 2006 13:40:44 -0400, Dave Butler wrote:

karl gruber wrote:
Google is your friend!

Well, since apparently google is *your* friend and finding the 8260.16s is so
effortless for you, would you mind elaborating a little? OK, I'll admit to being
clueless, where are the 8260.16s (or at least, what search argument did you use
on your friend)?

Damn, that's empowering to say!!

Glad I was able to brighten your day.

Dave

Don't you love the FAA.

TERPS forms are available through:

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...0/terps_forms/

which has a link 8260-16:

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...ia/8260_16.pdf

which provides a blank 8260 - 16 form for specifiying airway data.

Seems that order 8260.16 has nothing to do with the 8260-16 form.

Still haven't found any populated 8260-16 forms on the web.

Cheers,

Tim.


On Fri, 12 May 2006 12:44:52 -0600, Tim Auckland wrote:

There's a link to 8260.16 on:

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...idance/orders/

The actual link takes you to:

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...dia/826016.pdf

which doesn't have anything about airways.

Tim.



On Fri, 12 May 2006 13:40:44 -0400, Dave Butler wrote:

karl gruber wrote:
Google is your friend!

Well, since apparently google is *your* friend and finding the 8260.16s is so
effortless for you, would you mind elaborating a little? OK, I'll admit to being
clueless, where are the 8260.16s (or at least, what search argument did you use
on your friend)?

Damn, that's empowering to say!!

Glad I was able to brighten your day.

Dave

Tim Auckland wrote:



Still haven't found any populated 8260-16 forms on the web.

One of the appendices to Order 8260.19C, "Flight Procedures and
Airspace" has a sample comleted 8260-16.

Dave Butler wrote:
Sam Spade wrote:

Airways are described in great detail on individual Forms 8260.16,


Are the forms 8260.16 available to the public somewhere?

Thanks,

Dave
Not easily. Unlike instrument approach procedures, which are
coordinated with the aviation comunity, airways are considered by the
FAA to be "non-controversial," thus no public site during coordination.

The forms are maintained because they are "dockets" of prior rule-making.

Dave Butler wrote:
Sam Spade wrote:

Airways are described in great detail on individual Forms 8260.16,


Are the forms 8260.16 available to the public somewhere?

Thanks,

Dave


Sample 8260-16 at:

http://members.cox.net/aterpster/

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news:wsY8g.176221$bm6.114875@fed1read04...

....

That is simply incorrect. Airways are described in great detail on
individual Forms 8260.16, which include the VOR stations, the IFR
altitudes, and the COPs. Each such amendment to an airway is an amendment
to Part 95, which is incorporated into the regulation through the federal
register by reference. This is virtually the same rule-making procedure
used to enact and amend instrument approach procedures under Part 95.

Agreed. Airways are well defined with procedures and regulations to ensure
that they are safe and flyable. None of that says anything at all about how
you must track those well defined airways.

Are we talking about the same Part 95? Why would Part 95 get ammended when
an airway is redefined? All I see is the definition of altitudes and
mountainous areas that apply to all defined airways.

....


It is a body of TSO, ACs, and FAA policy postions. The FAA would never
feel the need to issue a regulation that states VFR GPS cannot be used for
IFR navigation. They see no reason for it, since the body of directives
make it clear that only IFR certified avionics can be used for IFR
operations.

Keep in mind that we have been debating the lack of a regulation that
prohibits the use of GPS receivers that are not IFR certified for use during
enroute, IFR navigation.

I see nothing in what you have stated that "makes it clear" as a regulation.
I will agree that the FAA has created the mechanisms to use an IFR-certified
GPS for enroute navigation but it still has not said that that is the only
way to go.

-------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
PWK