currency

In a previous article, Peter Clark said:
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 07:50:06 -0400, Rick McPherson
wrote:
2. How many of you use "handheld gps onboard" in the remarks field and
ask for "direct" enroute. Thanks in advance.

I believe this would be considered a violation if you're caught. I

A violation? Not if he didn't ask for or recieve a GPS routing. What do
you is you ask for a radar vector direct and follow it using your GPS. In
some situations, you can even prompt them for it by saying "can you give
me a radar vector 332 degrees direct to ALB". You're not using the GPS
as primary nav, you're using the radar vector as primary nav, and
monitoring it using the GPS. If the GPS died, you'd still be able to fly
the heading bug on your DG.

--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
You've got to love a newsreader with a menu option named "Kill this Author".
Does it work? And if so, is the death traceable?
Nah, but Dave the Resurrector will just bring 'em back again.

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 14:24:01 +0000 (UTC),
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

In a previous article, Peter Clark said:
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 07:50:06 -0400, Rick McPherson
wrote:
2. How many of you use "handheld gps onboard" in the remarks field and
ask for "direct" enroute. Thanks in advance.

I believe this would be considered a violation if you're caught. I

A violation? Not if he didn't ask for or recieve a GPS routing. What do
you is you ask for a radar vector direct and follow it using your GPS. In
some situations, you can even prompt them for it by saying "can you give
me a radar vector 332 degrees direct to ALB". You're not using the GPS
as primary nav, you're using the radar vector as primary nav, and
monitoring it using the GPS. If the GPS died, you'd still be able to fly
the heading bug on your DG.

Your use would be covered under the "situational awareness" clause. I
bet you don't file /G or say "handheld GPS onboard" in your flight
plans with only a handheld, right? His intent clearly appears to be
using the handheld GPS for direct routing (otherwise why would there
be a comment in the flight plan and the request for direct enroute?)
and that's clearly against the objective of the rule. Basically, if
you only have a handheld, rule says you can't use it for anything
other than a backup to what's in the aircraft, why mention it in the
first place? It doesn't appear to buy anything in the IFR enroute
environment.

Peter Clark wrote:
I
bet you don't say "handheld GPS onboard" in your flight
plans with only a handheld, right?

Why wouldn't you say "handheld on board" if you didn't actually have a
handheld?


His intent clearly appears to be
using the handheld GPS for direct routing (otherwise why would there
be a comment in the flight plan and the request for direct enroute?)

Because you get the vector and then use your handheld. That is legal.

Is there any benefit to noting "handheld" or "VFR GPS" in the remarks? Or do
you just file /U or whatever and ask for a radar vector once you're up
there?

"Newps" wrote in message
...


Peter Clark wrote:
I
bet you don't say "handheld GPS onboard" in your flight
plans with only a handheld, right?

Why wouldn't you say "handheld on board" if you didn't actually have a
handheld?


His intent clearly appears to be
using the handheld GPS for direct routing (otherwise why would there
be a comment in the flight plan and the request for direct enroute?)

Because you get the vector and then use your handheld. That is legal.

C Kingsbury wrote:
Is there any benefit to noting "handheld" or "VFR GPS" in the remarks? Or do
you just file /U or whatever and ask for a radar vector once you're up
there?


You ask for a vector and also, in the same breath, tell him what heading
will be good.

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 12:16:32 -0600, Newps wrote:



Peter Clark wrote:

His intent clearly appears to be
using the handheld GPS for direct routing (otherwise why would there
be a comment in the flight plan and the request for direct enroute?)

Because you get the vector and then use your handheld. That is legal.

OK, but the original post didn't say anything about vectors. It said
"put a comment in the flight plan 'handheld gps onboard'" - to me that
implys the poster is attempting to tell ATC "I can do RNAV /G, I don't
really have that equipment so I can't file /G, but hey it's cool, you
can give me that direct routing anyway because I have this neat
handheld GPS". Is that legal? If not, why bother with the "handheld
gps onboard" comment? It doesn't make any difference to ATC - vectors
are vectors, whatever you're using to turn to them, and if it's not
legal for RNAV it still doesn't matter whether you have it, right?

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 15:01:22 -0400, Peter Clark
wrote:

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 12:16:32 -0600, Newps wrote:



Peter Clark wrote:

His intent clearly appears to be
using the handheld GPS for direct routing (otherwise why would there
be a comment in the flight plan and the request for direct enroute?)

Because you get the vector and then use your handheld. That is legal.

OK, but the original post didn't say anything about vectors. It said
"put a comment in the flight plan 'handheld gps onboard'" - to me that
implys the poster is attempting to tell ATC "I can do RNAV /G, I don't
really have that equipment so I can't file /G, but hey it's cool, you
can give me that direct routing anyway because I have this neat
handheld GPS". Is that legal? If not, why bother with the "handheld
gps onboard" comment? It doesn't make any difference to ATC - vectors
are vectors, whatever you're using to turn to them, and if it's not
legal for RNAV it still doesn't matter whether you have it, right?
Peter,

Your right. I have no intention of flying strictly via garmin 195,
that would be illegal. I file /U. However, through some interesting
discussion here, I do see how atc can accommodate me legally. I fly in
Western PA and am rarely out of radar coverage. thanks for your help.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 16:02:36 -0400, Rick McPherson
wrote:


Your right. I have no intention of flying strictly via garmin 195,
that would be illegal. I file /U. However, through some interesting
discussion here, I do see how atc can accommodate me legally. I fly in
Western PA and am rarely out of radar coverage. thanks for your help.

We both learned something today. Seems like the presence of radar is
they key - vector monitoring via handheld GPS should be OK, just have
the good 'ol standbys ready incase the radar craps out

Take care,
P

Rick McPherson wrote:
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 15:01:22 -0400, Peter Clark
wrote:


On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 12:16:32 -0600, Newps wrote:



Peter Clark wrote:

His intent clearly appears to be

using the handheld GPS for direct routing (otherwise why would there
be a comment in the flight plan and the request for direct enroute?)

Because you get the vector and then use your handheld. That is legal.

OK, but the original post didn't say anything about vectors. It said
"put a comment in the flight plan 'handheld gps onboard'" - to me that
implys the poster is attempting to tell ATC "I can do RNAV /G, I don't
really have that equipment so I can't file /G, but hey it's cool, you
can give me that direct routing anyway because I have this neat
handheld GPS". Is that legal? If not, why bother with the "handheld
gps onboard" comment? It doesn't make any difference to ATC - vectors
are vectors, whatever you're using to turn to them, and if it's not
legal for RNAV it still doesn't matter whether you have it, right?

Peter,

Your right. I have no intention of flying strictly via garmin 195,
that would be illegal. I file /U. However, through some interesting
discussion here, I do see how atc can accommodate me legally. I fly in
Western PA and am rarely out of radar coverage. thanks for your help.

Unless you fly over Tidioute VOR. Every time I fly over that, I am out
of radar contact for 10-15 miles.


Matt

Hi Matt, I'm familiar with Tidioute. Losing contact also occurs going
into Bedford also. As we get into the mountains coverage can sometimes
be sketchy, but, for the most part we have it pretty nice here.
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 20:05:20 -0400, Matt Whiting
wrote:

Rick McPherson wrote:
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 15:01:22 -0400, Peter Clark
wrote:


On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 12:16:32 -0600, Newps wrote:



Peter Clark wrote:

His intent clearly appears to be

using the handheld GPS for direct routing (otherwise why would there
be a comment in the flight plan and the request for direct enroute?)

Because you get the vector and then use your handheld. That is legal.

OK, but the original post didn't say anything about vectors. It said
"put a comment in the flight plan 'handheld gps onboard'" - to me that
implys the poster is attempting to tell ATC "I can do RNAV /G, I don't
really have that equipment so I can't file /G, but hey it's cool, you
can give me that direct routing anyway because I have this neat
handheld GPS". Is that legal? If not, why bother with the "handheld
gps onboard" comment? It doesn't make any difference to ATC - vectors
are vectors, whatever you're using to turn to them, and if it's not
legal for RNAV it still doesn't matter whether you have it, right?

Peter,

Your right. I have no intention of flying strictly via garmin 195,
that would be illegal. I file /U. However, through some interesting
discussion here, I do see how atc can accommodate me legally. I fly in
Western PA and am rarely out of radar coverage. thanks for your help.

Unless you fly over Tidioute VOR. Every time I fly over that, I am out
of radar contact for 10-15 miles.


Matt



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---