If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#141
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS
In article . net,
"Ted" wrote: "Roy Smith" wrote in message ... In article . net, "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote: "Ron Lee" wrote in message ... A primary reason that handheld/VFR GPS units are not acceptable for VFR use is that they not not include an integrity capability. That is essential for IFR ops. This is like a religion with you people. It's strictly a matter faith that use of handheld GPS during IFR enroute flight in US controlled airspace is illegal and/or unsafe. It depends on what you're using it for. A handheld GPS and a ham sandwich are both useful objects, but using either one for the other's intended purpose can be dangerous. If not nutritious. Most handheld GPS's that I've seen are somewhat lacking in the nutrition department. |
#142
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS
Sam Spade writes: Steven P. McNicoll wrote: Yes, that's why your statement was wrong. I'm glad you managed to learn something in this exchange. Not so. You just can't read with any objectivity. McNicoll is known for picking or inventing the most immaterial nits with of the most unreasonable interpretations of ordinary discussion. His dedication to the task is kind of sad for onlookers and aggravating to participants -- kind of like a three-year old asking "why?" ad infinitum. Offer him a lollipop, not more argument. - FChE |
#143
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS
"Frank Ch. Eigler" wrote in message ... McNicoll is known for picking or inventing the most immaterial nits with of the most unreasonable interpretations of ordinary discussion. His dedication to the task is kind of sad for onlookers and aggravating to participants -- kind of like a three-year old asking "why?" ad infinitum. Offer him a lollipop, not more argument. He has yet to offer any argument. |
#144
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#145
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS
Steven P. McNicoll wrote: Faith is a mysterious thing. I suppose this means that this has come up before and you have a good counterpoint for it? Besides throwing out the entire AIM, I hope. |
#146
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS
|
#147
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS
No, it was yours, Sam. Whether you knew it or not. Steven simply picked up
on your fairly inocent, but mistaken statement that ATC uses SERVICE VOLUMES to guide direct routing. You even referenced a table that is NOT based on service volumes. You both agree about the limitations on direct routing and Steven knows it. He just likes to nit pick the details. -- ------------------------------- Travis Lake N3094P PWK "Sam Spade" wrote in message news:Pkp7g.175618$bm6.124940@fed1read04... Newps wrote: Sam Spade wrote: No, I need more help to understand how VOR or NDB direct-route assignments by ATC are based on AGL altitudes. They're not, that's a ridiculous assertion. And, it's Stevie's assertion. |
#148
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS
Steven is correct. Keep in mind that the AIM is not regulatory. Plus, the
fact that Alaska has special rules does not mean anything for the other 49 states. -- ------------------------------- Travis Lake N3094P PWK "Sam Spade" wrote in message news:Wip7g.175615$bm6.36868@fed1read04... Steven P. McNicoll wrote: "Sam Spade" wrote in message news:TXm7g.175504$bm6.642@fed1read04... The rule: "Subpart C - Enroute IFR Altitudes Over Particular Routes and Intersections Editorial Note: The prescribed IFR altitudes for flights over particular routes and intersections in this subpart were formerly carried as sections 610.11 through 610.6887 of this title and were transferred to Part 95 as §§ 95.41 through 95.6887, respectively, but are not carried in the Code of Federal Regulations. For Federal Register citations affecting these routes, see the List of CFR Sections Affected in the Finding Aids section of this volume. § 95.31 General. This subpart prescribes IFR altitudes for flights along particular routes or route segments and over additional intersections not listed as a part of a route or route segment." [Doc. No. 1580, Amdt. 1-1, 28 FR 6719, June 29, 1963]" I see nothing there that addresses use of an IFR-certified GPS for en route (domestic airspace) in a non-radar environment nor anything about any special Alaska provisions. FAR 95.1 says part 95 "prescribes altitudes governing the operation of aircraft under IFR on ATS routes, or other direct routes for which an MEA is designated in this part." We're atlking about direct routes, those are routes for which an MEA is not designated. And, from the AIM: "a) Except in Alaska and coastal North Carolina, the VOR airways are predicated solely on VOR or VORTAC navigation aids; are depicted in blue on aeronautical charts; and are identified by a “V” (Victor) followed by the airway number (e.g., V12)." The AIM is not regulatory. You are either stupid or stubborn, or perhaps both. The AIM reference is explanatory. The 8260-16, when describing Federal Airwaty V-XXX, which is formed by VOR facilities, is regulatory. It's all there, for the non-selective reader. |
#149
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS
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. |
#150
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS
"Ron Lee" wrote in message ... A primary reason that handheld/VFR GPS units are not acceptable for VFR use is that they not not include an integrity capability. That is essential for IFR ops. Can you explain why that is so? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
HANDHELD RADIO | [email protected] | Soaring | 22 | March 17th 16 03:16 PM |
Navcom - handheld VS panel ? | [email protected] | Home Built | 10 | October 31st 05 08:08 PM |
GPS Handheld | Kai Glaesner | Instrument Flight Rules | 2 | November 16th 04 04:01 PM |
Upgrade handheld GPS, or save for panel mount? | [email protected] | Owning | 7 | March 8th 04 03:33 PM |
Ext antenna connection for handheld radio | Ray Andraka | Owning | 7 | March 5th 04 01:10 PM |