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 |
#241
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS
Travis Marlatte wrote:
"Travis Marlatte" wrote in message ... "Sam Spade" wrote in message news:wsY8g.176221$bm6.114875@fed1read04... ... Are we talking about the same Part 95? Why would Part 95 get ammended when an airway is redefined? All I see is the definition of altitudes and mountainous areas that apply to all defined airways. Never mind. I see the detailed references from Part 95 to specific airways. All to define the altitudes to use. Nothing about tracking. I'm still looking though. If you're right, I'm sure it's there somewhere... Now where could it be? There must a statement that says something like, "No person shall use a GPS receiver for IFR enroute navigation unless that receiver is certified for enroute IFR under TSO..." It must be there. I'll keep looking. If you find it, let me know. There is no regulation that defines tracking. That is a competency standard issue. You demonstrate you can track an airway to at least PTS, and you get an instrument rating (under an FAR, right?) Part 95, in the case of Victor airways, tells you the VOR stations that are required to navigate that airway. Any subtitution for those VOR *ground* facilities are not your's to decide; that discretion belongs to the FAA. |
#242
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS
"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news:VQt9g.176318$bm6.1157@fed1read04... There is no regulation that defines tracking. That is a competency standard issue. You demonstrate you can track an airway to at least PTS, and you get an instrument rating (under an FAR, right?) Ah. Now I get it. That was the statement I needed to hear. Sorry for all the unnecessary debate. It's a compentency issue. As long as I can track the airway or direct within PTS, it doesn't matter how. Could be by physic vision. Could be by IFR-certified GPS. Could be by a handheld GPS. Thanks for clarifying. Part 95, in the case of Victor airways, tells you the VOR stations that are required to navigate that airway. Any subtitution for those VOR *ground* facilities are not your's to decide; that discretion belongs to the FAA. Actually, Part 95 does nothing of the sort. It defines the airways in reference to the VORs and defines them in a way such that someone tracking them using a VOR is guaranteed radio reception. The definition of the airway by reference to VORs has nothing to do with tracking. I think that you agree that I can track an airway with an IFR-certified GPS. I agree that the FAA has defined most airways by reference to VORs. They haven't stipulated that I must use a VOR receiver to track that airway. I believe that there are now GPS fixes and airways defined by reference to those fixes. I doubt that the FAA requires me to use a VOR receiver to track those airways. The debate is about tracking them or going direct (which has nothing to do with airways at all) with a handheld. -- ------------------------------- Travis Lake N3094P PWK |
#243
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS
Travis Marlatte wrote:
"Sam Spade" wrote in message news:VQt9g.176318$bm6.1157@fed1read04... There is no regulation that defines tracking. That is a competency standard issue. You demonstrate you can track an airway to at least PTS, and you get an instrument rating (under an FAR, right?) Ah. Now I get it. That was the statement I needed to hear. Sorry for all the unnecessary debate. It's a compentency issue. As long as I can track the airway or direct within PTS, it doesn't matter how. Could be by physic vision. Could be by IFR-certified GPS. Could be by a handheld GPS. Thanks for clarifying. Not so. You are fixated on a fiction. If you tracked a Victor airway on an instument rating ride with anything other than the *appropriate* VOR it would be (or should be) a bust. Additionally, if you have an IFR certified GPS installed, during the rating ride the examiner or inspector could elect (in addition to tracking with VOR equipment) have you demonstrate competency at loading into the database and tracking a VOR airway using that IFR-certified GPS. Part 95, in the case of Victor airways, tells you the VOR stations that are required to navigate that airway. Any subtitution for those VOR *ground* facilities are not your's to decide; that discretion belongs to the FAA. Actually, Part 95 does nothing of the sort. It defines the airways in reference to the VORs and defines them in a way such that someone tracking them using a VOR is guaranteed radio reception. Part 95 has everything to do with definition of the airway. Reception is only part of the mix. The definition of the airway by reference to VORs has nothing to do with tracking. I think that you agree that I can track an airway with an IFR-certified GPS. Use of an IFR certified GPS for tracking of a Victor airway is authorized by the FAA as a supplemental means of IFR navigation. You must have the underlying VOR equipment installed and operable. I agree that the FAA has defined most airways by reference to VORs. They haven't stipulated that I must use a VOR receiver to track that airway. I believe that there are now GPS fixes and airways defined by reference to those fixes. I doubt that the FAA requires me to use a VOR receiver to track those airways. Those are Q Routes, which are also issued under Part 95, thus the GPS (or other approved RNAV) is the only method of tracking those routes. But, because GPS is still not primary for non-radar navigation in this country (with the limited Alaska exception) Q routes are thus far developed only where centers have radar coverage for surveillance of the Q routes. The debate is about tracking them or going direct (which has nothing to do with airways at all) with a handheld. It has everything to do with airways if your clearance is via an airway. |
#244
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS
"Sam Spade" wrote in message news:wsY8g.176221$bm6.114875@fed1read04... 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. FARs 91.171, 91.181, and 91.205 say nothing about what constitutes a VOR 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. Do you mean like this statement from AC No. 00-2.15; "The FAA issues advisory circulars to inform the aviation public in a systematic way of non-regulatory material. Unless incorporated into a regulation by reference, the contents of an advisory circular are not binding on the public." Does that not state an FAA policy position? Or this statement from AC 20-130A; "Like all advisory material, this AC is not mandatory and does not constitute a requirement." Does that not state an FAA policy position? Or this statement from AC 20-138A; "This advisory circular (AC) provides guidance material for the airworthiness approval of Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) equipment. Like all AC material, this AC is not mandatory and does not constitute a regulation." Does that not state an FAA policy position? Or this statement from the AIM; "The FAA publishes the Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs) to make readily available to the aviation community the regulatory requirements placed upon them." Does that not state an FAA policy position? The FAA would never feel the need to issue a regulation that states VFR GPS cannot be used for IFR navigation. You finally got something right! I guess the old blind squirrel adage has some truth in it. You're right that the FAA would not issue a regulation that states what cannot be used, they'd issue an FAR that states what must be used. Like FARs 91.215 and 91.217, which require transponders and encoders that meet the requirements of TSOs C74, C112, C10, or C88. 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. There is no body of directives like that. What caused you to believe there was? |
#245
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS
"Sam Spade" wrote in message news:rpI9g.176355$bm6.115303@fed1read04... Not so. You are fixated on a fiction. If you tracked a Victor airway on an instument rating ride with anything other than the *appropriate* VOR it would be (or should be) a bust. What do you base that statement on? Airways can be assigned even when the VORs defining them are out of service as long as the aircraft is /E, /F, /G, or /R. |
#246
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS
"Bruce E. Haddad" wrote in message ... The following is from http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...B?OpenDocument (sorry for the long link). All I get is "The page cannot be displayed". It's the GPS that's certified for IFR operations. As such - the regulations controlling pilots simply states that the equipment must be IFR certified. What FAR states that? Remember - the GPS will never show where you are. Really? Where am I when the GPS says I'm motionless on the ramp? It will only show where you WERE. How far behind you the GPS is can be problematic. Each GPS receiver has it's own formula for choosing satellites from the visible part of the constellation. Each of the satellites have errors (not the induced errors - just such errors as drift in the constellation, signal degradation due to atmospheric interference, etc.). A lot of things need to be engineered into the GPS to make it reliable enough for me to trust it for approaches. Do you trust ADF or NDB enough for approaches? |
#247
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Sam Spade" wrote in message news:rpI9g.176355$bm6.115303@fed1read04... Not so. You are fixated on a fiction. If you tracked a Victor airway on an instument rating ride with anything other than the *appropriate* VOR it would be (or should be) a bust. What do you base that statement on? Airways can be assigned even when the VORs defining them are out of service as long as the aircraft is /E, /F, /G, or /R. Sure they can with an IFR certifed GPS. But, on a instrument rating ride the examiner or inspector doing a proper check ride would avoid an airway that cannot be flown with VOR equipment for the portion of the check ride that involves testing the applicant's competency in flying a VOR airway with VOR equipment. Also, the rating ride can still be conducted in an aircraft without IFR GPS equipment but it cannot be conducted in an aircraft without VOR equipment. I think you are confusing normal operations with a GPS equipped aircraft with an instrument rating ride. |
#248
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Sam Spade" wrote in message news:wsY8g.176221$bm6.114875@fed1read04... 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. FARs 91.171, 91.181, and 91.205 say nothing about what constitutes a VOR airway. No, the particular Part 95 amendment for a given airway sets forth what constitutes an airway. How many times to I have to state this so you get something right, eventually? 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. Do you mean like this statement from AC No. 00-2.15; "The FAA issues advisory circulars to inform the aviation public in a systematic way of non-regulatory material. Unless incorporated into a regulation by reference, the contents of an advisory circular are not binding on the public." Does that not state an FAA policy position? Or this statement from AC 20-130A; "Like all advisory material, this AC is not mandatory and does not constitute a requirement." Does that not state an FAA policy position? Or this statement from AC 20-138A; "This advisory circular (AC) provides guidance material for the airworthiness approval of Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) equipment. Like all AC material, this AC is not mandatory and does not constitute a regulation." Does that not state an FAA policy position? Or this statement from the AIM; "The FAA publishes the Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs) to make readily available to the aviation community the regulatory requirements placed upon them." Does that not state an FAA policy position? The FAA would never feel the need to issue a regulation that states VFR GPS cannot be used for IFR navigation. You finally got something right! I guess the old blind squirrel adage has some truth in it. You're right that the FAA would not issue a regulation that states what cannot be used, they'd issue an FAR that states what must be used. Like FARs 91.215 and 91.217, which require transponders and encoders that meet the requirements of TSOs C74, C112, C10, or C88. You just love to muddy the waters. The FAA has determined what consitutes IFR GPS equipment. Unlike transponders, which everyone must have, there is no requirement to have IFR GPS equipment to operate in the IFR system, thus no need to tie the TSOs to a regulation, unlike transponders. 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. There is no body of directives like that. What caused you to believe there was? Various ARINC directives. TSO C-129, 145, and 146. You think those are advisory, AFS and AIR do not. They manage these programs in the FAA, you do not. |
#249
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS
Sam Spade wrote: No, the particular Part 95 amendment for a given airway sets forth what constitutes an airway. FARs 91.171, 91.181, and 91.205 are not found in Part 95. How many times to I have to state this so you get something right, eventually? It doesn't matter, it's wrong every time you state it. You just love to muddy the waters. Not at all, my sole purpose here is to clarify the waters. What is your purpose here? The FAA has determined what consitutes IFR GPS equipment. Unlike transponders, which everyone must have, there is no requirement to have IFR GPS equipment to operate in the IFR system, thus no need to tie the TSOs to a regulation, unlike transponders. But not everyone is required to have transponders. Various ARINC directives. TSO C-129, 145, and 146. None of those make it clear that only IFR certified avionics can be used for IFR operations. What caused you to believe they did? You think those are advisory, AFS and AIR do not. They manage these programs in the FAA, you do not. It has been demonstrated that they are only advisory, it matters not what AFS and AIR think. What led you to believe differently? |
#250
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS
"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news:%pCag.177125$bm6.142153@fed1read04... Sure they can with an IFR certifed GPS. But, on a instrument rating ride the examiner or inspector doing a proper check ride would avoid an airway that cannot be flown with VOR equipment for the portion of the check ride that involves testing the applicant's competency in flying a VOR airway with VOR equipment. Just because an examiner might want to see a VOR used to track an airway doesn't imply that that is the only legal way to do so. Just because an airway might be defined in reference to VORs to ensure that they are trackable by using a VOR doesn't imply that that is the only way to do so. Just because there are official FAA documents that describe how to certify a GPS receiver for IFR flight doesn't imply that that is required for IFR flight. You've gone off on several lines of reasoning that have led to nowhere. Sam, it might very well be an oversight that there is no regulation requiring IFR-certified GPS. It might very well be the intent of the FAA that such a thing is required. They may change that in the future. All this debate and all of your non-regulatory examples has convinced me even more that no such regulation exists. -- ------------------------------- Travis Lake N3094P PWK |
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 |