Accuracy of GPS in Garmin 430/530

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news:N1H4g.174532$bm6.101296@fed1read04...

You need to get a better grasp on your employer's policy and
implementation programs. Headquarters has made it abundantly clear that
GPS cannot be used for primary IFR navigation unless the device complies
with TSO 129, 145, or 146 (or is a certified FMS/LNAV integrated
platform).


Please cite the FAR in which that has been made clear.



Then, the avionics manufactors of 129, 145, or 146 boxes must
prove compliance before they receive certification. And, then the device
has to be installed in an approved manner to satisfy Part 23.


We're talking about handheld GPS.



The AIM material I cited reflects that policy.


When that policy is promulgated in an FAR it will become legally binding.

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news:hWG4g.174529$bm6.47479@fed1read04...

In your view of the world, lots of FSDO inspectors are irrational.


I don't know if lots of them are, but I do know that those I have
communicated with on this subject tend to be.



I won't go into the view that FSDO inspectors have of ATC personnel.


Well, I knew one that didn't like them at all. Of course, his view was of
someone that went to FSDO after washing out of ATC. I've heard of other
FSDO types that went there after washing out of ATC, I've never heard of
anyone washing out of FSDO and moving up to ATC.



As to all the point/counterpoint about handhelds and Part 23, we agree
that a "non-installed" handheld is not subject to any provision of Part
23. What you fail to understand is that, unless a particular item of
avionics that is to be used for primary IFR navigation is so certified, it
cannot be used for primary IFR navigation.


Please cite the applicable FAR.



Further, if it is certified
for primary IFR navigation, it then has to be installed in compliance with
Part 23. A handheld doesn't quite make the program.


Please cite the applicable FAR.



And, please, don't tell me to prove it. Your resource is any G/A
maintenance inspector at your local, friendly FAA FSDO.


I've already directed this question at a number of FSDOs. None of them
could cite the applicable FAR. The reason none of them could cite an
applicable FAR is there is none and thus use of a handheld GPS for IFR
enroute use in US controlled airspace is perfectly legal.

"Ron Lee" wrote in message
...

Steven, since you are so sure of yourself please go make an IFR flight
in VFR conditions with an FAA type who can bust you for doing bad
things.


Please define "bad things".



Then while on an IFR flight plan resort to only using your
handheld and dare him to cite you.


What do you think he'd cite me with?

Just do it Steven and report back to us.

Ron Lee




"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:


"Ron Lee" wrote in message
...

Steven, since you are so sure of yourself please go make an IFR flight
in VFR conditions with an FAA type who can bust you for doing bad
things.


Please define "bad things".



Then while on an IFR flight plan resort to only using your
handheld and dare him to cite you.


What do you think he'd cite me with?

"Ron Lee" wrote in message
...

Just do it Steven and report back to us.


In other words, you haven't the slightest idea about what I could be cited
with.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:


"Ron Lee" wrote in message
...

Just do it Steven and report back to us.


In other words, you haven't the slightest idea about what I could be cited
with.

No, in other words, you rant and rave about something and you won't
actually go do it. Prove to us unenlightened souls that you are
right.

Ron Lee

"Ron Lee" wrote in message
...

No, in other words, you rant and rave about something and you won't
actually go do it. Prove to us unenlightened souls that you are
right.


I'll make the flight if you're willing to pay for it. If not you can either
accept a FSDO review of a hypothetical flight or remain an unenlightened
soul.

Please cite the FAR in which that has been made clear.

FAA Order 8360.38a says the equipment must comply with TSO C129. FAA Orders
are incorporated into CFR 14.


When that policy is promulgated in an FAR it will become legally binding.

I think a pilot using a handheld GPS (not complying with TSO C129) under IFR
would be cited with:
91.13 - Careless and Reckless
91.205(d)(2) - appropriate navigation equipment

"Cox" wrote in message
news:uRccg.31356$fG3.21351@dukeread09...

FAA Order 8360.38a says the equipment must comply with TSO C129. FAA
Orders are incorporated into CFR 14.


Title 1 CFR Part 51 provides for the incorporation of publications by
reference. One such example in the FARs is the incorporation of FAA Order
7400.9N, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, in FAR 71.1. Please
cite the FAR that incorporates FAA Order 8360.38A by reference.



I think a pilot using a handheld GPS (not complying with TSO C129) under
IFR would be cited with:
91.13 - Careless and Reckless
91.205(d)(2) - appropriate navigation equipment


FAR 91.13(a) prohibits the operation of an aircraft in a careless or
reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another. Use of a
handheld GPS under IFR in US controlled airspace does not endanger any life
or any property.

FAR 91.205(d)(2) requires a two-way radio communications system and
navigational equipment appropriate to the ground facilities to be used. It
does not prohibit the use of any equipment beyond what is required to be
installed.

"Cox" wrote in message


I think a pilot using a handheld GPS (not complying with TSO C129) under
IFR would be cited with:
91.13 - Careless and Reckless

That would be automatic in any enforcement case of this type.