How long before /G required for IFR?

"Those are ICAO terms that define what constitutes acceptable IFR
navigation in three different defined areas: domestic, oceanic, and remote
land
mass."

That's nice, but where does it say VOR is the "only" ONLY o.n.l.y acceptable
means of IFR navigation? All this says is that VOR is an acceptable means,
world wide. A sort of lowest common denominator that may be used all over
the planet.

wrote in message ...


Dan Thompson wrote:

Tim, some of the other guys are playing around with you a little bit, but
I'll spell it out for you since I started it.

Thanks for "helping" me. Have you ever heard of Class I and Class II
navigation? Those are ICAO terms that define what constitutes acceptable
IFR
navigation in three different defined areas: domestic, oceanic, and remote
land
mass. The United States is a signatory to that convention. The VOR
system is
thus considered the primary means of IFR navigation. With limited
exceptions,
IFR-certified GPS is not approved as primary means in a non-radar
environment in
domestic airspace. That is changing, of course. But, it does not include
VFR
GPS units, which do not qualify for IFR navigation.



That reg says what you have to have onboard, but does not say what you
will
or must use for navigation. IFR course tracking is a performance
standard.
You must stay on the assigned course. How you do that is not specified
or
regulated. What you use to fly that course is not specified or
regulated.
Only that you fly that course, somehow.

So, you may use dead reckoning if you want to, radar vectors, celestial
nav
(right!), or even (the crowd is on the edge of their seats in
anticpation) a
tuna sandwich. The tuna sandwich must not, however, be placarded "VFR
only."

So, it is perfectly acceptable to look at your handheld GPS, see that it
says 237 degrees and 16 minutes to FUBAR, dead reckon by flying a 237
heading, and monitor your progress by reference to the handheld GPS.

wrote in message
...


Michael wrote:

But, how much longer will it be before /G is a de facto requirement?

IMO, more than 5 years but less than 15.

Already when I fly IFR (filed /U) controllers give me instructions
("proceed direct foobar") that require GPS

Well, they don't really. I bet you can do that with the M1 LORAN. Or
you could if it didn't come with a placard limiting it to VFR use
only.
A handheld GPS will not come with such a placard, and there's no rule
that says you can't use it for enroute IFR (anyone who says otherwise
is welcome to quote chapter and verse from the approriate regulation -
NOT an advisory circular or AIM).

Try 91.205 (d) (2) for starters:

d) Instrument flight rules. For IFR flight, the following instruments
and
equipment are required:

(2) Two-way radio communications system and navigational equipment
appropriate to the ground facilities to be used.

Think non-radar operations, where the controller isn't going to play
"Frick
and Frack" direct-to games with you. Failure to comply with 91.205 can
rapidly lead to 91.3, and the FAA attorneys win every time.

This is an old horse and I almost hate to bring it up again, but are you
aware you can legally accept direct FUBAR as a /U under IFR, and monitor
your progress with a handheld GPS?

Currently the only reason one ever needs an IFR GPS is to fly a GPS
approach. To answer your question, then, /G will be de facto required FOR
YOU when there are airports you want to go to IFR, in weather that requires
an approach, that only have that kind of approach.

"Colin W Kingsbury" wrote in message
ink.net...
Just read in aopa weekly mail today that the FAA is considering shutting
down the BDL (Bradley, Hartford CT) and PVD (Providence RI) VORs.

These are not exactly podunk navaids. Both are located at Class C fields
with substantial airline traffic (not just RJs either) and they support a
decent number of airways and approaches. To be fair, VORs are not exactly
in
short supply in the Northeast, so this won't have a devastating effect,
though it will make outages more critical.

I fly a 172N and with 2 NAV/COMs, ADF, and an M1 Loran I can get around
this
part of the country pretty well. Other than getting DME capability there
hasn't been a pressing reason to add an IFR GPS to a $40,000 plane. But,
how
much longer will it be before /G is a de facto requirement? Already when I
fly IFR (filed /U) controllers give me instructions ("proceed direct
foobar") that require GPS, so I suppose us non-golf folks are becoming a
rare species. How long before we're extinct?

Best,
-cwk.

This is an old horse and I almost hate to bring it up again, but are you
aware you can legally accept direct FUBAR as a /U under IFR, and monitor
your progress with a handheld GPS?

AFAIK this only applies in a radar environment, where it's like vectors.

Jose
--
Nothing is more powerful than a commercial interest.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Dan Thompson wrote:
This is an old horse and I almost hate to bring it up again, but are you
aware you can legally accept direct FUBAR as a /U under IFR, and monitor
your progress with a handheld GPS?

You're not cleared direct. You're given a vector that is essentially
direct. /G allows you to accept a clearance "direct FUBAR."



Currently the only reason one ever needs an IFR GPS is to fly a GPS
approach.

A terminal/enroute only box allows you to eliminate your ADF and DME
which is very handy if you fly a lot of ILS and VOR approaches anyways.

"Newps" wrote in message
...

You're not cleared direct. You're given a vector that is essentially
direct. /G allows you to accept a clearance "direct FUBAR."


No, you're cleared direct. There are no restrictions on direct clearances
based on the filed equipment suffix.

In a previous article, Newps said:
A terminal/enroute only box allows you to eliminate your ADF and DME
which is very handy if you fly a lot of ILS and VOR approaches anyways.

Don't get rid of your ADF and DME if you want to fly to Canada some time,
though.


--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"Harry very carefully read the manual - four times - because Snape would
cut off his breathing privs if he asked him a question that the manual
could answer..." -- Harry Potter and the Book Of The BOFH

"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...

Don't get rid of your ADF and DME if you want to fly to Canada some time,
though.


Or if you need to fly an NDB approach that has no GPS overlay, or an
approach similar to the VOR/DME RWY 15 at Martin State Airport.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

or an approach similar to the VOR/DME RWY 15 at Martin
State Airport.

Why this approach? To me it seems an IFR certified GPS and one VOR would
suffice.


--
Peter













----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Paul Tomblin wrote:

In a previous article, Newps said:
A terminal/enroute only box allows you to eliminate your ADF and DME
which is very handy if you fly a lot of ILS and VOR approaches anyways.

Don't get rid of your ADF and DME if you want to fly to Canada some time,
though.

More so for Mexico.

"Dan Thompson" wrote in message
. com...
This is an old horse and I almost hate to bring it up again, but are you
aware you can legally accept direct FUBAR as a /U under IFR, and monitor
your progress with a handheld GPS?

It is a sad day that people now assume clearance direct to an intersection
can only be complied with if you have some sort of RNAV. Makes me wonder how
we ever did it in the '70s with only a VOR and a TACAN.