Getting the MOCA

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news:fWapg.77$_M.1@fed1read04...

And, if ATC is willing to provide the service, which includes radar
monitoring of your progress when assigned a Victor Airway below the MEA,
that is, of course legal.


Only if a MOCA applies and then only within 22 miles of a VOR. Radar
monitoring is not required.


§ 91.177 Minimum altitudes for IFR operations.
(a) Operation of aircraft at minimum altitudes. Except when necessary for
takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft under IFR below-

(1) The applicable minimum altitudes prescribed in parts 95 and 97 of this
chapter; or

(2) If no applicable minimum altitude is prescribed in those parts-

(i) In the case of operations over an area designated as a mountainous area
in part 95, an altitude of 2,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a
horizontal distance of 4 nautical miles from the course to be flown; or

(ii) In any other case, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle
within a horizontal distance of 4 nautical miles from the course to be
flown.

However, if both a MEA and a MOCA are prescribed for a particular route or
route segment, a person may operate an aircraft below the MEA down to, but
not below, the MOCA, when within 22 nautical miles of the VOR concerned
(based on the pilot's reasonable estimate of that distance).

(b) Climb. Climb to a higher minimum IFR altitude shall begin immediately
after passing the point beyond which that minimum altitude applies, except
that when ground obstructions intervene, the point beyond which that higher
minimum altitude applies shall be crossed at or above the applicable MCA.




But, it isn't assignment of the Victor Airway because the Victor Airway
simply doesn't exist below its MEA (or MOCA beyond 22 miles) as a matter
of regulation.



That's not correct. Victor airways, unless otherwise specified, extend
upward from 1,200 feet to, but not including, 18,000 feet MSL.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news:fWapg.77$_M.1@fed1read04...

And, if ATC is willing to provide the service, which includes radar
monitoring of your progress when assigned a Victor Airway below the MEA,
that is, of course legal.



Only if a MOCA applies and then only within 22 miles of a VOR. Radar
monitoring is not required.

Asked and answered previously.


§ 91.177 Minimum altitudes for IFR operations.
(a) Operation of aircraft at minimum altitudes. Except when necessary for
takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft under IFR below-

(1) The applicable minimum altitudes prescribed in parts 95 and 97 of this
chapter; or

(2) If no applicable minimum altitude is prescribed in those parts-

(i) In the case of operations over an area designated as a mountainous area
in part 95, an altitude of 2,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a
horizontal distance of 4 nautical miles from the course to be flown; or

(ii) In any other case, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle
within a horizontal distance of 4 nautical miles from the course to be
flown.

However, if both a MEA and a MOCA are prescribed for a particular route or
route segment, a person may operate an aircraft below the MEA down to, but
not below, the MOCA, when within 22 nautical miles of the VOR concerned
(based on the pilot's reasonable estimate of that distance).

(b) Climb. Climb to a higher minimum IFR altitude shall begin immediately
after passing the point beyond which that minimum altitude applies, except
that when ground obstructions intervene, the point beyond which that higher
minimum altitude applies shall be crossed at or above the applicable MCA.




But, it isn't assignment of the Victor Airway because the Victor Airway
simply doesn't exist below its MEA (or MOCA beyond 22 miles) as a matter
of regulation.




That's not correct. Victor airways, unless otherwise specified, extend
upward from 1,200 feet to, but not including, 18,000 feet MSL.


That is not correct. Your confusing Part 71 with Part 95. Part 71
provides the Class E airspace for a Victor Airway. Part 95 provides the
minimum altitudes for a Victor Airway. They are not the same.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Sam Spade" wrote in message
newsBvng.35395$AB3.7625@fed1read02...

Right. You are so full of it, Stevie, it is no wonder many regulars won't
even let you suck them in to feed your tiny, bruised ego.



There are no bruises on my ego. I can and do support my positions with
logic and verifiable documentation. You cannot and do not. The regulars
here know that, I doubt it is me that they consider "full of it".


How many FSDO inspectors rebuffed your handheld GPS campaign a while back?

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news:sYrpg.101$_M.9@fed1read04...

Asked and answered previously.


Your answer was wrong.



That is not correct. Your confusing Part 71 with Part 95. Part 71
provides the Class E airspace for a Victor Airway. Part 95 provides the
minimum altitudes for a Victor Airway. They are not the same.


I'm confused? Then please enlighten me. Cite the regulation that supports
your assertion that Victor airways do not exist below the MEA or MOCA beyond
22 miles from the VOR.

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news:r5vpg.115$_M.89@fed1read04...

How many FSDO inspectors rebuffed your handheld GPS campaign a while back?


I assume you're referring to what appears below. I sent an email message to
eleven of fourteen FSDOs in the Great Lakes Region in December 1999. Four
responded by email and one by phone. I didn't include the telephone
response in my report because I couldn't provide a verbatim record of it.



"I have a question regarding the use of a handheld GPS receiver
during IFR enroute flight.


Let's say I file from MBS direct to SEA in my BE36/A. My Bonanza
has two nav/coms, ADF, GS receiver, DME, marker beacon receiver,
transponder, encoder, and an autopilot. But I intend to use my
handheld GPS receiver for enroute navigation, which I have previously
determined will not cause interference with the navigation or communication
system on my airplane. ATC clears me as filed and I proceed on my merry way
direct to Seattle.


Does this operation violate any FAR?"


I received E-mail responses from four FSDOs, I have changed only
identification of offices and individuals.


From FSDO "A":


Dear Steven,


Thank you for your question concerning GPS Navigation.


You must comply with the limitations of your GPS. There isn't
a handheld alive that is approved for IFR enroute or terminal
navigation, so to answer your question, no, you cannot use the
GPS for anything during your IFR Flight. I recommend that you
review your GPS Manual provided by the factory.


I hope this answers your question, Steven.


Sincerely,


John Doe
FSDO "A"


Dear Mr. Doe,


Thank you for your prompt response.


My question and scenario are completely hypothetical, I don't own a
GPS (or a Bonanza, unfortunately), so I have no GPS manual to
review. But I'm afraid you didn't answer my question; I wanted to
know what regulation, if any, was being violated in the scenario.
What FAR prohibits the use of a handheld GPS during enroute IFR
flight? What regulation requires me to comply with the limitations
of my GPS? What regulation requires the GPS, or any other nav
system for that matter, to be approved for IFR enroute flight?


Sincerely,
Steven P. McNicoll


No further messages were received from FSDO "A".


From FSDO "B":


Dear Steven,


Does this operation violate any FAR?


FAR - "singular" NO, "pural" YES


or only if the FAA accident investigation team has to pry it out of
your cold hands at the site of the crash, otherwise no one will know.


Sorry, but I just can't pass up to opportunity to put a little humor into
my work. Seriously here is the"spin" that most FAA types put on
the answer to this question.


Hand held GPS units are not approved for flight into IFR conditions. Panel
mount GPS units may be certified for enroute portions only,
or the high dollar units that meet all the FAA's certification
requirements can be used for enroute and approaches, these units
are also panel mounted units.


Further, the panel mounted units are to be installed by properly
certificated technicians and the equipment list, weight and balance
of the aircraft should reflect the additional equipment. (No the FAA
doesn't make it easy.)


So in the case of a handheld GPS for IFR flight, the unit is not
certified for that use and is not authorized by FARs.


Richard Roe
FSDO "B"


Dear Mr. Roe,


Thank you for your response.


I appreciate humor as much as anyone, but I don't see how we
arrived "at the site of the crash". This operation presents no
undue hazard.


I'm aware that hand held GPS units are not approved for flight
into IFR conditions, and that GPS installations CAN be approved
for IFR flight. But after an extensive search, I cannot find any
regulation REQUIRING that GPS have that approval in order to
be used during IFR enroute flight.


You say that this operation would violate several FARs, could
you cite them please?


Sincerely,
Steven P. McNicoll


No further messages were received from FSDO "B".


From FSDO "C":


Dear Steve,


I am forwarding your question to our Avionics Inspector;
Apollo Garmin. This is in his area of expertise.


Thank you for using our website.


Guy Fawkes
FSDO "C"


Steve,


I got together with our Avionics Inspector and have an
answer for you.


"A PORTABLE GPS CANNOT BE APPROVED IN THE
AIRCRAFT FOR INSTRUMENT FLIGHT RULES (IFR) OR
VISUAL FLIGHT RULES UNLESS THE COMPLETE SYSTEM
IS INSTALLED AND EVALUATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE INTERIM POLICY GUIDANCE DATED MARCH 20, 1992,
AS AMENDED, PERTAINING TO THE APPROVAL OF GPS
EQUIPMENT."


VFR only not IFR.


Let me know if we can be of any further assistance.


Guy Fawkes
FSDO "C"


Dear Mr. Fawkes,


Thank you for your response. I understand that a portable
GPS receiver cannot be approved for IFR flight, but what
regulation prohibits a non-approved GPS receiver from
being used during IFR flight?


Steven P. McNicoll


Steven,


Per my Avionics Inspector the following 14CFR Paragraph
answers your question (specifically para (b)(5):
----------------------------------
 91.21 _ Portable Electronic Devices.


(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no
person may operate, nor may any operator or pilot in command
of an aircraft allow the operation of, any portable electronic device
on any of the following U.S.-registered civil aircraft:


(1) Aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier operating
certificate or an operating certificate; or


(2) Any other aircraft while it is operated under IFR.


(b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to-


(1) Portable voice recorders;


(2) Hearing aids;


(3) Heart pacemakers;


(4) Electric shavers; or


(5) Any other portable electronic device that the operator of
the aircraft has determined will not cause interference with the
navigation or communication system of the aircraft on which it
is to be used.


(c) In the case of an aircraft operated by a holder of an air
carrier operating certificate or an operating certificate, the
determination required by paragraph (b)(5) of this section shall
be made by that operator of the aircraft on which the particular
device is to be used. In the case of other aircraft, the
determination may be made by the pilot in command or other
operator of the aircraft.
------------------------


Guy Fawkes
FSDO "C"


Dear Mr. Fawkes,


FAR 91.21(b)(5) permits the operation of any portable electronic
device, other than a portable voice recorder, hearing aid, heart pacemaker,
or electric shaver, that the operator of the aircraft has determined will
not cause interference with the navigation or communication system of the
aircraft on which it is to be used.
Recall that in my scenario I stated that I had previously determined
that my handheld GPS receiver does not cause interference with
the navigation or communication system on my airplane. It seems
to me that I have complied with FAR 91.21 to the letter.


Steven P. McNicoll


No further messages were received from FSDO "C"


From FSDO "D":


Dear Mr. Steven P. McNicoll,


In response to your question, does this operation violate
any FAR?


Yes, it does.


You may file IFR as a (slant) /A.


The handheld GPS is not acceptable as RNAV and is contrary to:


14 Code of Federal Regulations(CFR), Part 21 sub part K and O.


14 CFR 23.1307


14 CFR 23.1309(b)


14 CFR 91.21


14 CFR 91.205


These are referenced in FAA pamphlet FAA-P-8000-3.


Thank you for your interest in aviation safety. Please call if you have any
questions, (987) 654-3210.


Inspector John Smith
FSDO "D"


Dear Mr. Smith,


Thank you for your response. Please see below for additional
questions and comments.


Steven P. McNicoll



Dear Mr. Steven P. McNicoll
In response to your question, does this operation violate
any FAR?
Yes, it does.
You may file IFR as a (slant) /A.
The handheld GPS is not acceptable as RNAV


What regulation specifies what is acceptable and what is not
acceptable as RNAV?


and is contrary to:
14 Code of Federal Regulations(CFR), Part 21 sub part K and O.


How can that be? A handheld GPS is not a part or an appliance,
it is not installed in or attached to the aircraft. To my knowledge
there is no regulation that requires a GPS receiver to comply with
a TSO.


14 CFR 23.1307


I don't see how Part 23 is applicable at all, this does not involve
any change to a type certificate.

A handheld GPS receiver is not equipment necessary for the
airplane to operate at the maximum operating altitude or in the
kinds of operations and meteorological conditions for which it
is certified. Why would it need to be included in the type design?
Given that it is a portable device, how could it be included in the
type design?



14 CFR 23.1309(b)


14 CFR 23.1309(b) refers to installed equipment, but a
handheld GPS is not installed equipment.


14 CFR 91.21


Recall that I had previously determined my handheld GPS does
not cause interference with the navigation or communication
system on my airplane.


14 CFR 91.205


How is this regulation being violated? My aircraft contains all
of the instruments and equipment specified 14 CFR 91.205 for
IFR operations, and those instruments and items of equipment
are in operable condition.


These are referenced in FAA pamphlet FAA-P-8000-3.


How may I obtain this pamphlet?


Thank you for your interest in aviation safety.
Please call if you have any questions, (987) 654-3210.
Inspector John Smith
FSDO "D"


Dear Mr. Steven P. McNicoll,

Your Bonanza was probably built in accordance with 14 CFR 23
(FAR 23), and if you intend to use the aircraft for IFR flight, it
should have the equipment specified in 14 CFR 91.205. The
hand-held GPS is not included in 91.205 because it is not
approved for IFR flight. In fact no GPS systems are mentioned
in 91.205, any GPS system that is approved for IFR use and is
going to be permanently installed in an aircraft needs to be
approved for that specific make and model of aircraft. The FAA
will not approve a GPS installation for IFR use if the GPS unit
wasn't manufactured to the minimum specifications of Technical
Standard Order-129A (TSO-C129A). At this point in time, no
hand-held GPS unit meets the minimum specifications spelled
out in TSO-C129A. TSO-C129A specifies the criteria by which
an installed GPS system, intended for certification in IFR
operations, will be built. A hand-held, portable GPS is not built
to these specifications.


The pamphlet(FAA-P-8000-3) we previously mentioned is available
at "http://gps.faa.gov/Library/gps1.pdf" on the Internet. In
FAA-P-8000-3, chapter 1, page 1-7, the first paragraph under
section 1.3. Hand-held or portable GPS receivers may be used
as a supplement to Visual Flight Rules only.


If you have any further questions you should contact your local F. A.
A. FSDO for more information. We are an Air Carrier Office and
deal with the airlines. Your local FSDO will have Inspectors who
deal with Part 91 operators. From the address on your e-mail it
appears that you are in the Milwaukee FSDO area. There phone
number is (414) 486-2920. They also have an Internet web-site.
The address is: "http://www.faa.gov/fsdo/mke".


Thank You,
Inspector John Smith
FSDO "D"


Dear Mr. Smith,


Thank you for your response. Please see additional comments
and questions below.


Sincerely,


Steven P. McNicoll



Dear Mr. Steven P. McNicoll,
Your Bonanza was probably built in accordance with
14 CFR 23 (FAR 23), and if you intend to use the aircraft
for IFR flight, it should have the equipment specified in
14 CFR 91.205.


Please understand that this is a completely hypothetical scenario,
I do not own a Bonanza. My hypothetical Bonanza contains all of
the instruments and equipment specified in 14 CFR 91.205.


The hand-held GPS is not included in 91.205 because it is
not approved for IFR flight.


If my aircraft contains all of the instruments and equipment
specified in 14 CFR 91.205, then I am in compliance with that
regulation. What regulation prevents me from using a device
that is not mentioned in 91.205?


In fact no GPS systems are mentioned in 91.205, any GPS
system that is approved for IFR use and is going to be
permanently installed in an aircraft needs to be approved for
that specific make and model of aircraft. The FAA will not
approve a GPS installation for IFR use if the GPS unit wasn't
manufactured to the minimum specifications of Technical
Standard Order-129A (TSO-C129A). At this point in time,
no hand-held GPS unit meets the minimum specifications
spelled out in TSO-C129A. TSO-C129A specifies the
criteria by which an installed GPS system, intended for
certification in IFR operations, will be built.
A hand-held, portable GPS is not built to these specifications.


I understand that, but I can find no regulation that requires a GPS
receiver that is used for IFR enroute flight to be permanently
installed in the aircraft or to meet the specifications of TSO C-129a.


The pamphlet(FAA-P-8000-3) we previously mentioned is
available at "http://gps.faa.gov/Library/gps1.pdf" on the
Internet.
In FAA-P-8000-3, chapter 1, page 1-7, the first paragraph
under section 1.3. Hand-held or portable GPS receivers
may be used as a supplement to Visual Flight Rules only.


I don't believe that pamphlet has the force of law. The FAA
publishes the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) to make
readily available to the aviation community the regulatory
requirements placed upon them. If a GPS receiver that did
not meet the standards of TSO C-129a was not to be used
during IFR flight, then there would be an FAR that required
any GPS receiver used during IFR flight to meet that standard.


If you have any further questions you should contact your local F. A.
A. FSDO for more information. We are an Air Carrier Office and
deal with the airlines. Your local FSDO will have Inspectors who
deal with Part 91 operators. From the address on your e-mail it
appears that you are in the Milwaukee FSDO area. There phone
number is (414) 486-2920. They also have an Internet web-site.
The address is: "http://www.faa.gov/fsdo/mke".
Thank You,
Inspector John Smith
FSDO "D"


I have contacted eleven of the fourteen FSDOs in the Great Lakes Region. I
gave them all this same scenario and asked them all the
same question. Seven of them responded, all stating that
navigation by handheld GPS receiver during enroute flight under
IFR is illegal, but none of them could cite any law that would be
violated by such use! It seems to me that if it is illegal, then there
must be a regulation that is being violated; if there is no regulation
being violated, then it is not illegal.

Sincerely,
Steven P. McNicoll


No further messages were received from FSDO "D".

Steven,
Have things changed? I see a lot of yoke mounted GPSs that are
most assuredly being used for IFR enroute. I realize your discussions
with the FSDOs took place in late '99, so I'm wondering what if anything
has changed -- or are there just a lot of folks stretching the rules?


-----Original Message-----
From: Steven P. McNicoll ]
Posted At: Saturday, July 01, 2006 09:22
Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
Conversation: Getting the MOCA
Subject: Getting the MOCA


"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news:r5vpg.115$_M.89@fed1read04...

How many FSDO inspectors rebuffed your handheld GPS campaign a while
back?


I assume you're referring to what appears below. I sent an email
message
to
eleven of fourteen FSDOs in the Great Lakes Region in December 1999.
Four
responded by email and one by phone. I didn't include the telephone
response in my report because I couldn't provide a verbatim record of
it.



"I have a question regarding the use of a handheld GPS receiver
during IFR enroute flight.


Let's say I file from MBS direct to SEA in my BE36/A. My Bonanza
has two nav/coms, ADF, GS receiver, DME, marker beacon receiver,
transponder, encoder, and an autopilot. But I intend to use my
handheld GPS receiver for enroute navigation, which I have previously
determined will not cause interference with the navigation or
communication
system on my airplane. ATC clears me as filed and I proceed on my
merry
way
direct to Seattle.


Does this operation violate any FAR?"


I received E-mail responses from four FSDOs, I have changed only
identification of offices and individuals.


From FSDO "A":


Dear Steven,


Thank you for your question concerning GPS Navigation.


You must comply with the limitations of your GPS. There isn't
a handheld alive that is approved for IFR enroute or terminal
navigation, so to answer your question, no, you cannot use the
GPS for anything during your IFR Flight. I recommend that you
review your GPS Manual provided by the factory.


I hope this answers your question, Steven.


Sincerely,


John Doe
FSDO "A"


Dear Mr. Doe,


Thank you for your prompt response.


My question and scenario are completely hypothetical, I don't own a
GPS (or a Bonanza, unfortunately), so I have no GPS manual to
review. But I'm afraid you didn't answer my question; I wanted to
know what regulation, if any, was being violated in the scenario.
What FAR prohibits the use of a handheld GPS during enroute IFR
flight? What regulation requires me to comply with the limitations
of my GPS? What regulation requires the GPS, or any other nav
system for that matter, to be approved for IFR enroute flight?


Sincerely,
Steven P. McNicoll


No further messages were received from FSDO "A".


From FSDO "B":


Dear Steven,


Does this operation violate any FAR?


FAR - "singular" NO, "pural" YES


or only if the FAA accident investigation team has to pry it out of
your cold hands at the site of the crash, otherwise no one will know.


Sorry, but I just can't pass up to opportunity to put a little humor
into
my work. Seriously here is the"spin" that most FAA types put on
the answer to this question.


Hand held GPS units are not approved for flight into IFR conditions.
Panel
mount GPS units may be certified for enroute portions only,
or the high dollar units that meet all the FAA's certification
requirements can be used for enroute and approaches, these units
are also panel mounted units.


Further, the panel mounted units are to be installed by properly
certificated technicians and the equipment list, weight and balance
of the aircraft should reflect the additional equipment. (No the FAA
doesn't make it easy.)


So in the case of a handheld GPS for IFR flight, the unit is not
certified for that use and is not authorized by FARs.


Richard Roe
FSDO "B"


Dear Mr. Roe,


Thank you for your response.


I appreciate humor as much as anyone, but I don't see how we
arrived "at the site of the crash". This operation presents no
undue hazard.


I'm aware that hand held GPS units are not approved for flight
into IFR conditions, and that GPS installations CAN be approved
for IFR flight. But after an extensive search, I cannot find any
regulation REQUIRING that GPS have that approval in order to
be used during IFR enroute flight.


You say that this operation would violate several FARs, could
you cite them please?


Sincerely,
Steven P. McNicoll


No further messages were received from FSDO "B".


From FSDO "C":


Dear Steve,


I am forwarding your question to our Avionics Inspector;
Apollo Garmin. This is in his area of expertise.


Thank you for using our website.


Guy Fawkes
FSDO "C"


Steve,


I got together with our Avionics Inspector and have an
answer for you.


"A PORTABLE GPS CANNOT BE APPROVED IN THE
AIRCRAFT FOR INSTRUMENT FLIGHT RULES (IFR) OR
VISUAL FLIGHT RULES UNLESS THE COMPLETE SYSTEM
IS INSTALLED AND EVALUATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE INTERIM POLICY GUIDANCE DATED MARCH 20, 1992,
AS AMENDED, PERTAINING TO THE APPROVAL OF GPS
EQUIPMENT."


VFR only not IFR.


Let me know if we can be of any further assistance.


Guy Fawkes
FSDO "C"


Dear Mr. Fawkes,


Thank you for your response. I understand that a portable
GPS receiver cannot be approved for IFR flight, but what
regulation prohibits a non-approved GPS receiver from
being used during IFR flight?


Steven P. McNicoll


Steven,


Per my Avionics Inspector the following 14CFR Paragraph
answers your question (specifically para (b)(5):
----------------------------------
 91.21 _ Portable Electronic Devices.


(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no
person may operate, nor may any operator or pilot in command
of an aircraft allow the operation of, any portable electronic device
on any of the following U.S.-registered civil aircraft:


(1) Aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier operating
certificate or an operating certificate; or


(2) Any other aircraft while it is operated under IFR.


(b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to-


(1) Portable voice recorders;


(2) Hearing aids;


(3) Heart pacemakers;


(4) Electric shavers; or


(5) Any other portable electronic device that the operator of
the aircraft has determined will not cause interference with the
navigation or communication system of the aircraft on which it
is to be used.


(c) In the case of an aircraft operated by a holder of an air
carrier operating certificate or an operating certificate, the
determination required by paragraph (b)(5) of this section shall
be made by that operator of the aircraft on which the particular
device is to be used. In the case of other aircraft, the
determination may be made by the pilot in command or other
operator of the aircraft.
------------------------


Guy Fawkes
FSDO "C"


Dear Mr. Fawkes,


FAR 91.21(b)(5) permits the operation of any portable electronic
device, other than a portable voice recorder, hearing aid, heart
pacemaker,
or electric shaver, that the operator of the aircraft has determined
will
not cause interference with the navigation or communication system of
the
aircraft on which it is to be used.
Recall that in my scenario I stated that I had previously determined
that my handheld GPS receiver does not cause interference with
the navigation or communication system on my airplane. It seems
to me that I have complied with FAR 91.21 to the letter.


Steven P. McNicoll


No further messages were received from FSDO "C"


From FSDO "D":


Dear Mr. Steven P. McNicoll,


In response to your question, does this operation violate
any FAR?


Yes, it does.


You may file IFR as a (slant) /A.


The handheld GPS is not acceptable as RNAV and is contrary to:


14 Code of Federal Regulations(CFR), Part 21 sub part K and O.


14 CFR 23.1307


14 CFR 23.1309(b)


14 CFR 91.21


14 CFR 91.205


These are referenced in FAA pamphlet FAA-P-8000-3.


Thank you for your interest in aviation safety. Please call if you
have
any
questions, (987) 654-3210.


Inspector John Smith
FSDO "D"


Dear Mr. Smith,


Thank you for your response. Please see below for additional
questions and comments.


Steven P. McNicoll



Dear Mr. Steven P. McNicoll
In response to your question, does this operation violate
any FAR?
Yes, it does.
You may file IFR as a (slant) /A.
The handheld GPS is not acceptable as RNAV


What regulation specifies what is acceptable and what is not
acceptable as RNAV?


and is contrary to:
14 Code of Federal Regulations(CFR), Part 21 sub part K and O.


How can that be? A handheld GPS is not a part or an appliance,
it is not installed in or attached to the aircraft. To my knowledge
there is no regulation that requires a GPS receiver to comply with
a TSO.


14 CFR 23.1307


I don't see how Part 23 is applicable at all, this does not involve
any change to a type certificate.

A handheld GPS receiver is not equipment necessary for the
airplane to operate at the maximum operating altitude or in the
kinds of operations and meteorological conditions for which it
is certified. Why would it need to be included in the type design?
Given that it is a portable device, how could it be included in the
type design?



14 CFR 23.1309(b)


14 CFR 23.1309(b) refers to installed equipment, but a
handheld GPS is not installed equipment.


14 CFR 91.21


Recall that I had previously determined my handheld GPS does
not cause interference with the navigation or communication
system on my airplane.


14 CFR 91.205


How is this regulation being violated? My aircraft contains all
of the instruments and equipment specified 14 CFR 91.205 for
IFR operations, and those instruments and items of equipment
are in operable condition.


These are referenced in FAA pamphlet FAA-P-8000-3.


How may I obtain this pamphlet?


Thank you for your interest in aviation safety.
Please call if you have any questions, (987) 654-3210.
Inspector John Smith
FSDO "D"


Dear Mr. Steven P. McNicoll,

Your Bonanza was probably built in accordance with 14 CFR 23
(FAR 23), and if you intend to use the aircraft for IFR flight, it
should have the equipment specified in 14 CFR 91.205. The
hand-held GPS is not included in 91.205 because it is not
approved for IFR flight. In fact no GPS systems are mentioned
in 91.205, any GPS system that is approved for IFR use and is
going to be permanently installed in an aircraft needs to be
approved for that specific make and model of aircraft. The FAA
will not approve a GPS installation for IFR use if the GPS unit
wasn't manufactured to the minimum specifications of Technical
Standard Order-129A (TSO-C129A). At this point in time, no
hand-held GPS unit meets the minimum specifications spelled
out in TSO-C129A. TSO-C129A specifies the criteria by which
an installed GPS system, intended for certification in IFR
operations, will be built. A hand-held, portable GPS is not built
to these specifications.


The pamphlet(FAA-P-8000-3) we previously mentioned is available
at "http://gps.faa.gov/Library/gps1.pdf" on the Internet. In
FAA-P-8000-3, chapter 1, page 1-7, the first paragraph under
section 1.3. Hand-held or portable GPS receivers may be used
as a supplement to Visual Flight Rules only.


If you have any further questions you should contact your local F. A.
A. FSDO for more information. We are an Air Carrier Office and
deal with the airlines. Your local FSDO will have Inspectors who
deal with Part 91 operators. From the address on your e-mail it
appears that you are in the Milwaukee FSDO area. There phone
number is (414) 486-2920. They also have an Internet web-site.
The address is: "http://www.faa.gov/fsdo/mke".


Thank You,
Inspector John Smith
FSDO "D"


Dear Mr. Smith,


Thank you for your response. Please see additional comments
and questions below.


Sincerely,


Steven P. McNicoll



Dear Mr. Steven P. McNicoll,
Your Bonanza was probably built in accordance with
14 CFR 23 (FAR 23), and if you intend to use the aircraft
for IFR flight, it should have the equipment specified in
14 CFR 91.205.


Please understand that this is a completely hypothetical scenario,
I do not own a Bonanza. My hypothetical Bonanza contains all of
the instruments and equipment specified in 14 CFR 91.205.


The hand-held GPS is not included in 91.205 because it is
not approved for IFR flight.


If my aircraft contains all of the instruments and equipment
specified in 14 CFR 91.205, then I am in compliance with that
regulation. What regulation prevents me from using a device
that is not mentioned in 91.205?


In fact no GPS systems are mentioned in 91.205, any GPS
system that is approved for IFR use and is going to be
permanently installed in an aircraft needs to be approved for
that specific make and model of aircraft. The FAA will not
approve a GPS installation for IFR use if the GPS unit wasn't
manufactured to the minimum specifications of Technical
Standard Order-129A (TSO-C129A). At this point in time,
no hand-held GPS unit meets the minimum specifications
spelled out in TSO-C129A. TSO-C129A specifies the
criteria by which an installed GPS system, intended for
certification in IFR operations, will be built.
A hand-held, portable GPS is not built to these specifications.


I understand that, but I can find no regulation that requires a GPS
receiver that is used for IFR enroute flight to be permanently
installed in the aircraft or to meet the specifications of TSO C-129a.


The pamphlet(FAA-P-8000-3) we previously mentioned is
available at "http://gps.faa.gov/Library/gps1.pdf" on the
Internet.
In FAA-P-8000-3, chapter 1, page 1-7, the first paragraph
under section 1.3. Hand-held or portable GPS receivers
may be used as a supplement to Visual Flight Rules only.


I don't believe that pamphlet has the force of law. The FAA
publishes the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) to make
readily available to the aviation community the regulatory
requirements placed upon them. If a GPS receiver that did
not meet the standards of TSO C-129a was not to be used
during IFR flight, then there would be an FAR that required
any GPS receiver used during IFR flight to meet that standard.


If you have any further questions you should contact your local F.
A.
A. FSDO for more information. We are an Air Carrier Office and
deal with the airlines. Your local FSDO will have Inspectors who
deal with Part 91 operators. From the address on your e-mail it
appears that you are in the Milwaukee FSDO area. There phone
number is (414) 486-2920. They also have an Internet web-site.
The address is: "http://www.faa.gov/fsdo/mke".
Thank You,
Inspector John Smith
FSDO "D"


I have contacted eleven of the fourteen FSDOs in the Great Lakes
Region.
I
gave them all this same scenario and asked them all the
same question. Seven of them responded, all stating that
navigation by handheld GPS receiver during enroute flight under
IFR is illegal, but none of them could cite any law that would be
violated by such use! It seems to me that if it is illegal, then
there
must be a regulation that is being violated; if there is no regulation
being violated, then it is not illegal.

Sincerely,
Steven P. McNicoll


No further messages were received from FSDO "D".

"Jim Carter" wrote in message
. com...

Steven,
Have things changed? I see a lot of yoke mounted GPSs that are
most assuredly being used for IFR enroute. I realize your discussions
with the FSDOs took place in late '99, so I'm wondering what if anything
has changed -- or are there just a lot of folks stretching the rules?


I don't believe anything has changed. Any fixture meant to hold a handheld
unit that is permanently mounted to the aircraft would be considered
installed equipment and be subject to Part 23, but the GPS itself would not
be.

So by installing a yoke mounting clamp permanently in the a/c (and
making the appropriate paper work entries), the handheld GPS becomes
usable (if certified) for IFR enroute and maybe approach?

-----Original Message-----
From: Steven P. McNicoll ]
Posted At: Saturday, July 01, 2006 10:08
Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
Conversation: Getting the MOCA
Subject: Getting the MOCA


"Jim Carter" wrote in message
. com...

Steven,
Have things changed? I see a lot of yoke mounted GPSs that are
most assuredly being used for IFR enroute. I realize your
discussions
with the FSDOs took place in late '99, so I'm wondering what if
anything
has changed -- or are there just a lot of folks stretching the
rules?


I don't believe anything has changed. Any fixture meant to hold a
handheld
unit that is permanently mounted to the aircraft would be considered
installed equipment and be subject to Part 23, but the GPS itself
would
not
be.

Seven of them responded, all stating that
navigation by handheld GPS receiver during enroute flight under
IFR is illegal, but none of them could cite any law that would be
violated by such use! It seems to me that if it is illegal, then there
must be a regulation that is being violated; if there is no regulation
being violated, then it is not illegal.

Sincerely,
Steven P. McNicoll


No further messages were received from FSDO "D".

tee hee

There are two problems I see here, one is that the laws are not written
in the FARs (or CFR). They are written ad hoc case by case after each
crash, loosely modeled on the FARs. This is just one example of how
what is written is not what is followed.

But the other issue is the definition of the word "use". You can =use=
a ham sandwich. You just can't rely on it (i.e. turn off all the other
equipment and divine your way in IMC using the holes of the swiss chesse
to guide you). And if the ham sandwich (or portable GPS) differs in its
readings from the approved devices, you are required to use the approved
devices' readings.

The rule that covers this is the same rule that covers the requirment to
have the IFR equipment on in the first place. (or, let me ask you - do
you think it is legal to fly an airplane in IMC under IFR with the full
complement of approved instrumentation, with all of it in the OFF position?

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news:sYrpg.101$_M.9@fed1read04...

Asked and answered previously.



Your answer was wrong.



That is not correct. Your confusing Part 71 with Part 95. Part 71
provides the Class E airspace for a Victor Airway. Part 95 provides the
minimum altitudes for a Victor Airway. They are not the same.



I'm confused? Then please enlighten me. Cite the regulation that supports
your assertion that Victor airways do not exist below the MEA or MOCA beyond
22 miles from the VOR.


I cited it previously. You either cannot or will not read the references.