Are handheld GPSes becoming a defacto primary nav source?

This week I did several IFR flights, some in IMC and most in VMC. On a
couple of those flights, ATC offered me direct to the next VOR after the
one I was navigating to, well before I could actually pick up the signal.
One time departing Rochester, they told me to go direct Elmira when I was
less than 500 feet off the ground and there are 2000 foot hills between me
and Elmira. So I turned to the approximate direction, and punched "GOTO"
on my handheld GPS, and followed the GPS's HSI until I climbed up high
enough to get a signal.

They don't offer a vector, or say "direct when able", they just say "05X,
go direct East Texas".

It seems to me that they know we can't recieve that VOR, but as long as
we've got the GPS on board, it doesn't matter to them. I guess as far as
legalities go, we're just ded reckoning in the right general direction
until we pick up the VOR.


--
Paul Tomblin , not speaking for anybody
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; give him a freshly-
charged Electric Eel and chances are he won't bother you for anything
ever again. -- Tanuki

Paul Tomblin wrote:

This week I did several IFR flights, some in IMC and most in VMC. On a
couple of those flights, ATC offered me direct to the next VOR after the
one I was navigating to, well before I could actually pick up the signal.
One time departing Rochester, they told me to go direct Elmira when I was
less than 500 feet off the ground and there are 2000 foot hills between me
and Elmira. So I turned to the approximate direction, and punched "GOTO"
on my handheld GPS, and followed the GPS's HSI until I climbed up high
enough to get a signal.

The 2,000' terrain is some 29 miles SE of the airport, thus well below a 40:1
departure slope. That is why the obstacle DP for the airport doesn't have a
route obstacle DP. Having said that, you are well-advised to follow the
takeoff minimum restrictions noted for some runways at the airport, if you
used one of those runways for departure.



They don't offer a vector, or say "direct when able", they just say "05X,
go direct East Texas".

Thus, your survival may depend upn following any IFR takeoff miniums or
obstacle DP instructions.



It seems to me that they know we can't recieve that VOR, but as long as
we've got the GPS on board, it doesn't matter to them. I guess as far as
legalities go, we're just ded reckoning in the right general direction
until we pick up the VOR.

As to taking the routing direct to a nav aid you cannot receive, if you're
not filed /G, you're technically obligated to refuse the clearance. ATC
issuance of such a clearance does not make use of a handheld legal. As a
practical matter, does it matter, provided you adhere to any obstcle
departure information? Probably not.

In a previous article, said:
Paul Tomblin wrote:
One time departing Rochester, they told me to go direct Elmira when I was
less than 500 feet off the ground and there are 2000 foot hills between me
and Elmira. So I turned to the approximate direction, and punched "GOTO"
on my handheld GPS, and followed the GPS's HSI until I climbed up high
enough to get a signal.

The 2,000' terrain is some 29 miles SE of the airport, thus well below a 40:1
departure slope. That is why the obstacle DP for the airport doesn't have a
route obstacle DP. Having said that, you are well-advised to follow the

I wasn't tallking about obstacle clearance, I was talking about being
able to recieve a navigation signal from a VOR that was hidden behind
hills.


--
Paul Tomblin , not speaking for anybody
I find that anthropomorphism really doesn't help me deal with hardware all
that much, because it lends a certain attitude of disdain to what would
otherwise be a mere malfunction. -- Carl Jacobs

Paul Tomblin wrote:

In a previous article, said:
Paul Tomblin wrote:


I wasn't tallking about obstacle clearance, I was talking about being
able to recieve a navigation signal from a VOR that was hidden behind
hills.


That wasn't clear from your message. In any case, the VOR is 78 miles from ROC,
so you couldn't receive it on departure, hills or not.

writes:

That wasn't clear from your message. In any case, the VOR is 78
miles from ROC, so you couldn't receive it on departure, hills or
not.

Right -- he should be able to start picking it up around 4000 ft AGL
at that distance, if the hills don't interfere.


All the best,


David

David Megginson wrote:

writes:

That wasn't clear from your message. In any case, the VOR is 78
miles from ROC, so you couldn't receive it on departure, hills or
not.

Right -- he should be able to start picking it up around 4000 ft AGL
at that distance, if the hills don't interfere.

All the best,

David

At 4,000 feet, I doubt the hills would interfere. The VOR itself sits
at almost 1,700 feet and is likely not shadowed by the slightly higher
terrain between it and the airport.

I had two similar recent experiences on this year's trip to Oshkosh that made
me think the same thing. With a new instrument rating, I was trying to file on
a few of the legs just for the experience. On the leg from LVS to OJC, I
checked in with center after takeoff, and was immediately cleared direct
EMP. Now this is 450 NM, and I had filed /A, so they were obviously assuming I
had some other navigation capability. (We did.)

Then on the return trip, it happened again. It was overcast at OSH, and we
departed IFR. After breaking out at 3500 ft, and contacting Chicago center,
they cleared us direct to Mason City (MCW). This is over 200 NM. We said
unable, and they said fly 250 heading until able. Well, as we got closer to
MCW, we can't receive it, and finally I asked center, and they said "oh, it's
been NOTAM'ed for several months".

We had a handheld GPS, and the VFR Loran was driving the HSI, so navigation
wasn't a problem, but I was expecting some actual practice following the
airways. This worked out OK on the first leg, after we said "unable" they
cleared us for our original route. But I agree with you - they seem to assume
everyone has GPS/RNAV capability.

Mike

In article , (Paul Tomblin)
wrote:
This week I did several IFR flights, some in IMC and most in VMC. On a
couple of those flights, ATC offered me direct to the next VOR after the
one I was navigating to, well before I could actually pick up the signal.
One time departing Rochester, they told me to go direct Elmira when I was
less than 500 feet off the ground and there are 2000 foot hills between me
and Elmira. So I turned to the approximate direction, and punched "GOTO"
on my handheld GPS, and followed the GPS's HSI until I climbed up high
enough to get a signal.

They don't offer a vector, or say "direct when able", they just say "05X,
go direct East Texas".

It seems to me that they know we can't recieve that VOR, but as long as
we've got the GPS on board, it doesn't matter to them. I guess as far as
legalities go, we're just ded reckoning in the right general direction
until we pick up the VOR.

"Mike Adams" wrote in message
news:HwK4b.22908$S_.21808@fed1read01...

I had two similar recent experiences on this year's trip to Oshkosh that
made me think the same thing. With a new instrument rating, I was trying
to file on a few of the legs just for the experience. On the leg from LVS
to OJC, I checked in with center after takeoff, and was immediately
cleared direct EMP. Now this is 450 NM, and I had filed /A, so they
were obviously assuming I had some other navigation capability. (We did.)


That's rather poor technique. Aircraft shouldn't be cleared direct to
distant fixes unless there's some indication the pilot is capable of
navigating to the fix.

In a previous article, "Steven P. McNicoll" said:
to OJC, I checked in with center after takeoff, and was immediately
cleared direct EMP. Now this is 450 NM, and I had filed /A, so they
were obviously assuming I had some other navigation capability. (We did.)


That's rather poor technique. Aircraft shouldn't be cleared direct to
distant fixes unless there's some indication the pilot is capable of
navigating to the fix.

Read the start of the thread. This started off with me being cleared
direct to a navaid that even if I was within its service volume, there
were actually hills higher than my current elevation and higher than the
VOR between me and it, so there is no way in hell I could have received
it.

--
Paul Tomblin , not speaking for anybody
I read [.doc files] with "rm". All you lose is the microsoft-specific
font selections, the macro viruses and the luser babblings.
-- Gary "Wolf" Barnes

ok, but wasnt there navaids that you could use to get to the point you were
cleared to?
If I am told cleared to xxx VOR which is say, 200 nm miles away, I am assuming I
am cleared to there, so to get there, I will use the navaids available in my
area. So if you was cleared direct to EMP you would use
KLVS V190 DHT V234
then expect more at EMP or close to it.
thats how I would take it, unless told otherwise, If I had questions I would
ask.

Paul Tomblin wrote:

In a previous article, "Steven P. McNicoll" said:
to OJC, I checked in with center after takeoff, and was immediately
cleared direct EMP. Now this is 450 NM, and I had filed /A, so they
were obviously assuming I had some other navigation capability. (We did.)


That's rather poor technique. Aircraft shouldn't be cleared direct to
distant fixes unless there's some indication the pilot is capable of
navigating to the fix.

Read the start of the thread. This started off with me being cleared
direct to a navaid that even if I was within its service volume, there
were actually hills higher than my current elevation and higher than the
VOR between me and it, so there is no way in hell I could have received
it.

--
Paul Tomblin , not speaking for anybody
I read [.doc files] with "rm". All you lose is the microsoft-specific
font selections, the macro viruses and the luser babblings.
-- Gary "Wolf" Barnes