Are handheld GPSes becoming a defacto primary nav source?

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.



I pretty much always file IFR /u or /a, and I've come to the conclusion
ATC does assume you have some sort of GPS or Loran available. I almost
always get some sort of "direct". I've only been asked once if I had
GPS available, on an IMC Angel Flight from Tulsa to Houston. Soon as I
was handed off to Fort Worth (about McAlester, OK) he inquired about
GPS, then cleared me direct HOU. Another fun part was the arrival.
We did a "best forward speed" intercept of the localizer at 8000, with
the approach flown at 160. On another trip into New Orleans, during a
STAR, I was given a direct to a fix that "shortcutted" part of the
procedure.

I've also wondered if ATC somtimes observes the "quality of your
performance" and then maybe helps/expects more accordingly.

Tom Pappano, PP-ASEL-IA

Paul Tomblin wrote:

In a previous article, said:

Paul Tomblin wrote:

That wasn't clear from your message. In any case, the VOR is 78 miles

Since the entire article was about using GPSes instead of VORs, I don't
see *how* you could get the impression that it had anything to do with
obstacle clearance. But to each his own.

Why the hostility?


Not hostility, just confusion. I didn't see any way you could have read
it the way you did, so I was wondering if there was something there in the
way I worded it that I missed.


I thought your post was crystal clear.

Tom Pappano, PP-ASEL-IA

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.

Paul Tomblin wrote:

In a previous article, said:
Paul Tomblin wrote:
That wasn't clear from your message. In any case, the VOR is 78 miles
Since the entire article was about using GPSes instead of VORs, I don't
see *how* you could get the impression that it had anything to do with
obstacle clearance. But to each his own.

Why the hostility?

Not hostility, just confusion. I didn't see any way you could have read
it the way you did, so I was wondering if there was something there in the
way I worded it that I missed.

I guess I am confused, too. When ATC clears you to a *VOR* that is not
possible to receive, terrain nothwithstanding, it is all about a clearance to
Aa VOR, not a GPS waypoint, and whether a VFR handheld can be used to navigate
to the VOR as a waypoint rather than as a VOR.

The entire system is full of confusion about the use of RNAV. As to the
terrain, I read into it "they are sending me towards higher terrain without a
vector." Had you stated that your concerns about the terrain was blocking of
VOR signal I would have understood.

In any case, the entire article was about VOR and GPS. ;-)

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...

wrote in message ...

Why the hostility?


What hostility?

Conflict is the mother of creation.

I put "GPS" in the comment part of the flight plan and file /A. I have an
panel mount non-IFR GPS coupled to the autopilot.

Howard

The first one was via the victor airways, the second one was VOR to VOR.

Details:
KLVS V190 DHT V234 EMP V10 DODSN KOJC
KOSH LNR UKN MCW FOD KSUX

Mike

In article ,
(Eric Wickberg) wrote:
Mike, did you file airway routes on these flight plans, or direct?

Eric

I believe your instructor was wrong. It is permissible to file an IFR plan
with a direct route, even if all you have to navigate direct with is a
handheld or even just a tuna sandwich. You are working harder than you have
to, filing an airways or VOR route then requesting direct later. It doesn't
hurt you any, but you are wasting your time.
wrote in message
. ..
The AIM addresses the issue of flying direct when outside of NAVAID
service
volume limits; see section 5-1-7, paragraphs c.4 and c.5. Also see
paragraph c.7 regarding obstacle clearance rsponsibility.

I raised this same issue with my flight instructor when taking IFR
lessons.
He explained that although it's not permissable to FILE an IFR direct
route
that requires GPS without having a certified unit, it's OK to request
"direct" if I have my hand-held and I'm in radar contact. So now I always
file a route that meets NAVAID requirements and request "direct" once
established on the filed route. I just let the controller know that "I
have
GPS aboard" and my request has never been denied.


"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...
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

"hnelson" wrote in message om...
I put "GPS" in the comment part of the flight plan and file /A. I have an
panel mount non-IFR GPS coupled to the autopilot.

I do the same and often get direct. However, FSS complains to no end when I do it.

-Robert

(Paul Tomblin) wrote
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.

There are several separate issues at work here.

First off - there are no official, written rules as to what may be
used for enroute naviagation under IFR. As far as legalities go, you
are proceeding direct to the fix, as cleared, using a tuna sandwich,
tea leaves, handheld GPS, or whatever streamlined navigation technique
you prefer. Of course this is directly counter to the
(non-regulatory) AIM, so what we have in practice is a massive gray
area.

Second, the controller NEVER cares HOW you comply with your clearance,
merely that you DO comply with it. If he cleared you present position
direct to a fix, then as long as you proceed along the line between
that present position and the fix, he really couldn't care less how
you are doing it.

Third, you've nailed it. The handheld GPS has become a defacto
primary nav source. I don't know ANYONE who flies Part 91 IFR without
a GPS of some kind anymore, unless it's a training flight. Why would
you?

The fact is that a handheld GPS and a good set of batteries provide
the best possible protection against nav/electrical failure. That's
important when you have a non-redundant electrical system. The GPS
provides course guidance that's less affected by terrain than anything
you're likely to find in a GA aircraft. It's more accurate and
(unless we're talking about IFR-approved stuff that had to have the
user interface made FAA-compliant and thus defective) easier to use
than anything else in the airplane.

Controllers are not idiots - they've caught on. They realize that
virtually everyone can now go direct to any fix - and that means that
airplanes can be routed to bypass choke points like VOR's. Clearly
that improves safety. Just as clearly, insisting on following airways
because you lack 'approved' area nav is not in the interest of safety.

Michael