Are handheld GPSes becoming a defacto primary nav source?

try putting "VFR GPS" instead. Same results, except I've never gotten a complaint from FSS.

"Robert M. Gary" wrote:

"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

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

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.


An excellent thread, Paul.

It frightens me, though, that we must share clouds with some of the
off-target thinkers I've read here...

No Spam

"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

wrote in message
. ..

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.


Your instructor is wrong, there's nothing that prohibits filing an IFR
direct route regardless of the status of your nav equipment. Whether or not
the controller can clear you on such a route depends upon radar coverage,
but if he can clear you direct once you're airborne he can also clear you
direct when you're still on the ground.

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
om...

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


What's their beef?

I have a Turbo Arrow III and use a handheld garmin 295 in it, if I am told to
go direct to a VOR , I intercept the outbound course if I cant pick up the VOR
they are wanting me to go to. So far, I have not been told to go to a VOR I
couldnt receive without vectors. I use my GPS only as a means of verifying I
am doing the right things and for situational awreness. I try to use the VOR's
as much as possible without relying on the GPS, I get better training that way
and I dont get in that bad habit of taking shortcuts.
There wasn't any vor's you could intercept to get to the VOR they were sending
you to?



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.

--
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

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

"jeff" wrote:

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.

Jeff, when you're cleared from your present position to a VOR, you're
cleared along the direct course to the VOR, period. You're not cleared to
develop your own route using other navaids or convenient airways of your
choice. That's why you need GPS or other RNAV equipment to fly such a
clearance. [Ref: 91.181 Course to be flown.]

Not if you are cleared direct. If cleared direct, you are expected to fly direct,
not via other navaids. If you can't comply, you always have the option of saying
"unable". Might help if you have an alternate plan to offer such as the other vOR
routing, or perhaps an approximate heading if you can figure that either from on
board equipment or from a chart.

jeff wrote:

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

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759