IFR use of handheld GPS

"Ron Lee" wrote in message
...

You have neither answered my questions nor done what I suggested. Why
not?


Your "questions" were actually one question. I answered them when I said
anything can malfunction. I'll do what you suggested after you send me
money to pay for the flight.

I'm left to conclude you cannot answer my question.

"Dane Spearing" wrote in message
...

sigh I guess I don't understand why someone would want to intentionally
operate outside of those guidelines set out in the AIM (barring an
emergency
or other detriment to flight safety).


Because direct flight is quicker than following the airways and handheld GPS
is cheaper to purchase.



You are correct...there is no "regulation" (i.e. - rule in the FARs) that
state you can not use a hand-held GPS for IFR navigation. However, the
non-regulatory AIM makes it very clear. As I mentioned in a previous
post,
there's also nothing in the FARs about requiring you to read back a hold
short instruction....just the AIM.


Does reading back a hold short instruction need to be in the FARs? ATC is
required to get the readback. If you don't read back the hold short ATC is
going to instruct you to do something other than what you want to do until
you do read it back and there is something in the FARs about adhering to ATC
instructions.



I'm certainly no legal expert (nor would I ever want to be), so I can't
make a professional interpretation as to the regulatory or legal status
of things like the AIM, Advisory Circulars, etc... However, it seems
reckless and irresponsible to operate outside of those guidelines.


What's to interpret? The AIM itself says it's not regulatory and the
Advisory Circular Checklist says that unless incorporated into a regulation
by reference the contents of an advisory circular are not binding on the
public.



You are also correct in that there is nothing that says that use of
a handheld for IFR operations is unsafe. However, more importantly,
there's nothing to indicate that it *is* safe!


The absence of any danger or harm from it's use indicates it is safe.



It's more a matter of faith to assume that the hand-held *is* safe and
will do what it's supposed to do than to assume it is illegal and/or
unsafe.


We don't assume it's safe, we know it's safe because even a complete failure
of a handheld GPS during IFR enroute flight in US controlled airspace
presents no danger.

"Dane Spearing" wrote in message
...

There's a lot of stuff in the AIM that isn't backed up by a rule in the
FARs.
My favorite example is "Land and Hold Short" operations. There's nothing
in the FARs about this, but the AIM explains it at length, including the
"requirement" to read back all hold short instructions. So, if it's not
in the
FARs, then I don't actually have to read back that hold short instruction,
right?!? (Yeah...try that at a busy airport and see how far you get...)


You only have to read it back if you wish to land at that airport.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news:gmJ7g.175942$bm6.83898@fed1read04...

Travis Marlatte wrote:


Steven is correct. Keep in mind that the AIM is not regulatory. Plus, the
fact that Alaska has special rules does not mean anything for the other
49 states.


But Part 95 is.



...irrelevant to the subject under discussion.


That is your opinion, which (as is often the case) contrary to the facts.

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news:JRZ7g.176003$bm6.52932@fed1read04...

That is your opinion, which (as is often the case) contrary to the facts.


Cite the cases.

Foul language aside, the definition of an airway is separate from the
regulation of how to track an airway.


--
-------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
KPWK


"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news:ZlJ7g.175941$bm6.31585@fed1read04...
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news:Wip7g.175615$bm6.36868@fed1read04...

You are either stupid or stubborn, or perhaps both.


I am neither.



The AIM reference is explanatory.


The AIM is not regulatory.



The 8260-16, when describing Federal Airwaty V-XXX, which is formed by
VOR facilities, is regulatory.



Irrelevant to the subject under discussion.
Bull****.

In article ,
"Travis Marlatte" wrote:

Foul language aside, the definition of an airway is separate from the
regulation of how to track an airway.

isn't there a relationship?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Part 95 is what? Regulatory? I agree.

Part 95 talks about altitudes, not tracking airways. Part 95 talks about
altitudes in Alaska. Not the lower 48.

Part 95 is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Steven is correct. There is no regulation or set of regulations that require
certified GPS for IFR flight.

I have a certified GPS. I want the RAIM capability. However, I would not
hestitate to use a handheld to track a direct route - as long as I could
back it up with other ground-based fixes. I even back up my certified GPS
with ground-based fixes.

--
-------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
PWK
"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news:gmJ7g.175942$bm6.83898@fed1read04...
Travis Marlatte wrote:

Steven is correct. Keep in mind that the AIM is not regulatory. Plus, the
fact that Alaska has special rules does not mean anything for the other
49 states.

But Part 95 is.

Travis Marlatte wrote:

Part 95 is what? Regulatory? I agree.

Part 95 talks about altitudes, not tracking airways. Part 95 talks about
altitudes in Alaska. Not the lower 48.

Part 95 is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

You don't understand how Part 95 works.

Part 95 governs IFR Altitudes in all 50 states and other areas under FAA
jurisdiction, not just Alaska. Where did you get the idea it covers
only Alaska?

IFR Alitudes = MEAs, MRAs, MOCAs, MCAs. Those are the altitudes of
airways. Airways are issued under Part 95 via the federal register via
incorporation by reference, exactly like instrument approach procedures
(Part 97).

The *regulatory* source document for an airway specifies the required
VOR stations, among other things.

The analogy is a VOR approach at PDQ Airport. You cannot fly that
approach using ADF, for example.

In your usual evasive style I noticed you ignored my post about service
volumnes and VFR on top.