IFR use of handheld GPS

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news:OlJ8g.176145$bm6.85233@fed1read04...

I never said it governs tracking of airways. It does govern the ground
facilities you must use to track the airway; i.e., from "VOR ABC to VOR
DEF." Apparently, you don't understand that.


Apparently you don't understand those ground facilities are also outside the
subject of discussion.



That is your statement of opinion, which is not shared by everyone,
including those at the FAA who control this stuff.


Saying there are no regulations that prohibit the use of a non-certified GPS
in IFR flight is a statement of fact, not of opinion. That there are some
in the FAA that don't understand that fact should surprise nobody.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news:OlJ8g.176145$bm6.85233@fed1read04...

I never said it governs tracking of airways. It does govern the ground
facilities you must use to track the airway; i.e., from "VOR ABC to VOR
DEF." Apparently, you don't understand that.



Apparently you don't understand those ground facilities are also outside the
subject of discussion.



That is your statement of opinion, which is not shared by everyone,
including those at the FAA who control this stuff.



Saying there are no regulations that prohibit the use of a non-certified GPS
in IFR flight is a statement of fact, not of opinion. That there are some
in the FAA that don't understand that fact should surprise nobody.


It is your opinion.

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news:hrM8g.176161$bm6.112176@fed1read04...

It is your opinion.


Clearly you cannot differentiate fact from opinion.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news:hrM8g.176161$bm6.112176@fed1read04...

It is your opinion.



Clearly you cannot differentiate fact from opinion.


Oh, I think it is you who cannot.

Do you have any experience with civil legal proceedings?

Such as,

findings of facts, and conclusions of law.

Clearly, your assertions of fact do not rise to the level of civil
adjudication by a court of compentent jurisdiction, although I will
never be able to convince you of that FACT.

Ok. We agree that Part 95 does not govern tracking airways.

It also does not govern the ground facitilities that must be used to track
airways. The only thing Part 95 does is refer to the airways and that is
only to allow the use of GPS in areas when it is impossible to use VORs to
track the airways.

I'm still missing the part where a regulation requires me to use a certified
GPS.

As a few examples of clarity, 91.181 requires that, during IFR flight, I fly
(a) on a airway or (b) a straight line to a fix. Note that it does not
stipulate the equipment I must use to accomplish that.

91.171 prohibits IFR navigation by reference to a VOR receiver unless it has
been checked.

91.205 requires that I have the appropriate equipment for the ground
facilities to be used.

The point that many people are trying to make in this discussion is that
there is no similarly explicit statement about using certified GPS receivers
for enroute navigation.

You have stated that this is only an opinion. Actually, it is not an
opinion. It is an observation that has yet to be refuted.

Please understand that I am only debating the explicit regulation to use
certified GPS receivers. It is fact only in that no one has been able to
cite a regulation to the contrary. You have stated an opinion that GPS
receivers must be certified for IFR enroute navigation but you have not
cited a regulation to back up that opinion.

--
-------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
PWK


"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news:OlJ8g.176145$bm6.85233@fed1read04...
Travis Marlatte wrote:
As you say, part 95 governs IFR altitudes - not tracking airways. It does
not define airways nor how to track them. It defines altitudes to be used
when on and off airways.

I never said it governs tracking of airways. It does govern the ground
facilities you must use to track the airway; i.e., from "VOR ABC to VOR
DEF." Apparently, you don't understand that.

Part 95 is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. There are no regulations
that prohibit the use of a non-certified GPS in IFR flight.


That is your statement of opinion, which is not shared by everyone,
including those at the FAA who control this stuff.

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news:z_Q8g.176186$bm6.58825@fed1read04...

Oh, I think it is you who cannot.


I'm sure you do. You're wrong.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news:z_Q8g.176186$bm6.58825@fed1read04...

Oh, I think it is you who cannot.



I'm sure you do. You're wrong.


Interesting thast you chose to ignore the bulk of my post.

Travis Marlatte wrote:

Ok. We agree that Part 95 does not govern tracking airways.

It also does not govern the ground facitilities that must be used to track
airways. The only thing Part 95 does is refer to the airways and that is
only to allow the use of GPS in areas when it is impossible to use VORs to
track the airways.

That is simply incorrect. Airways are described in great detail on
individual Forms 8260.16, which include the VOR stations, the IFR
altitudes, and the COPs. Each such amendment to an airway is an
amendment to Part 95, which is incorporated into the regulation through
the federal register by reference. This is virtually the same
rule-making procedure used to enact and amend instrument approach
procedures under Part 95.

I'm still missing the part where a regulation requires me to use a certified
GPS.

As a few examples of clarity, 91.181 requires that, during IFR flight, I fly
(a) on a airway or (b) a straight line to a fix. Note that it does not
stipulate the equipment I must use to accomplish that.



91.171 prohibits IFR navigation by reference to a VOR receiver unless it has
been checked.

91.205 requires that I have the appropriate equipment for the ground
facilities to be used.

And, what constitutes a VOR (Victor) Airway.

The point that many people are trying to make in this discussion is that
there is no similarly explicit statement about using certified GPS receivers
for enroute navigation.

You have stated that this is only an opinion. Actually, it is not an
opinion. It is an observation that has yet to be refuted.

Please understand that I am only debating the explicit regulation to use
certified GPS receivers. It is fact only in that no one has been able to
cite a regulation to the contrary. You have stated an opinion that GPS
receivers must be certified for IFR enroute navigation but you have not
cited a regulation to back up that opinion.

It is a body of TSO, ACs, and FAA policy postions. The FAA would never
feel the need to issue a regulation that states VFR GPS cannot be used
for IFR navigation. They see no reason for it, since the body of
directives make it clear that only IFR certified avionics can be used
for IFR operations.

Sam Spade wrote:

Airways are described in great detail on
individual Forms 8260.16,

Are the forms 8260.16 available to the public somewhere?

Thanks,

Dave

Google is your friend!

Damn, that's empowering to say!!

Karl
ATP CFI EC
"Curator" N185KG


"Dave Butler" wrote in message
news:1147439954.376983@sj-nntpcache-5...
Sam Spade wrote:

Airways are described in great detail on individual Forms 8260.16,

Are the forms 8260.16 available to the public somewhere?

Thanks,

Dave