IFR use of handheld GPS

karl gruber wrote:
Google is your friend!

Well, since apparently google is *your* friend and finding the 8260.16s is so
effortless for you, would you mind elaborating a little? OK, I'll admit to being
clueless, where are the 8260.16s (or at least, what search argument did you use
on your friend)?

Damn, that's empowering to say!!

Glad I was able to brighten your day.

Dave

There's a link to 8260.16 on:

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...idance/orders/

The actual link takes you to:

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...dia/826016.pdf

which doesn't have anything about airways.

Tim.



On Fri, 12 May 2006 13:40:44 -0400, Dave Butler wrote:

karl gruber wrote:
Google is your friend!

Well, since apparently google is *your* friend and finding the 8260.16s is so
effortless for you, would you mind elaborating a little? OK, I'll admit to being
clueless, where are the 8260.16s (or at least, what search argument did you use
on your friend)?

Damn, that's empowering to say!!

Glad I was able to brighten your day.

Dave

Don't you love the FAA.

TERPS forms are available through:

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...0/terps_forms/

which has a link 8260-16:

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...ia/8260_16.pdf

which provides a blank 8260 - 16 form for specifiying airway data.

Seems that order 8260.16 has nothing to do with the 8260-16 form.

Still haven't found any populated 8260-16 forms on the web.

Cheers,

Tim.


On Fri, 12 May 2006 12:44:52 -0600, Tim Auckland wrote:

There's a link to 8260.16 on:

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...idance/orders/

The actual link takes you to:

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...dia/826016.pdf

which doesn't have anything about airways.

Tim.



On Fri, 12 May 2006 13:40:44 -0400, Dave Butler wrote:

karl gruber wrote:
Google is your friend!

Well, since apparently google is *your* friend and finding the 8260.16s is so
effortless for you, would you mind elaborating a little? OK, I'll admit to being
clueless, where are the 8260.16s (or at least, what search argument did you use
on your friend)?

Damn, that's empowering to say!!

Glad I was able to brighten your day.

Dave

Dave Butler wrote:
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
Not easily. Unlike instrument approach procedures, which are
coordinated with the aviation comunity, airways are considered by the
FAA to be "non-controversial," thus no public site during coordination.

The forms are maintained because they are "dockets" of prior rule-making.

Tim Auckland wrote:



Still haven't found any populated 8260-16 forms on the web.

One of the appendices to Order 8260.19C, "Flight Procedures and
Airspace" has a sample comleted 8260-16.

Bruce E. Haddad wrote:
The following is from
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...B?OpenDocument
(sorry for the long link). It's the GPS that's certified for IFR
operations. As such - the regulations controlling pilots simply states that
the equipment must be IFR certified. This circular starts to define the
certification process. You can dig further into the science for more
information.
...

AC 20-130A has come up already in response to my question. It presents
one way to install an IFR panel-mount GPS unit and get IFR approval for
it. But it says nothing about handhelds. I don't think you can
conclude that just because IFR approved installations exist that they
are required and necessary for all IFR operations.

You mentioned all sorts of stuff in you message about apporaches and
GPSs getting behind. I think all of the discussion here has only dealt
with enroute flying, not approaches.

GPS lag is also not the big deal you make it seem. Especially when
you're mostly traveling enroute in a straight line. Besides, most
modern GPSs have about a one second update rate. That's way faster
than the 12 second sweep of enroute radar and even faster than the 4.5
second sweep of approach radar. So you could make the same argument
about radar vectors.

And then you talk about errors in the GPS system. But all navaids have
errors. GPS is, in general, quite a bit more accurate than anything
but a localizer. Sure it can go bad, but all navaids have multiple
failure modes.

Peter

Dave Butler wrote:
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


Sample 8260-16 at:

http://members.cox.net/aterpster/

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news:wsY8g.176221$bm6.114875@fed1read04...

....

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.

Agreed. Airways are well defined with procedures and regulations to ensure
that they are safe and flyable. None of that says anything at all about how
you must track those well defined airways.

Are we talking about the same Part 95? Why would Part 95 get ammended when
an airway is redefined? All I see is the definition of altitudes and
mountainous areas that apply to all defined airways.

....


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.

Keep in mind that we have been debating the lack of a regulation that
prohibits the use of GPS receivers that are not IFR certified for use during
enroute, IFR navigation.

I see nothing in what you have stated that "makes it clear" as a regulation.
I will agree that the FAA has created the mechanisms to use an IFR-certified
GPS for enroute navigation but it still has not said that that is the only
way to go.

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

"Travis Marlatte" wrote in message
...
"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news:wsY8g.176221$bm6.114875@fed1read04...

....


Are we talking about the same Part 95? Why would Part 95 get ammended when
an airway is redefined? All I see is the definition of altitudes and
mountainous areas that apply to all defined airways.

Never mind. I see the detailed references from Part 95 to specific airways.
All to define the altitudes to use. Nothing about tracking. I'm still
looking though. If you're right, I'm sure it's there somewhere...

Now where could it be? There must a statement that says something like, "No
person shall use a GPS receiver for IFR enroute navigation unless that
receiver is certified for enroute IFR under TSO..."

It must be there. I'll keep looking. If you find it, let me know.


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

On 05/13/06 12:03, Travis Marlatte wrote:
"Travis Marlatte" wrote in message
...
"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news:wsY8g.176221$bm6.114875@fed1read04...

...


Are we talking about the same Part 95? Why would Part 95 get ammended when
an airway is redefined? All I see is the definition of altitudes and
mountainous areas that apply to all defined airways.

Never mind. I see the detailed references from Part 95 to specific airways.
All to define the altitudes to use. Nothing about tracking. I'm still
looking though. If you're right, I'm sure it's there somewhere...

Now where could it be? There must a statement that says something like, "No
person shall use a GPS receiver for IFR enroute navigation unless that
receiver is certified for enroute IFR under TSO..."

It must be there. I'll keep looking. If you find it, let me know.

Yes, if you find it, let us all know.

--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA