How long before /G required for IFR?

"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...

91.205


No, FAR 91.205 permits a clock with a digital presentation. Apparently
cfeyeeye is not in the US.

In a previous article, "Steven P. McNicoll" said:
"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...
91.205


No, FAR 91.205 permits a clock with a digital presentation. Apparently

When did that get ammended? I know when I first got my license it quite
definitely did NOT allow a digital presentation, so while everybody in the
club used digital clocks, we had to keep repairing recalcitrant built-in
analog clocks.

--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
The magic BOFH-phrase you need to summon at this point is:
"_Your_ lack of planning is not about to become _my_ emergency."
-- Tanuki

"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...

When did that get ammended?


I don't recall.



I know when I first got my license it quite definitely did NOT allow a
digital
presentation,


I didn't realize the digital clock had been around that long.

Paul Tomblin wrote:


When did that get ammended?

At least 15 years ago.

"KP" nospam@please wrote in message
...

There are several specific instances in the .65 where it takes pains to
note that pilots adhere to FARs first and ATC second. Vectors and
altitude assignments to VFR aircraft are some that come to mind. The
notes aren't there to tell controllers not to issue the instructions; it's
there to tell controllers the pilot may not be able to comply.


There are many .65 rules that specifically instruct the controller to issue
an altitude assignment that is consistent with FAR XX.XX.

"Those are ICAO terms that define what constitutes acceptable IFR
navigation in three different defined areas: domestic, oceanic, and remote
land
mass."

That's nice, but where does it say VOR is the "only" ONLY o.n.l.y acceptable
means of IFR navigation? All this says is that VOR is an acceptable means,
world wide. A sort of lowest common denominator that may be used all over
the planet.

wrote in message ...


Dan Thompson wrote:

Tim, some of the other guys are playing around with you a little bit, but
I'll spell it out for you since I started it.

Thanks for "helping" me. Have you ever heard of Class I and Class II
navigation? Those are ICAO terms that define what constitutes acceptable
IFR
navigation in three different defined areas: domestic, oceanic, and remote
land
mass. The United States is a signatory to that convention. The VOR
system is
thus considered the primary means of IFR navigation. With limited
exceptions,
IFR-certified GPS is not approved as primary means in a non-radar
environment in
domestic airspace. That is changing, of course. But, it does not include
VFR
GPS units, which do not qualify for IFR navigation.



That reg says what you have to have onboard, but does not say what you
will
or must use for navigation. IFR course tracking is a performance
standard.
You must stay on the assigned course. How you do that is not specified
or
regulated. What you use to fly that course is not specified or
regulated.
Only that you fly that course, somehow.

So, you may use dead reckoning if you want to, radar vectors, celestial
nav
(right!), or even (the crowd is on the edge of their seats in
anticpation) a
tuna sandwich. The tuna sandwich must not, however, be placarded "VFR
only."

So, it is perfectly acceptable to look at your handheld GPS, see that it
says 237 degrees and 16 minutes to FUBAR, dead reckon by flying a 237
heading, and monitor your progress by reference to the handheld GPS.

wrote in message
...


Michael wrote:

But, how much longer will it be before /G is a de facto requirement?

IMO, more than 5 years but less than 15.

Already when I fly IFR (filed /U) controllers give me instructions
("proceed direct foobar") that require GPS

Well, they don't really. I bet you can do that with the M1 LORAN. Or
you could if it didn't come with a placard limiting it to VFR use
only.
A handheld GPS will not come with such a placard, and there's no rule
that says you can't use it for enroute IFR (anyone who says otherwise
is welcome to quote chapter and verse from the approriate regulation -
NOT an advisory circular or AIM).

Try 91.205 (d) (2) for starters:

d) Instrument flight rules. For IFR flight, the following instruments
and
equipment are required:

(2) Two-way radio communications system and navigational equipment
appropriate to the ground facilities to be used.

Think non-radar operations, where the controller isn't going to play
"Frick
and Frack" direct-to games with you. Failure to comply with 91.205 can
rapidly lead to 91.3, and the FAA attorneys win every time.

Steven,

I didn't realize the digital clock had been around that long.


If you like, rent the James bond movie "Live and Let Die" one of these
days. It has a scene where James (roger Moore) post-coitally (I think)
and very proudly presents his Seiko digital with glowing red LEDs to
the camera. Looks incredibly cheap these days. That movie is from 1972
- over 30 years.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...
In a previous article, "Steven P. McNicoll"
said:
"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...
91.205


No, FAR 91.205 permits a clock with a digital presentation. Apparently

When did that get ammended?

I don't remember. But for anyone wanting to go back through some Federal
Registers, the info at the end of Part 91 points to some specific
amendments:

[Doc. No. 28870, 62 FR 17487, Apr. 9, 1997, as amended by Amdt. 91-261, 65
FR 5942, Feb. 7, 2000; Amdt. 91-271, 66 FR 63895, Dec. 10, 2001; Amdt.
91-274, 68 FR 54584, Sept. 17, 2003; Amdt. 91-276, 68 FR 70133, Dec. 17,
2003]

"Stan Prevost" wrote in message
...

There are many .65 rules that specifically instruct the controller to
issue an altitude assignment that is consistent with FAR XX.XX.


But no .65 rule that prohibits a controller from issuing an instruction to a
pilot that would require the pilot to violate an FAR. Such a rule would
make it impossible to vector VFR aircraft, for example, as the controller is
not in a position to know if the vector would require the pilot to violate
cloud clearance requirements.

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...

If you like, rent the James bond movie "Live and Let Die" one of these
days. It has a scene where James (roger Moore) post-coitally (I think)
and very proudly presents his Seiko digital with glowing red LEDs to
the camera. Looks incredibly cheap these days. That movie is from 1972
- over 30 years.


I didn't say the digital clock hadn't been around a long time, I said I
didn't realize it had been around as long as Paul has had a license.