More IFR with VFR GPS questions

On 21 Nov 2005 16:52:51 -0800, "Chris Quaintance"
wrote:

I was hoping to
focus on the mechanics of accepting a direct clearance that one could
not otherwise navigate without a VFR GPS. I'd like to have a better
idea of the legality and (more importantly) the advisability of flying
in that situation.

First off I am an instrument student, not yet rated. I have a lot more
marine navigation experience than aviation IFR experience, but let me
throw this out.
It seems possible to me to fly direct between most any 2 points, off
airways, without vectors, using 2 VOR's and a sectional chart. Just
plot a series of radial intersections at appropriate distances from
each other to ensure remaining close (for gov'ment work) to the
desired direct track. Is this illegal? Or is it just that you won't
get a clearance using this method? I am assuming that the direct
course & altitude would be within reception range of the (2) needed
stations.
This would require a bit of OBS twisting for sure. You would use your
VFR GPS to reassure yourself that you are on that desired track. If
anyone asks, your primary means of navigating were by use of VOR's.

It seems possible to me to fly direct between most any 2 points, off
airways, without vectors, using 2 VOR's and a sectional chart. Just
plot a series of radial intersections at appropriate distances from
each other to ensure remaining close (for gov'ment work) to the
desired direct track.

I don't know if it is legal or not (that would be up to the FAA, after
the accident), but it would be impractical. I have almost never flown
an IFR clearance that I have carefully plotted at home. The clearance I
get is different, and there are numerous reroutes enroute. Imagine
being in bumpy air in the soup, and given "direct WAYNS". You are
somewhere between two VORs flying an airway. Ok, with an intersection
you can figure out pretty much where you are, now try plotting it on
your lap on a sectional, crossing from front to back, going over three
creases, bumping along in the clouds. Betcha can't even draw a straight
line, let alone calculate points along it.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 00:14:38 GMT, Jose
wrote:

It seems possible to me to fly direct between most any 2 points, off
airways, without vectors, using 2 VOR's and a sectional chart. Just
plot a series of radial intersections at appropriate distances from
each other to ensure remaining close (for gov'ment work) to the
desired direct track.

I don't know if it is legal or not (that would be up to the FAA, after
the accident), but it would be impractical. I have almost never flown
an IFR clearance that I have carefully plotted at home. The clearance I
get is different, and there are numerous reroutes enroute. Imagine
being in bumpy air in the soup, and given "direct WAYNS". You are
somewhere between two VORs flying an airway. Ok, with an intersection
you can figure out pretty much where you are, now try plotting it on
your lap on a sectional, crossing from front to back, going over three
creases, bumping along in the clouds. Betcha can't even draw a straight
line, let alone calculate points along it.

The last time I plotted a course was for the PPL. I didn't even have
to plot one for the instrument rating. I did have a chart with my
times (from the computer) and I was carrying a simple calculator.
I used a VFR hand held GPS for "situational awareness" and that made
the DE happy.

BTW, my hand held has all the enroute way points in it.
The latest update even has the fixes for the local GPS approaches.


Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Jose

"Chris Quaintance" wrote in message
ups.com...

Without descending into the madness of the other thread, I have a
couple of questions regarding the use of a VFR GPS while IFR.

Hypothetically, let's say I was flying IFR from Santa Monica, CA to San
Jose, CA (SMO to RHV). The weather is CAVU. I am filed /A and cleared
via a fairly standard route on victor airways. Just past the mountains
and still 150 miles from RHV, Oakland Center asks me if I am "GPS
equipped." I answer in the affirmative as I have my trusty Garmin 296
mounted on the yoke. I am then cleared direct GILRO, direct RHV and I
accept the clearance. I proceed to fly said clearance and land at my
destination without futher issue.

I realize this is common practice. It seems to me it would not be
strictly "legal" as I would be relying on the 296 for primary
navigation.

My questions:
--Where did this situation actually break down in terms of regulations?


It didn't, no regulation is violated in your scenario.



When I affirmed I was GPS equipped (knowing that mine is not
certified)?


No regulation requires a "certified" GPS for the operation you described.



When I accepted the new clearance? Never?


Never.



--In CAVU weather, the risk of this becoming a problem is basically
nil. However, in IMC, I would consider it to be potentially
problematic (i.e. the 296 goes Tango Uniform and I'm not exactly sure
of my position using my trusty VOR's). Would you consider this risk
neglible? Would you accept or not accept this clearance depending on
the weather? And why?


What would you do in that same situation if your GPS was certified? A
certified GPS that has gone TU is no more useful than a non-certified GPS
that has gone TU.

Weather changes nothing. The operation you described can only be done if
ATC can provide radar monitoring and radar monitoring must be provided even
if your GPS is certified for IFR.

"A Lieberman" wrote in message
...

Speaking from my recent IFR experiences....

I had filed direct from 2G2 to KBWG. I got a call from Center saying
Sundownwer 1943L, have a reroute for you, ready to copy. Got my trusty
pen out, said ready to copy. I was in solid IMC. Center said, cleared
direct
York VOR, direct BWG.

I filed /A so they apparently knew I could not fly a GPS route. Had they
routed me to something other then a standard VOR or intersection, I would
have said unable.


You had originally filed direct from one airport to another one 337 miles
away. How did you intend to do that if you were unable to accept a reroute
to something other than a standard VOR or intersection?



I had my enroute maps out, and when I was not able to find the York VOR, I
keyed up and asked for the frequency. Dialed that in, got my radial and
started flying to it. I wasn't able to determine the distance, I keyed up
again and asked the distance, since it was not registering on my DME or
was in the nrst navaids on my Garmin 296.

Turned out, ATC had me heading to a VOR 90 miles away!


YRK vortac is 148 miles southwest of 2G2. Do you believe there's something
wrong with being routed over a VOR that far away?

"Newps" wrote in message
...

It is my understanding that you will only get a direct off-airway
clearance
if you are in radar coverage.


The rule says you also have to be out of the service volume of the navaid.
This is routinely ignored.


No rule says you have to be out of the service volume in order to get a
direct off-airway clearance.

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 15:07:14 GMT, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

You had originally filed direct from one airport to another one 337 miles
away. How did you intend to do that if you were unable to accept a reroute
to something other than a standard VOR or intersection?

Precisely my point Steve.

Even though I filed direct, off airwaves, ATC recognized my limitation that
I could only accept a standard VOR or intersection. It was NOT assumed by
ATC that I had GPS capability even though I filed direct.

Had they given me a GPS intersection rather then a VOR or VOR associated
intersection, I would have said unable, alerting them to the fact I am
slant Alpha. That was the point I was trying to bring across in my
original post.

This was my first reroute in my short flying career, and overall, in spite
of my uncertainty in the first few minutes, it turned out to be a non
event.

YRK vortac is 148 miles southwest of 2G2. Do you believe there's something
wrong with being routed over a VOR that far away?

Considering there are quite a few VORs closer then YRK, I was not looking
that far down the road in establishing where I am to where I am going. I
was looking within 45 to 60 miles, not so far down the road.

I am situationally aware of what my next VOR will be when I fly IFR, as I
have them printed as well having the en route maps open. I also change my
NAV 1 and NAV 2 as I progress in my flight path to assist in my situation
awareness.

The problem I had as slight as it was, was finding the frequency to the
VOR. Wasn't in the list of nrst on my Garmin 296, and being in IMC, it's
not exactly conducive of finding a navaid on the paper maps especially 90
odd miles away. I wasn't given a vector, just direct York, direct Bowling
green, so I did not know what direction to look on the en route maps. Had
center given me a vector, I at least would have known which direction to
look.

I would have expected a closer VOR, not one 90 miles away to go direct to.
As you can see, not that big a deal, but for a person like me, learning the
ropes of IFR, when I am by myself, I don't have CRM available. Small
things do make a big difference.

So, like I said in my original post, I spoke up and asked the questions I
needed answered to make my flight safer.

No big deal in the full scheme of things, but since this was my first
reroute, it does make the heart go a little faster as I don't want to do
the wrong thing. All the training in the world does not give you the real
world scenarios.

Allen

A Lieberman wrote:

All the training in the world does not give you the real
world scenarios.

All the training in the world does not give you *all* the real world
scenarios. It certainly gives you some. ;-)

--
Peter

"Newps" wrote in message
...

Have you asked this question to FSDO?


I did. About six years ago I sent the following message to eleven of the
fourteen FSDOs in the Great Lakes Region:


"I have a question regarding the use of a handheld GPS receiver
during IFR enroute flight.

Let's say I file from MBS direct to SEA in my BE36/A. My Bonanza
has two nav/coms, ADF, GS receiver, DME, marker beacon receiver,
transponder, encoder, and an autopilot. But I intend to use my
handheld GPS receiver for enroute navigation, which I have previously
determined will not cause interference with the navigation or communication
system on my airplane. ATC clears me as filed and I proceed on my merry way
direct to Seattle.

Does this operation violate any FAR?"


I received E-mail responses from four FSDOs, I have changed only
identification of offices and individuals.


From FSDO "A":


Dear Steven,


Thank you for your question concerning GPS Navigation.

You must comply with the limitations of your GPS. There isn't
a handheld alive that is approved for IFR enroute or terminal
navigation, so to answer your question, no, you cannot use the
GPS for anything during your IFR Flight. I recommend that you
review your GPS Manual provided by the factory.

I hope this answers your question, Steven.

Sincerely,

John Doe
FSDO "A"


Dear Mr. Doe,

Thank you for your prompt response.

My question and scenario are completely hypothetical, I don't own a
GPS (or a Bonanza, unfortunately), so I have no GPS manual to
review. But I'm afraid you didn't answer my question; I wanted to
know what regulation, if any, was being violated in the scenario.
What FAR prohibits the use of a handheld GPS during enroute IFR
flight? What regulation requires me to comply with the limitations
of my GPS? What regulation requires the GPS, or any other nav
system for that matter, to be approved for IFR enroute flight?

Sincerely,
Steven P. McNicoll


No further messages were received from FSDO "A".


From FSDO "B":


Dear Steven,

Does this operation violate any FAR?

FAR - "singular" NO, "pural" YES

or only if the FAA accident investigation team has to pry it out of
your cold hands at the site of the crash, otherwise no one will know.

Sorry, but I just can't pass up to opportunity to put a little humor into
my work. Seriously here is the"spin" that most FAA types put on
the answer to this question.

Hand held GPS units are not approved for flight into IFR conditions. Panel
mount GPS units may be certified for enroute portions only,
or the high dollar units that meet all the FAA's certification
requirements can be used for enroute and approaches, these units
are also panel mounted units.

Further, the panel mounted units are to be installed by properly
certificated technicians and the equipment list, weight and balance
of the aircraft should reflect the additional equipment. (No the FAA
doesn't make it easy.)

So in the case of a handheld GPS for IFR flight, the unit is not
certified for that use and is not authorized by FARs.

Richard Roe
FSDO "B"


Dear Mr. Roe,


Thank you for your response.

I appreciate humor as much as anyone, but I don't see how we
arrived "at the site of the crash". This operation presents no
undue hazard.

I'm aware that hand held GPS units are not approved for flight
into IFR conditions, and that GPS installations CAN be approved
for IFR flight. But after an extensive search, I cannot find any
regulation REQUIRING that GPS have that approval in order to
be used during IFR enroute flight.

You say that this operation would violate several FARs, could
you cite them please?

Sincerely,
Steven P. McNicoll


No further messages were received from FSDO "B".


From FSDO "C":


Dear Steve,

I am forwarding your question to our Avionics Inspector;
Apollo Garmin. This is in his area of expertise.

Thank you for using our website.

Guy Fawkes
FSDO "C"


Steve,

I got together with our Avionics Inspector and have an
answer for you.

"A PORTABLE GPS CANNOT BE APPROVED IN THE
AIRCRAFT FOR INSTRUMENT FLIGHT RULES (IFR) OR
VISUAL FLIGHT RULES UNLESS THE COMPLETE SYSTEM
IS INSTALLED AND EVALUATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE INTERIM POLICY GUIDANCE DATED MARCH 20, 1992,
AS AMENDED, PERTAINING TO THE APPROVAL OF GPS
EQUIPMENT."

VFR only not IFR.

Let me know if we can be of any further assistance.

Guy Fawkes
FSDO "C"


Dear Mr. Fawkes,

Thank you for your response. I understand that a portable
GPS receiver cannot be approved for IFR flight, but what
regulation prohibits a non-approved GPS receiver from
being used during IFR flight?

Steven P. McNicoll


Steven,

Per my Avionics Inspector the following 14CFR Paragraph
answers your question (specifically para (b)(5):
----------------------------------
 91.21 _ Portable Electronic Devices.


(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no
person may operate, nor may any operator or pilot in command
of an aircraft allow the operation of, any portable electronic device
on any of the following U.S.-registered civil aircraft:


(1) Aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier operating
certificate or an operating certificate; or


(2) Any other aircraft while it is operated under IFR.


(b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to-


(1) Portable voice recorders;


(2) Hearing aids;


(3) Heart pacemakers;


(4) Electric shavers; or


(5) Any other portable electronic device that the operator of
the aircraft has determined will not cause interference with the
navigation or communication system of the aircraft on which it
is to be used.


(c) In the case of an aircraft operated by a holder of an air
carrier operating certificate or an operating certificate, the
determination required by paragraph (b)(5) of this section shall
be made by that operator of the aircraft on which the particular
device is to be used. In the case of other aircraft, the
determination may be made by the pilot in command or other
operator of the aircraft.
------------------------


Guy Fawkes
FSDO "C"


Dear Mr. Fawkes,


FAR 91.21(b)(5) permits the operation of any portable electronic
device, other than a portable voice recorder, hearing aid, heart pacemaker,
or electric shaver, that the operator of the aircraft has determined will
not cause interference with the navigation or communication system of the
aircraft on which it is to be used.
Recall that in my scenario I stated that I had previously determined
that my handheld GPS receiver does not cause interference with
the navigation or communication system on my airplane. It seems
to me that I have complied with FAR 91.21 to the letter.


Steven P. McNicoll


No further messages were received from FSDO "C"


From FSDO "D":


Dear Mr. Steven P. McNicoll,

In response to your question, does this operation violate
any FAR?

Yes, it does.

You may file IFR as a (slant) /A.

The handheld GPS is not acceptable as RNAV and is contrary to:

14 Code of Federal Regulations(CFR), Part 21 sub part K and O.

14 CFR 23.1307

14 CFR 23.1309(b)

14 CFR 91.21

14 CFR 91.205

These are referenced in FAA pamphlet FAA-P-8000-3.

Thank you for your interest in aviation safety. Please call if you have any
questions, (987) 654-3210.

Inspector John Smith
FSDO "D"


Dear Mr. Smith,

Thank you for your response. Please see below for additional
questions and comments.

Steven P. McNicoll


Dear Mr. Steven P. McNicoll

In response to your question, does this operation violate
any FAR?

Yes, it does.

You may file IFR as a (slant) /A.

The handheld GPS is not acceptable as RNAV


What regulation specifies what is acceptable and what is not
acceptable as RNAV?


and is contrary to:
14 Code of Federal Regulations(CFR), Part 21 sub part K and O.

How can that be? A handheld GPS is not a part or an appliance,
it is not installed in or attached to the aircraft. To my knowledge
there is no regulation that requires a GPS receiver to comply with
a TSO.


14 CFR 23.1307

I don't see how Part 23 is applicable at all, this does not involve
any change to a type certificate.

A handheld GPS receiver is not equipment necessary for the
airplane to operate at the maximum operating altitude or in the
kinds of operations and meteorological conditions for which it
is certified. Why would it need to be included in the type design?
Given that it is a portable device, how could it be included in the
type design?


14 CFR 23.1309(b)

14 CFR 23.1309(b) refers to installed equipment, but a
handheld GPS is not installed equipment.


14 CFR 91.21

Recall that I had previously determined my handheld GPS does
not cause interference with the navigation or communication
system on my airplane.


14 CFR 91.205

How is this regulation being violated? My aircraft contains all
of the instruments and equipment specified 14 CFR 91.205 for
IFR operations, and those instruments and items of equipment
are in operable condition.


These are referenced in FAA pamphlet FAA-P-8000-3.

How may I obtain this pamphlet?


Thank you for your interest in aviation safety.
Please call if you have any questions, (987) 654-3210.

Inspector John Smith
FSDO "D"



Dear Mr. Steven P. McNicoll,

Your Bonanza was probably built in accordance with 14 CFR 23
(FAR 23), and if you intend to use the aircraft for IFR flight, it
should have the equipment specified in 14 CFR 91.205. The
hand-held GPS is not included in 91.205 because it is not
approved for IFR flight. In fact no GPS systems are mentioned
in 91.205, any GPS system that is approved for IFR use and is
going to be permanently installed in an aircraft needs to be
approved for that specific make and model of aircraft. The FAA
will not approve a GPS installation for IFR use if the GPS unit
wasn't manufactured to the minimum specifications of Technical
Standard Order-129A (TSO-C129A). At this point in time, no
hand-held GPS unit meets the minimum specifications spelled
out in TSO-C129A. TSO-C129A specifies the criteria by which
an installed GPS system, intended for certification in IFR
operations, will be built. A hand-held, portable GPS is not built
to these specifications.


The pamphlet(FAA-P-8000-3) we previously mentioned is available
at "http://gps.faa.gov/Library/gps1.pdf" on the Internet. In
FAA-P-8000-3, chapter 1, page 1-7, the first paragraph under
section 1.3. Hand-held or portable GPS receivers may be used
as a supplement to Visual Flight Rules only.

If you have any further questions you should contact your local F. A.
A. FSDO for more information. We are an Air Carrier Office and
deal with the airlines. Your local FSDO will have Inspectors who
deal with Part 91 operators. From the address on your e-mail it
appears that you are in the Milwaukee FSDO area. There phone
number is (414) 486-2920. They also have an Internet web-site.
The address is: "http://www.faa.gov/fsdo/mke".


Thank You,
Inspector John Smith
FSDO "D"


Dear Mr. Smith,

Thank you for your response. Please see additional comments
and questions below.

Sincerely,

Steven P. McNicoll


Dear Mr. Steven P. McNicoll,

Your Bonanza was probably built in accordance with
14 CFR 23 (FAR 23), and if you intend to use the aircraft
for IFR flight, it should have the equipment specified in
14 CFR 91.205.

Please understand that this is a completely hypothetical scenario,
I do not own a Bonanza. My hypothetical Bonanza contains all of
the instruments and equipment specified in 14 CFR 91.205.


The hand-held GPS is not included in 91.205 because it is
not approved for IFR flight.

If my aircraft contains all of the instruments and equipment
specified in 14 CFR 91.205, then I am in compliance with that
regulation. What regulation prevents me from using a device
that is not mentioned in 91.205?


In fact no GPS systems are mentioned in 91.205, any GPS
system that is approved for IFR use and is going to be
permanently installed in an aircraft needs to be approved for
that specific make and model of aircraft. The FAA will not
approve a GPS installation for IFR use if the GPS unit wasn't
manufactured to the minimum specifications of Technical
Standard Order-129A (TSO-C129A). At this point in time,
no hand-held GPS unit meets the minimum specifications
spelled out in TSO-C129A. TSO-C129A specifies the
criteria by which an installed GPS system, intended for
certification in IFR operations, will be built.

A hand-held, portable GPS is not built to these specifications.

I understand that, but I can find no regulation that requires a GPS
receiver that is used for IFR enroute flight to be permanently
installed in the aircraft or to meet the specifications of TSO C-129a.


The pamphlet(FAA-P-8000-3) we previously mentioned is
available at "http://gps.faa.gov/Library/gps1.pdf" on the
Internet.

In FAA-P-8000-3, chapter 1, page 1-7, the first paragraph
under section 1.3. Hand-held or portable GPS receivers
may be used as a supplement to Visual Flight Rules only.

I don't believe that pamphlet has the force of law. The FAA
publishes the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) to make
readily available to the aviation community the regulatory
requirements placed upon them. If a GPS receiver that did
not meet the standards of TSO C-129a was not to be used
during IFR flight, then there would be an FAR that required
any GPS receiver used during IFR flight to meet that standard.


If you have any further questions you should contact your local F. A.
A. FSDO for more information. We are an Air Carrier Office and
deal with the airlines. Your local FSDO will have Inspectors who
deal with Part 91 operators. From the address on your e-mail it
appears that you are in the Milwaukee FSDO area. There phone
number is (414) 486-2920. They also have an Internet web-site.
The address is: "http://www.faa.gov/fsdo/mke".

Thank You,
Inspector John Smith
FSDO "D"

I have contacted eleven of the fourteen FSDOs in the Great Lakes Region. I
gave them all this same scenario and asked them all the
same question. Seven of them responded, all stating that
navigation by handheld GPS receiver during enroute flight under
IFR is illegal, but none of them could cite any law that would be
violated by such use! It seems to me that if it is illegal, then there
must be a regulation that is being violated; if there is no regulation
being violated, then it is not illegal.

Sincerely,
Steven P. McNicoll


No further messages were received from FSDO "D".

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 08:06:39 -0700, Newps wrote:

Turned out, ATC had me heading to a VOR 90 miles away!

90 miles doesn't require a GPS, although it makes it easier to fly.

Your right Newps. I was only trying to use the GPS to figure the distant
and time as my DME didn't pickup York VOR until I was about 60 some odd
miles away.

I wanted to evaluate my fuel situation and see how far off course this
reroute would take me. I already was going to be in the air 4 hours based
on a direct routing, so the reroute could have caused me to start
considering a fuel stop b4 Bowling Green.

To be honest, tracking a VOR or flying a GPS track really isn't that much
different when you look at the whole scheme of things.

Just a little less variation with GPS, sorta like comparing the DG to the
wet compass. DG makes it easier, but tracking a straight line, wet compass
does just as well with a little variation.

Allen