More IFR with VFR GPS questions

Hi Folks-

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?
When I affirmed I was GPS equipped (knowing that mine is not
certified)? When I accepted the new clearance? 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?

Thanks for your thoughts.

Cheers,
--Chris

Chris Quaintance wrote:
Hi Folks-

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.

The wx is irrelavant.



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.

That's because it isn't legal. To be legal you have to be on a vector,
direct when able.



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

When you accepted a direct clearance that you can't fly without the GPS.



--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).

Right, good weather only makes you feel better, doesn't affect the legality.


Would you consider this risk
neglible?

Yes.

"Newps" wrote in message
. ..

That's because it isn't legal.

What law is being violated?



To be legal you have to be on a vector, direct when able.


In what law is that requirement found?

Chris Quaintance wrote:
Hi Folks-

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

In what way is your premise or your questions different from "the other thread"?

snip

My questions:
--Where did this situation actually break down in terms of regulations?
When I affirmed I was GPS equipped (knowing that mine is not
certified)? When I accepted the new clearance? Never?

Never, IMO... but we just descended into "the madness of the other thread."

--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?

Risk negligible, would accept without reference to the weather.

In article . com,
"Chris Quaintance" wrote:

Hi Folks-

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.

It is my understanding that you will only get a direct off-airway clearance
if you are in radar coverage. In that case (being in radar coverage), having
a VFR GPS handheld or the fanciest IFR-certified GPS installation imaginable
doesn't make any difference in the legality of accepting the clearance.

--
Bob Noel
New NHL? what a joke

Dave Butler wrote:
In what way is your premise or your questions different from "the other thread"?

The other thread was started questioning the wisdom of filing with "VFR
GPS" in the remarks section of one's flight plan. 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.

Oh, and I would also like to avoid the personal attacks, one-liners,
and general McNicoll-like flavor of the other thread, but that may
prove to be impossible.

Cheers,
--Chris

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.

Chris,

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.

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!

I figured as long as I remained above the OROCA and had my enroute maps
out, that I am legal, since I am able to fly to a navaid my plane was IFR
certified for.

So, in a nutshell, not a big deal providing you are above OROCA and fully
situational aware of your navaid surroundings.

Allen

Bob Noel wrote:




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.

Chris Quaintance wrote:

Dave Butler wrote:

In what way is your premise or your questions different from "the other thread"?


The other thread was started questioning the wisdom of filing with "VFR
GPS" in the remarks section of one's flight plan. 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.

Have you asked this question to FSDO?

A Lieberman 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.



I figured as long as I remained above the OROCA and had my enroute maps
out, that I am legal,

On a direct clearance like that ATC is responsible for terrain
seperation so you wouldn't have got that clearance unless you were above
the MVA/MIA.