More IFR with VFR GPS questions

"A Lieberman" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 08:52:22 -0700, Newps wrote:

Robert M. Gary wrote:
What if I'm using a ham sandwich?

Can you get those with moving maps now?

Only with cheese on top :-)

Swiss map.

On 11/28/05 1:10 PM, in article
, "Doug"
wrote:


IFR GPS's are getting inexpensive enough so that it's becoming a moot
point anyway. Why not just get a used King KLN89 and get it certified
and you will have all you legally need to file /G, no questions asked.
Then use your handheld as a backup to that unit, if it fails. And as a
backup to that unit if there is any ambiguity on the integrety of the
signal. If both units don't agree, there is a problem. If one unit
fails and the other doesn't that tells you its the unit and not the
satellites etc. For full safety you need two units anyway. The reason
why most IFR aircraft have two VOR's, not one. Safe IFR flight is all
about having redundancy. A handheld gives good redundancy to a built in
unit.

Stay safe!


Renters don't have the option of installing IFR certified GPS units in the
aircraft they fly. As the next best option, I bought an Airmap 2000C.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino

Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com

More Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

Wizard of Draws wrote:

Renters don't have the option of installing IFR certified GPS units in the
aircraft they fly. As the next best option, I bought an Airmap 2000C.

Renters do have the option of not renting planes that aren't equipped the
way they want. We're rapidly getting to the point where anything that
doesn't have at least an en-route IFR certified GPS is unmarketable as a
rental. My club is already on its third generation of GPS boxes.

In article ,
(Ron Lee) wrote:

Ron Garret wrote:
Just to interject a comment here. Use of a handheld to supplement other
instruments, or even to supplement radar vectors, under IFR flight
rules, is what I would call a gray area of FAA rules. On the one hand
it's not really expressly PROHIBITED. But it's not expressly permitted
either. The OFFICIAL word, because of liability and the FAA's history
of wanting things to be certified, is you can't do it.

Not so. The AIM specifically endorses the use of handheld GPS as an aid
to situational awareness.

rg

Which is different than a primary means of navigation.

That's true, but what does that have to do with the matter under
discussion?

rg

Which is different than a primary means of navigation.


That's true, but what does that have to do with the matter under
discussion?

The constant use of "use" to mean "rely on", and the resulting commotion
while posters who successfully tricked people into their game snicker.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Newps" wrote in message
. ..

It's not gray. You are on a vector.


You are on a vector when and only when you're instructed to fly a specific
heading or when instructed to turn a specific number of degrees in a
specific direction.



Right, ATC doesn't get into enforcement. You can very easily, and much
more accurately, fly an NDB approach with a handheld GPS. But it ain't
legal. Same with direct using a handheld. Your beef will be with FSDO.


There's nothing illegal in the use of a handheld GPS for IFR enroute flight
in US controlled airspace.

In article .net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

Right, ATC doesn't get into enforcement. You can very easily, and much
more accurately, fly an NDB approach with a handheld GPS. But it ain't
legal. Same with direct using a handheld. Your beef will be with FSDO.


There's nothing illegal in the use of a handheld GPS for IFR enroute flight
in US controlled airspace.

There is if you use it for primary navigation, which you would be if you
were flying direct to an intersection rather than a VOR, or direct to a
VOR that you can't receive at your current location.

rg

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...

There is if you use it for primary navigation, which you would be if you
were flying direct to an intersection rather than a VOR, or direct to a
VOR that you can't receive at your current location.


What law would that violate?

In article .net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...

There is if you use it for primary navigation, which you would be if you
were flying direct to an intersection rather than a VOR, or direct to a
VOR that you can't receive at your current location.


What law would that violate?

FAR 91.205(d)(2)

I pointed this out earlier. See
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...4a4e29a423522f

rg