More IFR with VFR GPS questions

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 19:01:21 GMT, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

If I have to fly to a VOR via a certain radial, to pick up an airway, no
big deal. Point I am trying to drive home is that ATC did recognize I was
slant Alpha.


Of course they did, it's right on the strip. But they also recognized you
had RNAV capability based of your filed route.

I'd have to respectfully disagree, as RNAV capability should be filed as
follows:

/Y LORAN, VOR/DME, or INS with no transponder
/C LORAN, VOR/DME, or INS with transponder (No Mode C)
/I LORAN, VOR/DME, or INS with transponder (Mode C)

Since I filed /A direct, that does not give any indication I have RNAV
capability.

Unless of course you wish to use that word assume, which you said yourself,
you don't do in newsgroups.

Allen

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

"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 must say you did your homework thoroughly (more thoroughly than anyone
at the FSDOs you corresponded with).

Nonetheless, I predict that if you ever got yourself into trouble using
a VFR GPS to navigate off-airways they'd nail you on a violation of
91.205(d)(2) (not to mention that old standby, 91.13).

"For IFR flight the following ... are required: ... navigational
equipment appropriate to the ground facilities being used."

This regulation was clearly written in the days before GPS, and it
hinges entirely on the meaning of the word "appropriate." But I think
it would be a mighty tough row to hoe in front of an administrative law
judge that a GPS that is explicitly not approved for IFR navigation is
nevertheless "appropriate" for IFR navigation, or that the reg is not
applicable because the GPS satellites aren't on the ground.

rg

In article ,
Ron Garret wrote:

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

"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 must say you did your homework thoroughly (more thoroughly than anyone
at the FSDOs you corresponded with).

Nonetheless, I predict that if you ever got yourself into trouble using
a VFR GPS to navigate off-airways they'd nail you on a violation of
91.205(d)(2) (not to mention that old standby, 91.13).

"For IFR flight the following ... are required: ... navigational
equipment appropriate to the ground facilities being used."

This regulation was clearly written in the days before GPS, and it
hinges entirely on the meaning of the word "appropriate." But I think
it would be a mighty tough row to hoe in front of an administrative law
judge that a GPS that is explicitly not approved for IFR navigation is
nevertheless "appropriate" for IFR navigation, or that the reg is not
applicable because the GPS satellites aren't on the ground.

Followup: there's also AIM 1-1-19 (d)(1)(a): "... VFR and handheld GPS
systems are not authorized for IFR navigation ... [under IFR] they may
be considered only an aid to situational awareness."

The AIM is not regulatory, but could reasonably be brought to bear when
determining the meaning of the word "appropriate" in FAR 91.205(d)(2).

I note in passing that the AIM 1-1-19(b)(3) has an extensive discussion
of the risks of relying on a VFR GPS in IMC.

rg

In article ,
Ron Garret wrote:

Followup: there's also AIM 1-1-19 (d)(1)(a): "... VFR and handheld GPS
systems are not authorized for IFR navigation ... [under IFR] they may
be considered only an aid to situational awareness."

The AIM is not regulatory, but could reasonably be brought to bear when
determining the meaning of the word "appropriate" in FAR 91.205(d)(2).

I note in passing that the AIM 1-1-19(b)(3) has an extensive discussion
of the risks of relying on a VFR GPS in IMC.

and note that the AIM has been updated a few times with the intent of
clarifying the use of handheld GPS for IFR operations. IOW - the FAA has
had many chances to "correct" the AIM.

--
Bob Noel
New NHL? what a joke

"A Lieberman" wrote in message
. ..

I'd have to respectfully disagree, as RNAV capability should be filed as
follows:

/Y LORAN, VOR/DME, or INS with no transponder
/C LORAN, VOR/DME, or INS with transponder (No Mode C)
/I LORAN, VOR/DME, or INS with transponder (Mode C)


As well as /E, /F, /G, /R, /J, /K, /L, and /Q.



Since I filed /A direct, that does not give any indication I have RNAV
capability.


Yes it does. Any time you file a direct route between airports hundreds of
miles apart you're indicating you have RNAV capability. Do you really think
ATC will conclude you cannot navigate the route you filed because you filed
/A and then clear you as filed?



Unless of course you wish to use that word assume, which you said
yourself, you don't do in newsgroups.


Can you see now why I don't assume anything in these groups?

"A Lieberman" wrote in message
. ..

I'd have to respectfully disagree, as RNAV capability should be filed as
follows:

/Y LORAN, VOR/DME, or INS with no transponder
/C LORAN, VOR/DME, or INS with transponder (No Mode C)
/I LORAN, VOR/DME, or INS with transponder (Mode C)


As well as /E, /F, /G, /R, /J, /K, /L, and /Q.



Since I filed /A direct, that does not give any indication I have RNAV
capability.


Yes it does. Any time you file a direct route between airports hundreds of
miles apart you're indicating you have RNAV capability. Do you really think
ATC will conclude you cannot navigate the route you filed because you filed
/A and then clear you as filed?



Unless of course you wish to use that word assume, which you said
yourself, you don't do in newsgroups.


Can you see now why I don't assume anything in these groups?

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 06:55:52 GMT, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

Since I filed /A direct, that does not give any indication I have RNAV
capability.


Yes it does. Any time you file a direct route between airports hundreds of
miles apart you're indicating you have RNAV capability. Do you really think
ATC will conclude you cannot navigate the route you filed because you filed
/A and then clear you as filed?

I reiterate, I filed /a

Filing slant alpha does not infer I have RNAV capability. I don't care if
it's 30 miles or 300 miles.

I could fly by wet compass and stop watch in theory (dead reckoning).

You said you don't want to use the word assume..... What you say above
infers that ATC will assume.....

"A Lieberman" wrote in message
...

I reiterate, I filed /a


Yes, I know. Try to understand, filing /A does NOT mean that you have no
RNAV capability. It's quite common for pilots to file /A and navigate with
handheld GPS.



Filing slant alpha does not infer I have RNAV capability. I don't care if
it's 30 miles or 300 miles.


No, filing /A does not imply that you have RNAV capability, but filing
direct from one airport to another one 337 miles away does.



I could fly by wet compass and stop watch in theory (dead reckoning).

You said you don't want to use the word assume..... What you say above
infers that ATC will assume.....


I didn't say I don't want to use the word assume, I said I've learned it's
best not to assume anything in these forums. ATC inferred you had some RNAV
capability because you implied it when you filed direct from 2G2 to BWG. If
they hadn't assumed you had RNAV capability you wouldn't have been cleared
as filed, and you wouldn't have been cleared direct to a fix some ninety
miles away.

Fight! Fight!

Hey Steve, I win!

I have proof at :
http://googlefight.com/index.php?lan...l&word2=D oug

Nice try though....

What if I'm using a ham sandwich?