A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Instrument Flight Rules
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

IFR use of handheld GPS



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old May 4th 06, 11:57 PM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default IFR use of handheld GPS


"Doug" wrote in message
oups.com...
Nah, a real pilot would cross correlate the waypoint off of two VOR's,
then use the DG (that precesses mightily), set from the compass (that
swings a lot in the turbulence) to navigate to the said waypoint, so
when he gets back to the base he can give the neophytes next to the
water cooler a blow by blow account of the whole heroic deed......


Doug, you sound like one of the few on this group who actually know how to
fly.



  #42  
Old May 5th 06, 12:11 AM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default IFR use of handheld GPS

Interesting. Thanks.

On Thu, 04 May 2006 16:01:11 -0600, Newps wrote:



Tim Auckland wrote:
Newps,

If using a hand-held GPS as a significant IFR navigation tool is
against the spirit of the FARs, surely the FAA could put an end to the
practice very simply by strongly discouraging controllers from issuing
Direct-To clearances to /A and /U aircraft


It's already there, the controller simply needs to read the book.



It doesn't appear to have done so, even though the debate has been
going on since at least 1998.


It's like anything else in the FAA, they don't care until you wreck
something. Then the FAA will buy part or all of your airplane when you sue.


  #43  
Old May 5th 06, 02:27 AM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default IFR use of handheld GPS

Newps wrote:


Tim Auckland wrote:

Newps,

If using a hand-held GPS as a significant IFR navigation tool is
against the spirit of the FARs, surely the FAA could put an end to the
practice very simply by strongly discouraging controllers from issuing
Direct-To clearances to /A and /U aircraft



It's already there, the controller simply needs to read the book.



It doesn't appear to have done so, even though the debate has been
going on since at least 1998.



It's like anything else in the FAA, they don't care until you wreck
something. Then the FAA will buy part or all of your airplane when you
sue.


And, part of the "they" is the controller workforce, except they don't
pay any part of the settlement.
  #44  
Old May 5th 06, 02:32 AM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default IFR use of handheld GPS

You are not allowed to use an IFR-certified GPS for en route (domestic
airspace) in a non-radar environment except with the special Alaska
provisions.

The fact that ATC may clear you via direct via RNAV when non-radar does
not relieve you of your regulatory responsibilites.

Roger wrote:

On Wed, 3 May 2006 19:55:06 -0400, "William L.Snow, PE"
wrote:


Simply said, ifr use of vfr gps is not in the spirit of the far's.



Is it or isn't it? Think about it for a minute.

You can file IFR accept an IFR direct clearance by simply flying
vectors, so it matters little what you have in the plane for equipment
as long as you have the equipment necessary to make any required
approache(s)

Let's say there is a 100 miles of rain between where I am now which is
CAVU and my destination is CAVU. I have enough gas to turn around and
come back home if need be and I have only the minimum required
instruments for legally fly in IMC.

I see the storm ahead, air file, ATC gives me a vector or vectors as
need be. I come out the other side of the storm and close the flight
plan although I have in the real world had them ask that I stay with
them until the destination is in sight and VFR.

This is strictly legal when in a RADAR environment.

Now say I have my trusty 296 with me. I still file with the same
equipment suffix as I would have used without the 296. I am legal in
every sense of the FARs and in addition I have a backup hand held GPS
which I can use for my position and course and ATC is happy to have me
do so. I do not need to tell them I have GPS. I can request direct
and they can tell me cleared direct or direct when able to where ever
with out a request from me. I can accept said "cleared direct", reply
"unable, or request vectors.

Now in real life I happen to have RNAV (not GPS). I have the
equipment go from point A to point B in the system be it direct, by
vectors, or airways which meets the intent of the FARs. That I choose
to do so by following my 296 is immaterial as I have all of the
equipment in the plane to meet the equipment suffix I used when
filing.

If the internal batteries in the 296 die, and I've forgotten the
lighter plug adapter, it is my responsibility to be able to properly
fly the clearance even if it is done by requesting vectors. However I
have a panel full of *stuff* that should enable me to do so without
having to request vectors if I have been paying attention and I keep
everything set up including the ADF to watch stations along the route.

The thing I've never figured out is whey do they bother with "enroute
certified GPS" when there is no need for enroute certified GPS UNLESS
this pertains specifically to panel mounted instruments.
You don't need enroute certified anything as long as you are in RADAR
contact and you can not get a direct clearance if you are not in RADAR
contact regardless of what ever certified equipment you have..

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

  #45  
Old May 5th 06, 02:35 AM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default IFR use of handheld GPS

Jose wrote:

Way off topic, Jose, but take a look at this from FAA Legal Opinions[...]



As outlined above, it is our opinion that compensation for the flight
exists in two forms: [...] and (2) the acquisition of pilot in
command time, which can be used to demonstrate aeronautical
experience eligibility for an airman certificate.



I'm aware that the FAA has decided, without making rules, what
constitutes "compensation". In my mind they are making this law up out
of whole cloth, without going through a proper rulemaking procedure.
Nonetheless, they will hang you on it.

In like manner, I am convinced the FAA will hang you on reliance (not
"use") on a handheld GPS in IMC under IFR. The FAA doesn't appear to
need to make official rules.

Thus my proposing the parallel.

Jose


A legal interp has the full force and effect of regulation. Keep in
mind, FARs are federal civil law, so the FAA, like the IRS (in
non-criminal tax cases) holds more cards than the "taxpayer."
  #46  
Old May 5th 06, 03:13 AM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default IFR use of handheld GPS



Sam Spade wrote:



And, part of the "they" is the controller workforce, except they don't
pay any part of the settlement.


They is the US taxpayer. I cannot be sued.
  #47  
Old May 5th 06, 03:55 AM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default IFR use of handheld GPS

On Thu, 04 May 2006 13:41:13 -0700, Sam Spade
wrote:

Newps wrote:


Sam Spade wrote:


The "rule" is that direct routes initiated by ATC are limited to the
service volume of VOR (or rarely, NDBs) and the controller can assure
that MIAs will not be violated.

When the pilot makes the request, though, let the buyer beware.





It is irrelavant who makes the request, the rules are the same.


That's sure what is says on paper. Still, let the "buyer beware" when
he makes the request.


Why?

I regularly file, 3BS direct LDM (94 miles), Direct MTW(55 miles),
Direct OSH (39 miles). Coming home I file the reverse but still direct
Each is in a different sector. 3BS (Cleveland Center) is an airport,
LMD(Minneapolis Center) is an NDB, MTW (Green Bay?) is a VOR, and OSH
is both an airport and VOR (Chicago)

Altitudes vary between 5,000 and 8,000 although I have been sent
higher on occasion.

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


  #48  
Old May 5th 06, 07:03 AM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default IFR use of handheld GPS

On Thu, 04 May 2006 18:58:22 GMT, Jose
wrote:

Way off topic, Jose, but take a look at this from FAA Legal Opinions[...]


As outlined above, it is our opinion that compensation for the flight
exists in two forms: [...] and (2) the acquisition of pilot in
command time, which can be used to demonstrate aeronautical
experience eligibility for an airman certificate.


I wonder what they'd say in my case as more hours wouldn't qualify me
for anything including ratings.

I'm aware that the FAA has decided, without making rules, what
constitutes "compensation". In my mind they are making this law up out
of whole cloth, without going through a proper rulemaking procedure.
Nonetheless, they will hang you on it.

In like manner, I am convinced the FAA will hang you on reliance (not


They can "hang" you for relying on anything to the exclusion of
something else. IE ... fixation. He was neglecting his scan and
fixating on the AI, or altimeter, or making sure his passenger had
their head in the "lunch bag", or he was watching the left wing as it
broke off instead of flying the airplane, or maybe someone heard the
pilot wasn't feeling good so he/she must have been flying when they
shouldn't.

I'm firmly of the opinion that any time something important breaks I
should be some where else.


Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
"use") on a handheld GPS in IMC under IFR. The FAA doesn't appear to
need to make official rules.

Thus my proposing the parallel.

Jose

  #49  
Old May 5th 06, 10:36 AM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default IFR use of handheld GPS

Newps wrote:


Sam Spade wrote:



And, part of the "they" is the controller workforce, except they don't
pay any part of the settlement.



They is the US taxpayer. I cannot be sued.


You said previously "they don't care until you wreck something." I took
that to mean the FAA, given the context. The taxpayers aren't sued in
any case; it's the government.
  #50  
Old May 5th 06, 10:40 AM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default IFR use of handheld GPS

Roger wrote:

On Thu, 04 May 2006 13:41:13 -0700, Sam Spade
wrote:


Newps wrote:


Sam Spade wrote:


The "rule" is that direct routes initiated by ATC are limited to the
service volume of VOR (or rarely, NDBs) and the controller can assure
that MIAs will not be violated.

When the pilot makes the request, though, let the buyer beware.




It is irrelavant who makes the request, the rules are the same.


That's sure what is says on paper. Still, let the "buyer beware" when
he makes the request.



Why?

My caution applies primarily in the Western DMA. You are home free in
the middle of the country above 4,000, or so, and 8,000, or so in the
Eastern DMA. In the Western DMA there are airways a whole lot lower
than areas between them.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
HANDHELD RADIO [email protected] Soaring 22 March 17th 16 04:16 PM
Navcom - handheld VS panel ? [email protected] Home Built 10 October 31st 05 09:08 PM
GPS Handheld Kai Glaesner Instrument Flight Rules 2 November 16th 04 05:01 PM
Upgrade handheld GPS, or save for panel mount? [email protected] Owning 7 March 8th 04 04:33 PM
Ext antenna connection for handheld radio Ray Andraka Owning 7 March 5th 04 02:10 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.