How long before /G required for IFR?

Dan Thompson wrote:

Tim, some of the other guys are playing around with you a little bit, but
I'll spell it out for you since I started it.

Thanks for "helping" me. Have you ever heard of Class I and Class II
navigation? Those are ICAO terms that define what constitutes acceptable IFR
navigation in three different defined areas: domestic, oceanic, and remote land
mass. The United States is a signatory to that convention. The VOR system is
thus considered the primary means of IFR navigation. With limited exceptions,
IFR-certified GPS is not approved as primary means in a non-radar environment in
domestic airspace. That is changing, of course. But, it does not include VFR
GPS units, which do not qualify for IFR navigation.



That reg says what you have to have onboard, but does not say what you will
or must use for navigation. IFR course tracking is a performance standard.
You must stay on the assigned course. How you do that is not specified or
regulated. What you use to fly that course is not specified or regulated.
Only that you fly that course, somehow.

So, you may use dead reckoning if you want to, radar vectors, celestial nav
(right!), or even (the crowd is on the edge of their seats in anticpation) a
tuna sandwich. The tuna sandwich must not, however, be placarded "VFR
only."

So, it is perfectly acceptable to look at your handheld GPS, see that it
says 237 degrees and 16 minutes to FUBAR, dead reckon by flying a 237
heading, and monitor your progress by reference to the handheld GPS.

wrote in message ...


Michael wrote:

But, how much longer will it be before /G is a de facto requirement?

IMO, more than 5 years but less than 15.

Already when I fly IFR (filed /U) controllers give me instructions
("proceed direct foobar") that require GPS

Well, they don't really. I bet you can do that with the M1 LORAN. Or
you could if it didn't come with a placard limiting it to VFR use only.
A handheld GPS will not come with such a placard, and there's no rule
that says you can't use it for enroute IFR (anyone who says otherwise
is welcome to quote chapter and verse from the approriate regulation -
NOT an advisory circular or AIM).

Try 91.205 (d) (2) for starters:

d) Instrument flight rules. For IFR flight, the following instruments and
equipment are required:

(2) Two-way radio communications system and navigational equipment
appropriate to the ground facilities to be used.

Think non-radar operations, where the controller isn't going to play
"Frick
and Frack" direct-to games with you. Failure to comply with 91.205 can
rapidly lead to 91.3, and the FAA attorneys win every time.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

In most VOR/DME
approaches track information is provided by a VOR and distance along
the track by DME, in this one it's just the opposite.

Is this true with all DME arcs? So, am I mistaken to believe that I can
legally fly this approach without a DME?

My understanding was that I use the VOR to provide radial information along
the arc, then use the IFR-certified GPS to provide the DME mileage to
remain within the confines of the arc.

This is how DME arcs were taught to me in an aircraft without DME two years
ago and I took away from this education that I would have been legal to fly
this approach.

--
Peter













----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

And cfeyeeye - if I fly an airplane with no navigation equipment
whatsoever except a compass, clock, and tuna sandwich, and accept an IFR
clearance direct to Fubar expecting to dead reckon my way there, would
you consider this legal according to the the regs (in the US)?

Absolutely, as long as the aircraft were equipped for IFR according to
the regulations, and the pilot did indeed follow the direct route to
where he was cleared.


So, in other words, it's legal if it's legal. Hmmm, I never thought of
it that way.

Let me rephrase.

if I fly an airplane which complies with all IFR requirements except for
those concerning navigation (which means it already has a clock and
compass), and =in=addition= carries =only= a tuna sandwich, would this
aircraft be properly equipped for an IFR flight in the United States in
controlled airspace outside of radar coverage? Would it be legal to
accept a clearance direct Fubar in this aircraft while in the clouds?

Jose
--
Nothing is more powerful than a commercial interest.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

wrote:

..... I am requied to have a clock "with a sweep second
hand..." etc, to be legal for IFR flight.

Does not mean I cannot use my Radio Shack timer to navigate.

Actually, the FAR has been changed to read:

"A clock with a sweep-second pointer or digital presentation."

So the RS timer would be legal. as the sole means of timing.

--
Marc J. Zeitlin
http://marc.zeitlin.home.comcast.net/
http://www.cozybuilders.org/
Copyright (c) 2005

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 13:28:05 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"Stan Prevost" wrote in message
...

Is it true that a controller may not issue an instruction to a pilot
that
would require the pilot to violate a rule of the FAR?


No. Pilots are required to abide by the FARs and controllers are required
to abide by FAA Order 7110.65.



So the answer to he question is realy "yes"?

No, the answer is really "No"

A controller may have no way of knowing if an instruction would "require" a
pilot to violate an FAR.

There are several specific instances in the .65 where it takes pains to note
that pilots adhere to FARs first and ATC second. Vectors and altitude
assignments to VFR aircraft are some that come to mind. The notes aren't
there to tell controllers not to issue the instructions; it's there to tell
controllers the pilot may not be able to comply.

I follow the .65 when I tell you where to take your airplane. It's up to
you to follow the FARs and tell me if you "can't get there from here."

"Peter R." wrote in message
...

Is this true with all DME arcs? So, am I mistaken to believe that I can
legally fly this approach without a DME?


No, it's not true with all DME arcs. It's true with this one because DME is
the principal instrument approach navigation source. I'm not aware of any
other approach like this one.

wrote in message
...

Don't have to.


You do if you wish to be taken seriously.

wrote in message
...

As an added note, I am requied to have a clock "with a sweep second
hand..." etc, to be legal for IFR flight.


Where is that required?

wrote in message
...

So the answer to he question is realy "yes"?


No, the answer to the question is really "No".

In a previous article, "Steven P. McNicoll" said:
wrote in message
.. .

As an added note, I am requied to have a clock "with a sweep second
hand..." etc, to be legal for IFR flight.


Where is that required?

91.205


--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
You can lead an idiot to knowledge but you cannot make him think. You can,
however, rectally insert the information, printed on stone tablets, using a
sharpened poker. -- Nicolai