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.

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

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.

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 08:06:39 -0700, Newps 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.

Your right Newps. I was only trying to use the GPS to figure the distant
and time as my DME didn't pickup York VOR until I was about 60 some odd
miles away.

I wanted to evaluate my fuel situation and see how far off course this
reroute would take me. I already was going to be in the air 4 hours based
on a direct routing, so the reroute could have caused me to start
considering a fuel stop b4 Bowling Green.

To be honest, tracking a VOR or flying a GPS track really isn't that much
different when you look at the whole scheme of things.

Just a little less variation with GPS, sorta like comparing the DG to the
wet compass. DG makes it easier, but tracking a straight line, wet compass
does just as well with a little variation.

Allen

"A Lieberman" wrote in message
...

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.


You had originally filed direct from one airport to another one 337 miles
away. How did you intend to do that if you were unable to accept a reroute
to something other than a standard VOR or intersection?



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!


YRK vortac is 148 miles southwest of 2G2. Do you believe there's something
wrong with being routed over a VOR that far away?

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 15:07:14 GMT, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

You had originally filed direct from one airport to another one 337 miles
away. How did you intend to do that if you were unable to accept a reroute
to something other than a standard VOR or intersection?

Precisely my point Steve.

Even though I filed direct, off airwaves, ATC recognized my limitation that
I could only accept a standard VOR or intersection. It was NOT assumed by
ATC that I had GPS capability even though I filed direct.

Had they given me a GPS intersection rather then a VOR or VOR associated
intersection, I would have said unable, alerting them to the fact I am
slant Alpha. That was the point I was trying to bring across in my
original post.

This was my first reroute in my short flying career, and overall, in spite
of my uncertainty in the first few minutes, it turned out to be a non
event.

YRK vortac is 148 miles southwest of 2G2. Do you believe there's something
wrong with being routed over a VOR that far away?

Considering there are quite a few VORs closer then YRK, I was not looking
that far down the road in establishing where I am to where I am going. I
was looking within 45 to 60 miles, not so far down the road.

I am situationally aware of what my next VOR will be when I fly IFR, as I
have them printed as well having the en route maps open. I also change my
NAV 1 and NAV 2 as I progress in my flight path to assist in my situation
awareness.

The problem I had as slight as it was, was finding the frequency to the
VOR. Wasn't in the list of nrst on my Garmin 296, and being in IMC, it's
not exactly conducive of finding a navaid on the paper maps especially 90
odd miles away. I wasn't given a vector, just direct York, direct Bowling
green, so I did not know what direction to look on the en route maps. Had
center given me a vector, I at least would have known which direction to
look.

I would have expected a closer VOR, not one 90 miles away to go direct to.
As you can see, not that big a deal, but for a person like me, learning the
ropes of IFR, when I am by myself, I don't have CRM available. Small
things do make a big difference.

So, like I said in my original post, I spoke up and asked the questions I
needed answered to make my flight safer.

No big deal in the full scheme of things, but since this was my first
reroute, it does make the heart go a little faster as I don't want to do
the wrong thing. All the training in the world does not give you the real
world scenarios.

Allen