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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
More IFR with VFR GPS questions
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
More IFR with VFR GPS questions
"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? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
More IFR with VFR GPS questions
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
More IFR with VFR GPS questions
In article . com,
"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. 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. It is my understanding that you will only get a direct off-airway clearance if you are in radar coverage. In that case (being in radar coverage), having a VFR GPS handheld or the fanciest IFR-certified GPS installation imaginable doesn't make any difference in the legality of accepting the clearance. -- Bob Noel New NHL? what a joke |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
More IFR with VFR GPS questions
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
More IFR with VFR GPS questions
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
More IFR with VFR GPS questions
Bob Noel wrote: It is my understanding that you will only get a direct off-airway clearance if you are in radar coverage. The rule says you also have to be out of the service volume of the navaid. This is routinely ignored. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
More IFR with VFR GPS questions
Chris Quaintance wrote: 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. Have you asked this question to FSDO? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
More IFR with VFR GPS questions
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions List (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | December 2nd 04 07:00 AM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions List (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | September 2nd 04 05:15 AM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | May 1st 04 07:29 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 2 | February 2nd 04 11:41 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 4 | August 7th 03 05:12 AM |