Is VFR GPS use legal?
wom...@netserve.net
It is placarded for VFR use only. What are the limitiations for using
it for instrument flight? Can I use it as an en-route supplement to
the nav heads or ...?
Thx!
Bob Noel
You cannot use the VFR GPS for primary or supplemental means
of IFR navigation (see below). You can, however, use it
for situational awareness.
http://www.fedworld.gov/pub/faa-oai/fsat9404.txt
selected quotes:
ORDER: 8400.10 and 8700.1
"2. BACKGROUND. The Department of Defense declared initial
operational capability (IOC) of the U.S. GPS on December 8, 1993.
On February 17, 1993, FAA Administrator David Hinson declared that
the Global Positioning System is operational and an "integral part"
of the U.S. air traffic control system. This bulletin provides
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) approval for U.S. civil
operators to use GPS equipment to conduct oceanic, domestic en
route, terminal IFR operations, and certain instrument approach
procedures (IAP) under the conditions specified herein. This
approval permits the use of GPS in a manner that is consistent with
current navigation requirements."
"A. The GPS avionics equipment used must be approved in accordance
with the requirements specified in technical standards order (TSO)
C-129, or equivalent, and the installation must be made in
accordance with Notice 8110.47 or 8110.48, the equivalent advisory
circular or the Flight Standards/Aircraft Certification (AFS/AIR)
joint guidance memorandum dated July 20, 1992. Equipment approved
to TSO C-115A does not meet the requirements of TSO C-129."
"Provided the general requirements of this bulletin are met, GPS
domestic en route and terminal IFR operations can be conducted as
soon as the proper avionics systems are installed. "
Available from NTIS is FAA-P-8000-3, A guide for the approval of
GPS receiver installation and operation.
--
Bob
(I think people can figure out how to email me...)
(replace ihatessppaamm with my name (rnoel) and hw1 with mediaone)
Tarver Engineering
Bob Noel wrote in message ...
>In article <3660860b...@news.flash.net>, wom...@netserve.net wrote:
>
>> I have a Garmin 250XL GPS-Com in my plane.
>> It is placarded for VFR use only. What are the limitiations for using
>> it for instrument flight? Can I use it as an en-route supplement to
>> the nav heads or ...?
>>
>> Thx!
>
>You cannot use the VFR GPS for primary or supplemental means
>of IFR navigation (see below). You can, however, use it
>for situational awareness.
You might want to remember the term "information only" in reference to your
VFR GPS; if you are challenged as to its use.
John
>http://www.fedworld.gov/pub/faa-oai/fsat9404.txt
Jon
When I told them I had a handheld, vfr only, they said "I didn't ask that!".
And they proceed to clear me gps direct...
Still, though, not supposed to use VFR gps on IFR flight. I do use it for
reference, though.
wom...@netserve.net wrote in message <3660860b...@news.flash.net>...
Bob Gardner
airline pilot/Bonanza owner John Deakin and use your GPS without a care
in the world.
Bob Gardner
john price
this?...
YES... Do they care?... Don't seem to... I've seen a number of stories
that
kinda go like:
ATC: Can you fly direct XYZ?
A/C: I have a handheld GPS
ATC: I don't want to know that.... can you fly direct XYZ?
A/C: Can you give me a vector? (just to make it sound ok on the tapes)
ATC: Fly heading 123
John
Newps
>
> Again this is in a radar environment and during VFR
> conditions. Even IFR GPS direct has to be in a radar environment. Given hard
> IMC conditions down to minimums I would offer a different answer.
What difference does it make if you are in the clouds or not? You're not using
the gps to keep you right side up are you? And what does "down to minimums" mean?
You weren't talking about approaches, only enroute.
>
>
Newps
>
>
> ATC: Can you fly direct XYZ?
> A/C: I have a handheld GPS
> ATC: I don't want to know that.... can you fly direct XYZ?
> A/C: Can you give me a vector? (just to make it sound ok on the tapes)
> ATC: Fly heading 123
You aren't going direct in this case, you are on a vector. Doesn't matter if
you have a gps or not.
CFarthing
In article <3660d...@news.intplsrv.net>, "Jon" <side...@intplsrv.net>
writes:
>
>I've had controllers ask me (on an IFR flight plan) if I was gps equipped.
>When I told them I had a handheld, vfr only, they said "I didn't ask that!".
>And they proceed to clear me gps direct...
>
ATC was trying to teach you a lesson. Listen carefully to the question. They
know if you filed /G or not.
I fly the busy New England corridor, radar environment everywhere, and this is
one of the new short cuts. Mostly when IFR in VFR conditions. Haven't had them
ask yet when IMC. Of course the traffic/workload is less then also.
ATC will ask as you stated or they might ask, "Can you go XYZ direct?". Now I'm
listed as /U so they know if I say yes it's gonna be VFR GPS or Loran. I'll
answer, "Affirmative, on a heading of XXX".
Another way is they will say, "Direct XYZ when able, advise heading".
If asked I would say "I knew my current postion, I computed a bearing which I
flew until I was able to receive the VOR/NDB signal". Basically reverse Radar
Vectors. ATC knew which way I need to go, they just wanted to see if I could
navigate there myself. Again this is in a radar environment and during VFR
conditions. Even IFR GPS direct has to be in a radar environment. Given hard
IMC conditions down to minimums I would offer a different answer.
Charles
Reece R. Pollack
wrote:
>I've had controllers ask me (on an IFR flight plan) if I was gps equipped.
>When I told them I had a handheld, vfr only, they said "I didn't ask that!".
>And they proceed to clear me gps direct...
>Still, though, not supposed to use VFR gps on IFR flight. I do use it for
>reference, though.
Strictly speaking, you cannot legally accept a "GPS Direct" clearance
unless you have a GPS that is certified for IFR enroute use. Your
handheld does not qualify.
At the same time, however, ATC can legally clear you direct to any
point within RADAR coverage by issuing you vectors. If you have some
means of monitoring your own track, such as a VFR LORAN or GPS unit,
they won't have to provide as much assistance to keep you honest so
they're much more likely to issue direct clearances. I was once issued
a direct clearance to GAI (just north of Washington DC) from the
middle of South Carolina on this basis. Still, it is legally a
clearance on vectors, not GPS Direct.
Maybe some people will think I'm splitting hairs here. I don't think
so, and neither will the FAA if something bad happens. The proper way
to handle this is to decline the "GPS Direct" clearance and to advise
the controller you can accept vectors with an initial heading of
whatever the GPS suggests.
--
Reece R. Pollack
CP-ASMEL-IA -- N1707H Piper Arrow III (based KGAI)
Matt Dossey
Direct XYZ." In the past, I have never have requested "VOR direct XYZ."
ATC won't give you GPS direct anywhere there isn't radar coverage,
regardless of whether or not your GPS is TSO'd. They're not allowed to
The best way to do it is to say "request heading XXX direct XYZ." Although
the heading is not required no matter what sort of qualifications your GPS
has, it's my experience that expedites the process because it saves the
controller from having to look up a peculiar place that may or may not be in
his computer. I used to not give a heading, but far too often the
controller came back and asks for a lat/long and a heading.
Matt Dossey
Reece R. Pollack wrote in message <3663ddf0....@news4.his.com>...
William
Newps wrote:
I suggest that you focus on form over substance. The point is, in the real
world, (1) the vast majority of pilots don't have a "certified" GPS (2) these
pilots routinely use a "non-certified" GPS to fly in a straight line from point
A to point B (i.e., direct) and (3) ATC (and, by inference, the FAA) has no
problem with this................William
Keith Arnold
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> ATC: Can you fly direct XYZ?
>> A/C: I have a handheld GPS
>> ATC: I don't want to know that.... can you fly direct XYZ?
>> A/C: Can you give me a vector? (just to make it sound ok on the tapes)
>> ATC: Fly heading 123
>
>You aren't going direct in this case, you are on a vector. Doesn't matter if
>you have a gps or not.
>
=========>
Always thought direct meant going from A to B in a straight line. (Now
don't tell me there is no straight line because the Earth is curved.)
ô¿ô - Keith - 182L/STOL - Chino, California
N33° 58' 46" W117° 38' 41"
CFarthing
> What difference does it make if you are in the clouds or not? You're not
>using
>the gps to keep you right side up are you? And what does "down to minimums"
>mean?
>You weren't talking about approaches, only enroute.
>
Points well taken...
And for a timely article on the subject, check out
http://www.avweb.com/articles/pelperch/pelp0011.html
Michael Reilly
cfar...@aol.com says...
> Another way is they will say, "Direct XYZ when able, advise heading".
My airplane has an IFR certified GPS (/G) and I usually file direct. In
most cases I am cleared as filed (with a heading or two on departure).
When told by ATC that I may now proceed direct they always ask what
course I will be flying? Is this a requirement to verify that I've
programmed the GPS correctly? Or that I really have GPS and am able to
proceed direct?
michael
____ _____ ____
Michael Reilly mich...@cisco.com
Cisco Systems, Santa Cruz, CA
Newps
> (3) ATC (and, by inference, the FAA) has no
> problem with this................William
In this case you have to separate ATC from FAA. As a controller I'll clear you
direct, but if you accept it with a non certified gps and something happens, it's
your ass not mine. Not because a controller turns you in, we don't care. Anything
that makes my life easier I'll use.
LFransson
In article <MPG.10cd093c2...@news.cisco.com>, mich...@cisco.com
wrote:
>When told by ATC that I may now proceed direct they always ask what
>course I will be flying? Is this a requirement to verify that I've
>programmed the GPS correctly? Or that I really have GPS and am able to
>proceed direct?
Nope. They just want to know which way you're going so they can plan
accordingly.
Larry L. Fransson - ATP (CE-500), CFMEII
Macon, Georgia
"Pilots are just plane people with a different air about them."
Steven P. McNicoll
>It is placarded for VFR use only. What are the limitiations for using
>it for instrument flight? Can I use it as an en-route supplement to
>the nav heads or ...?
>
In this case the only limitation may be the placard itself. FAR 91.9(a)
says "no person may operate a civil aircraft without complying with the
operating limitations specified in the approved Airplane or Rotorcraft
Flight Manual, markings, and placards".
Steven P. McNicoll
john price wrote in message <3661D01A...@worldnet.att.net>...
>
>Is it legal?... NO...
>
What makes it illegal?
>
>Is everyone doing it?... YES... does ATC know
>this?...
>YES... Do they care?... Don't seem to... I've seen a number of stories
>that
>kinda go like:
>
>ATC: Can you fly direct XYZ?
>A/C: I have a handheld GPS
>ATC: I don't want to know that.... can you fly direct XYZ?
>A/C: Can you give me a vector? (just to make it sound ok on the tapes)
>ATC: Fly heading 123
>
>John
>
>Bob Gardner wrote:
>>
>> Go to www.avweb.com. Click on Columns. Read the Pelican's Perch column by
>> airline pilot/Bonanza owner John Deakin and use your GPS without a care
>> in the world.
>>
>> Bob Gardner
>>
>> wom...@netserve.net wrote:
>>
>> > I have a Garmin 250XL GPS-Com in my plane.
>> > It is placarded for VFR use only. What are the limitiations for using
>> > it for instrument flight? Can I use it as an en-route supplement to
>> > the nav heads or ...?
>> >
>> > Thx!
Steven P. McNicoll
Keith Arnold wrote in message <366311f...@news.jps.net>...
>>> A/C: I have a handheld GPS
>>> ATC: I don't want to know that.... can you fly direct XYZ?
>>> A/C: Can you give me a vector? (just to make it sound ok on the tapes)
>>> ATC: Fly heading 123
>>>
>>
>>if you have a gps or not.
>>
>
>don't tell me there is no straight line because the Earth is curved.)
>
"Direct" also means you're providing your own navigation, which you aren't
doing if you're on a radar vector.
Steven P. McNicoll
Reece R. Pollack wrote in message <3663ddf0....@news4.his.com>...
>On Sat, 28 Nov 1998 22:38:18 -0600, "Jon" <side...@intplsrv.net>
>wrote:
>
>>I've had controllers ask me (on an IFR flight plan) if I was gps equipped.
>>When I told them I had a handheld, vfr only, they said "I didn't ask
>>that!".
>>And they proceed to clear me gps direct...
>>Still, though, not supposed to use VFR gps on IFR flight. I do use it for
>>reference, though.
>>
>
>Strictly speaking, you cannot legally accept a "GPS Direct" clearance
>unless you have a GPS that is certified for IFR enroute use. Your
>handheld does not qualify.
>
Please cite the law that is being violated by accepting such a clearance.
Michael Reilly
> Another way is they will say, "Direct XYZ when able, advise heading".
My airplane has an IFR GPS (/G) so I usually file direct. Most of the
time I am cleared "as filed" (sometimes with a little departure routing
or RV's). When airborne and instructed to proceed direct I've always
been asked by ATC what my enroute course will be. Does anyone know if
this verification of my course a requirement or is the controller just
checking to make sure I've programmed the GPS correctly?
Steven P. McNicoll
Michael Reilly wrote in message ...
>>
>> Another way is they will say, "Direct XYZ when able, advise heading".
>>
>
>My airplane has an IFR GPS (/G) so I usually file direct. Most of the
>time I am cleared "as filed" (sometimes with a little departure routing
>or RV's). When airborne and instructed to proceed direct I've always
>been asked by ATC what my enroute course will be. Does anyone know if
>this verification of my course a requirement or is the controller just
>checking to make sure I've programmed the GPS correctly?
>
It's not a requirement. He may be checking to see if you've programmed your
GPS correctly, but it's more likely he's asking because he hasn't any idea
what your course is.
Newps
destination is.
Michael Reilly wrote:
> > Another way is they will say, "Direct XYZ when able, advise heading".
>
> My airplane has an IFR GPS (/G) so I usually file direct. Most of the
> time I am cleared "as filed" (sometimes with a little departure routing
> or RV's). When airborne and instructed to proceed direct I've always
> been asked by ATC what my enroute course will be. Does anyone know if
> this verification of my course a requirement or is the controller just
> checking to make sure I've programmed the GPS correctly?
>
Steven P. McNicoll
Bob Noel wrote in message ...
>>
>> I have a Garmin 250XL GPS-Com in my plane.
>> It is placarded for VFR use only. What are the limitiations for using
>> it for instrument flight? Can I use it as an en-route supplement to
>> the nav heads or ...?
>>
>
>of IFR navigation (see below). You can, however, use it
>for situational awareness.
>
>
>
>selected quotes:
>
>ORDER: 8400.10 and 8700.1
>
>"2. BACKGROUND. The Department of Defense declared initial
>operational capability (IOC) of the U.S. GPS on December 8, 1993.
>On February 17, 1993, FAA Administrator David Hinson declared that
>the Global Positioning System is operational and an "integral part"
>of the U.S. air traffic control system. This bulletin provides
>Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) approval for U.S. civil
>operators to use GPS equipment to conduct oceanic, domestic en
>route, terminal IFR operations, and certain instrument approach
>procedures (IAP) under the conditions specified herein. This
>approval permits the use of GPS in a manner that is consistent with
>current navigation requirements."
>
>"A. The GPS avionics equipment used must be approved in accordance
>with the requirements specified in technical standards order (TSO)
>C-129, or equivalent, and the installation must be made in
>accordance with Notice 8110.47 or 8110.48, the equivalent advisory
>circular or the Flight Standards/Aircraft Certification (AFS/AIR)
>joint guidance memorandum dated July 20, 1992. Equipment approved
>to TSO C-115A does not meet the requirements of TSO C-129."
>
>
>"Provided the general requirements of this bulletin are met, GPS
>domestic en route and terminal IFR operations can be conducted as
>soon as the proper avionics systems are installed. "
>
>
>GPS receiver installation and operation.
>
The material you've cited is not regulatory. If there is anything
prohibiting the use of VFR GPS for enroute IFR navigation that prohibition
will be found in the FARs, not in a bulletin from Flight Standards to it's
field inspectors.
Gregory Travis
Steven P. McNicoll <ronca...@usxchange.net> wrote:
>
>The material you've cited is not regulatory. If there is anything
>prohibiting the use of VFR GPS for enroute IFR navigation that prohibition
>will be found in the FARs, not in a bulletin from Flight Standards to it's
>field inspectors.
Indeed. In addition, the material covers permanently installed equipment,
not handheld equipment.
As far as I know, there's absolutely no codified legal prohibition against
using a handheld "VFR" GPS for primary IFR navigation in controlled
airspace just as there's no legal requirement to have ANY electronic
navigation aid in the aircraft for primary IFR navigation in controlled
airspace.
Permanental installed equipment is different as the STC and/or TSO covering
the installation of that equipment may include a placard limiting its use
to VFR-only. Placards are considered extensions of the POH and must
be obeyed.
But if I carry my own home-built GPS into the airplane and sit it on the
seat next to me, it don't need a placard any more than the tuna sandwich
that I also brought with me.
greg
--
gregory travis |"If you're going to kill someone there isn't much reason
gr...@littlebear.com|to get angry. You just pull the trigger. We need to smile
|with Novell when we pull the trigger." MSFT's Jim Allchin
Tarver Engineering
Gregory Travis wrote in message <746ah1$7md$1...@sherrill.kiva.net>...
>In article <_6x92.2054$qs1....@news3.ispnews.com>,
>Steven P. McNicoll <ronca...@usxchange.net> wrote:
>>
>>The material you've cited is not regulatory. If there is anything
>>prohibiting the use of VFR GPS for enroute IFR navigation that prohibition
>>will be found in the FARs, not in a bulletin from Flight Standards to it's
>>field inspectors.
>
>Indeed. In addition, the material covers permanently installed equipment,
>not handheld equipment.
>
>As far as I know, there's absolutely no codified legal prohibition against
>using a handheld "VFR" GPS for primary IFR navigation in controlled
>airspace just as there's no legal requirement to have ANY electronic
>navigation aid in the aircraft for primary IFR navigation in controlled
>airspace.
§ 23.1525 Kinds of operation.
The kinds of operation authorized (e.g. VFR, IFR, day or night) and the
meteorological conditions (e.g. icing) to which the operation of the
airplane is limited or from which it is prohibited, must be established
appropriate to the installed equipment.
You are mistaken.
>Permanental installed equipment is different as the STC and/or TSO covering
>the installation of that equipment may include a placard limiting its use
>to VFR-only. Placards are considered extensions of the POH and must
>be obeyed.
A VFR GPS is for VFR only, it does not meet the requirements of part 23.
>But if I carry my own home-built GPS into the airplane and sit it on the
>seat next to me, it don't need a placard any more than the tuna sandwich
>that I also brought with me.
As long as you do not use the VFR GPS, or the tuna sandwich, for navigation,
this is true. Oterwise, I suggest a "information only" placard, so that it
is clear in your mind what the VFR GPS is for, when flying IFR.
John
Gregory Travis
Tarver Engineering <jta...@tminet.com> wrote:
>
>Gregory Travis wrote in message <746ah1$7md$1...@sherrill.kiva.net>...
>>In article <_6x92.2054$qs1....@news3.ispnews.com>,
>>Steven P. McNicoll <ronca...@usxchange.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>The material you've cited is not regulatory. If there is anything
>>>prohibiting the use of VFR GPS for enroute IFR navigation that prohibition
>>>will be found in the FARs, not in a bulletin from Flight Standards to it's
>>>field inspectors.
>>
>>Indeed. In addition, the material covers permanently installed equipment,
>>not handheld equipment.
>>
>>As far as I know, there's absolutely no codified legal prohibition against
>>using a handheld "VFR" GPS for primary IFR navigation in controlled
>>airspace just as there's no legal requirement to have ANY electronic
>>navigation aid in the aircraft for primary IFR navigation in controlled
>>airspace.
>
>
>§ 23.1525 Kinds of operation.
> The kinds of operation authorized (e.g. VFR, IFR, day or night) and the
>meteorological conditions (e.g. icing) to which the operation of the
>airplane is limited or from which it is prohibited, must be established
>appropriate to the installed equipment.
>
>You are mistaken.
Note the word "installed equipment."
There is nothing in my 172s operating limitations that says I must have
any kind of electronic navigation equipment for IFR flight.
>>Permanental installed equipment is different as the STC and/or TSO covering
>>the installation of that equipment may include a placard limiting its use
>>to VFR-only. Placards are considered extensions of the POH and must
>>be obeyed.
>
>
>A VFR GPS is for VFR only, it does not meet the requirements of part 23.
It doesn't need to. It's not part of the airplane.
>>But if I carry my own home-built GPS into the airplane and sit it on the
>>seat next to me, it don't need a placard any more than the tuna sandwich
>>that I also brought with me.
>
>
>As long as you do not use the VFR GPS, or the tuna sandwich, for navigation,
>this is true. Oterwise, I suggest a "information only" placard, so that it
>is clear in your mind what the VFR GPS is for, when flying IFR.
There is no regulation against using a tuna sandwich for primary IFR
navigation.
Tarver Engineering
Gregory Travis wrote in message <746o5i$nvh$1...@sherrill.kiva.net>...
Yes, that is letting you know that the airplane must have installed
equipment such that it qualifys to operated under the listed conditions.
>There is nothing in my 172s operating limitations that says I must have
>any kind of electronic navigation equipment for IFR flight.
Now you are trying to be cute. I am not a fed, but if they ask you this
question and you answer it that way, you should not be surprised to learn
that your perfectly good airplane is broken.
>>>Permanental installed equipment is different as the STC and/or TSO
covering
>>>the installation of that equipment may include a placard limiting its use
>>>to VFR-only. Placards are considered extensions of the POH and must
>>>be obeyed.
>>
>>
>>A VFR GPS is for VFR only, it does not meet the requirements of part 23.
>
>It doesn't need to. It's not part of the airplane.
You must navigate the airplane using installed equipment, approved for IFR
operations. Otherwise you are operating the airplane outside its
limitations under part 23.
John
Gregory Travis
Tarver Engineering <jta...@tminet.com> wrote:
>
>Gregory Travis wrote in message <746o5i$nvh$1...@sherrill.kiva.net>...
>>>§ 23.1525 Kinds of operation.
>>> The kinds of operation authorized (e.g. VFR, IFR, day or night) and the
>>>meteorological conditions (e.g. icing) to which the operation of the
>>>airplane is limited or from which it is prohibited, must be established
>>>appropriate to the installed equipment.
>>>
>>>You are mistaken.
>>
>>Note the word "installed equipment."
>
>
>Yes, that is letting you know that the airplane must have installed
>equipment such that it qualifys to operated under the listed conditions.
Which my aircraft has. No one has argued that.
>>>A VFR GPS is for VFR only, it does not meet the requirements of part 23.
>>
>>It doesn't need to. It's not part of the airplane.
>
>You must navigate the airplane using installed equipment, approved for IFR
>operations. Otherwise you are operating the airplane outside its
>limitations under part 23.
Do you have a reference for this?
Tarver Engineering
Gregory Travis wrote in message <746r6o$3n$1...@sherrill.kiva.net>...
>In article <746qqi$svh$1...@supernews.com>,
>Tarver Engineering <jta...@tminet.com> wrote:
>>
>>Gregory Travis wrote in message <746o5i$nvh$1...@sherrill.kiva.net>...
>>>>§ 23.1525 Kinds of operation.
>>>> The kinds of operation authorized (e.g. VFR, IFR, day or night) and
the
>>>>meteorological conditions (e.g. icing) to which the operation of the
>>>>airplane is limited or from which it is prohibited, must be established
>>>>appropriate to the installed equipment.
>>>>
>>>>You are mistaken.
>>>
>>>Note the word "installed equipment."
>>
>>
>>Yes, that is letting you know that the airplane must have installed
>>equipment such that it qualifys to operated under the listed conditions.
>
>Which my aircraft has. No one has argued that.
So you are not using the GPS to mask an equipment problem and you can use
the normal IFR equipment?
>>>>A VFR GPS is for VFR only, it does not meet the requirements of part 23.
>>>
>>>It doesn't need to. It's not part of the airplane.
>>
>>You must navigate the airplane using installed equipment, approved for IFR
>>operations. Otherwise you are operating the airplane outside its
>>limitations under part 23.
>
>Do you have a reference for this?
I looked hard, and I admit that as long as your airplane has all the
equipment to fly IFR otherwise, there is nothing preventing you from using
your VFR GPS, in CFR 14; that I could find.
From Part 91:
(d) Instrument flight rules. For IFR flight, the following instruments and
equipment are required:
(1) Instruments and equipment specified in paragraph (b) of this
section, and, for night flight, instruments and equipment specified in
paragraph (c) of this section.
(2) Two-way radio communications system and navigational equipment
appropriate to the ground facilities to be used.
(3) Gyroscopic rate of turn indicator,
If you meet this and the part 23 section, maybe you are legal in your 172.
(no passengers for hire)
John
Bob Noel
<ronca...@usxchange.net> wrote:
>
> The material you've cited is not regulatory.
To the contrary.
>If there is anything
> prohibiting the use of VFR GPS for enroute IFR navigation that prohibition
> will be found in the FARs
on what basis do you make that (incorrect) claim?
--
Bob
(I think people can figure out how to email me...)
(replace ihatessppaamm with my name (rnoel) and hw1 with mediaone)
Tarver Engineering
Bob Noel wrote in message ...
><ronca...@usxchange.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> The material you've cited is not regulatory.
>
>To the contrary.
>
>>If there is anything
>> prohibiting the use of VFR GPS for enroute IFR navigation that
prohibition
>> will be found in the FARs
>
>on what basis do you make that (incorrect) claim?
FAA Orders are published in the Congressional Record and have the force of
Law.
John
Gregory Travis
Is there then an FAA order that prohibts the use of a "VFR" GPS for
navigation or one that mandates only the use of installed equipment
for IFR navigation?
How about the tuna sandwich? Can I carry a tuna sandwich in my plane, along
with the "VFR" GPS, and use it (the sandwich) for navigation?
Ron Natalie
>
>
> FAA Orders are published in the Congressional Record and have the force of
> Law.
They are NOT published in the Congressional Record. Perhaps
you mean the Federal Register. The have the force of Regulation,
which is much more onerous than LAW. LAW's you have rights
of defense against. Regulations you do not.
Tarver Engineering
Ron Natalie wrote in message <36680C6C...@sensor.com>...
>Tarver Engineering wrote:
>>
>
>>
>> FAA Orders are published in the Congressional Record and have the force
of
>> Law.
>
>They are NOT published in the Congressional Record.
Ok, then they have even less authority.
> Perhaps
>you mean the Federal Register. The have the force of Regulation,
>which is much more onerous than LAW. LAW's you have rights
>of defense against. Regulations you do not.
Keep in mind that this is an individual operating his/her own airplane. The
First Ammendment does apply; in the case of an individual's right to seek
regulatory releif.
John
Steven P. McNicoll
Bob Noel wrote in message ...
>In article <_6x92.2054$qs1....@news3.ispnews.com>, "Steven P. McNicoll"
><ronca...@usxchange.net> wrote:
>>
>> The material you've cited is not regulatory.
>>
>
>To the contrary.
>
To the contrary.......what?
Please explain how a bulletin issued by a mid-level manager in the Flight
Standards Service to field inspectors becomes the law of the land.
>>
>>If there is anything prohibiting the use of VFR GPS for
>>enroute IFR navigation that prohibition will be found
>>in the FARs
>>
>
>on what basis do you make that (incorrect) claim?
>
Logic allows no other conclusion. The FAA publishes the Federal Aviation
Regulations (FARs) to make readily available to the aviation community the
regulatory requirements placed upon them. If a GPS receiver that did not
meet the standards of TSO C-129 was not to be used during IFR flight, then
there would be a FAR that required any GPS receiver used during IFR flight
to meet that standard.
Bob Noel
<ronca...@usxchange.net> wrote:
> The material you've cited is not regulatory.
please find me any FAA Flight Standards Inspector who will tell
me that the material is not regulator.
> If there is anything
> prohibiting the use of VFR GPS for enroute IFR navigation that prohibition
> will be found in the FARs, not in a bulletin from Flight Standards to it's
> field inspectors.
You are making the incorrect assumption that all rules and regulations
regarding operations in airspace are entirely specified by 14 CFR.
Find me any FAA Flight Standards authority who will backup your
incorrect assumption.
Steven P. McNicoll
Bob Noel wrote in message ...
><ronca...@usxchange.net> wrote:
>>
>> The material you've cited is not regulatory.
>>
>
>please find me any FAA Flight Standards Inspector who will tell
>me that the material is not regulator.
>
I doubt you can find one that will tell you it is.
>>
>> If there is anything prohibiting the use of VFR GPS for enroute
>> IFR navigation that prohibition will be found in the FARs, not in
>> a bulletin from Flight Standards to it's field inspectors.
>>
>
>You are making the incorrect assumption that all rules and regulations
>regarding operations in airspace are entirely specified by 14 CFR.
>
>Find me any FAA Flight Standards authority who will backup your
>incorrect assumption.
>
All rules and regulations regarding operations in US airspace ARE entirely
specified in the FARs. You won't find any FAA Flight Standards "authority"
that will tell you differently.
Tarver Engineering
§ 21.41 Type certificate.
Each type certificate is considered to include the type design, the
operating limitations, the certificate data sheet, the applicable
regulations of this subchapter with which the Administrator records
compliance, and any other conditions or limitations prescribed for the
product in this subchapter.
More from Part 21:
(i) Except as provided by paragraph (c) of this section, a
statement, in a form and manner acceptable to the Administrator, certifying
that: the applicant has completed the engineering analysis necessary to
demonstrate compliance with the applicable airworthiness requirements; the
applicant has conducted appropriate flight, structural, propulsion, and
systems tests necessary to show that the aircraft, its components, and its
equipment are reliable and function properly; the type design complies with
the airworthiness standards and noise requirements established for the
aircraft under § 21.17(f); and no feature or characteristic makes it unsafe
for its intended use;
That VFR GPS in IFR operation could violate your airplane's limitations, as
a feature making it unsafe for its intended use. This would be a problem
that might be addressed in an FAA Order.
For those that are FAA employees claiming exemption from FAA Orders, these
are FAA written policy, and if you are ignoring written policy in the
Federal workplace, you may be in violation of the Inspector General's Act.
(abuse of authority)
John
Gerry Caron
Steven P. McNicoll wrote in message ...
>
>Bob Noel wrote in message ...
>>In article <_6x92.2054$qs1....@news3.ispnews.com>, "Steven P.
McNicoll"
>><ronca...@usxchange.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> The material you've cited is not regulatory.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>To the contrary.......what?
>
>Please explain how a bulletin issued by a mid-level manager in the
Flight
>Standards Service to field inspectors becomes the law of the land.
>
>
>>>
>>>enroute IFR navigation that prohibition will be found
>>>
>>
>>on what basis do you make that (incorrect) claim?
>>
>
>Logic allows no other conclusion. The FAA publishes the Federal
Aviation
>Regulations (FARs) to make readily available to the aviation community
the
>regulatory requirements placed upon them. If a GPS receiver that did
not
>meet the standards of TSO C-129 was not to be used during IFR flight,
then
>there would be a FAR that required any GPS receiver used during IFR
flight
>to meet that standard.
>
The FARs are not written to the specificity you obviously desire, but
the FARs as written do indeed prohibit the use of a VFR GPS for IFR
flight. You just need to look in more than 1 place, and put them
together to spell NO.
14 CFR 91.205
(a) General. ...no person may operate... in any operation described
in paragraphs (b) through (f) of this section unless that aircraft
contains the equipment and instruments specified in those paragraphs (or
FAA-approved equivalents) for that type of operation...
(d) Instrument flight rules. For IFR flight, the following instruments
and equipment are required:
...
(2) ...and navigation equipment appropriate to the ground facilities
to be used.
OK, so the airplane has to be equipped and a handheld doesn't count
since it isn't installed or an FAA-approved equivalent.
But what if it is installed? Then it has to meet the requirements of
Part 23. Which basically says it has to be approved by the FAA and part
of the installation is to have an approved flight manual supplement. To
get this approval for a non-TSO C129 GPS, the AFMS *will* contain the
operating limitation
"USE OF GPS LIMITED TO VFR."
If you use this for IFR flight, you are in violation of:
14CFR91.9 (a) ... no person may operate a civil aircraft without
complying with the operating limitations specified in the approved
Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual, markings, and placards, or as
otherwise prescribed by the certificating authority of the country of
registry.
What part of NO don't you understand?
OK, the only real question left is, Why does that operating limitation
have to exist to get the installation approved?
The answer is in 14CFR23.1309 which addresses equipment installed in an
aircraft. It's rather convoluted, but basically it requires specific
levels of safety based on the potential consequences of a system
failure. To determine the requirements a functional hazard assessment
must be performed. If you do one for GPS navigation, a GPS that doesn't
meet the requirements of TSO C129, doesn't meet the level of safety
required for IFR flight, so it gets an operating limitation.
A TSO'd GPS can't meet the requirements by itself, that's why it's
defined as "supplemental" navigation equipment. If it were the only nav
equipment in the aircraft, you wouldn't get IFR approval either.
(It doesn't have to be TSO'd, just meet the requirements. But if it
meets the requirements, it makes sense to get the TSO since the
installer must submit show compliance by submitting "data acceptable to
the administrator." The TSO meets this requirement.)
The only way around this is to invoke 14CFR91.3 (b) the emergency
deviation rule.
Gerry
Steven P. McNicoll
Gerry Caron wrote in message <74nhvq$63s$1...@news.onr.com>...
>Steven P. McNicoll wrote in message ...
>>Bob Noel wrote in message ...
>>>In article <_6x92.2054$qs1....@news3.ispnews.com>, "Steven P. McNicoll"
>>><ronca...@usxchange.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>If there is anything prohibiting the use of VFR GPS for
>>>>enroute IFR navigation that prohibition will be found
>>>>in the FARs
>>>>
>>>
>>>on what basis do you make that (incorrect) claim?
>>>
>>
>>Logic allows no other conclusion. The FAA publishes the
>>Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) to make readily
>>available to the aviation community the regulatory
>>requirements placed upon them. If a GPS receiver that
>>did not meet the standards of TSO C-129 was not to be
>>used during IFR flight, then there would be a FAR that
>>required any GPS receiver used during IFR flight to meet
>>that standard.
>>
>
>The FARs are not written to the specificity you obviously desire,
>
Actually, they are written to that specificity. Take FAR 91.215 for
example:
"FAR 91.215 ATC transponder and altitude reporting equipment and use.
(a) All airspace: U.S.-registered civil aircraft. For operations not
conducted under part 121, 127 or 135 of this chapter, ATC transponder
equipment installed must meet the performance and environmental requirements
of any class of TSO-C74b (Mode A) or any class of TSO-C74c (Mode A with
altitude reporting capability) as appropriate, or the appropriate class of
TSO-C112 (Mode S)."
No equipment needs to meet any TSO unless there is an applicable FAR that
requires it to do so, the FARs are quite specific on that.
"PART 21--CERTIFICATION PROCEDURES FOR PRODUCTS AND PARTS
Subpart O--Technical Standard Order Authorizations
Sec. 21.601 Applicability.
[snip]
(b) For the purpose of this subpart--
[snip]
(4) An article manufactured under a TSO authorization, an FAA
letter of acceptance as described in Sec. 21.603(b), or an appliance
manufactured under a letter of TSO design approval described in Sec. 21.617
is an approved article or appliance for the purpose of meeting the
regulations of this chapter that require the article to be approved."
>
>but the FARs as written do indeed prohibit the use of a VFR GPS for IFR
>flight. You just need to look in more than 1 place, and put them together
>to spell NO.
>
>14 CFR 91.205
> (a) General. ...no person may operate... in any operation described
>in paragraphs (b) through (f) of this section unless that aircraft
>contains the equipment and instruments specified in those paragraphs (or
>FAA-approved equivalents) for that type of operation...
>
> (d) Instrument flight rules. For IFR flight, the following instruments
>and equipment are required:
> ...
> (2) ...and navigation equipment appropriate to the ground facilities
>to be used.
>
>OK, so the airplane has to be equipped and a handheld doesn't count
>since it isn't installed or an FAA-approved equivalent.
>
Yes, but an aircraft that is properly equipped in accordance with FAR 91.205
remains so if additional non-required equipment is also aboard.
>
>But what if it is installed? Then it has to meet the requirements of
>Part 23. Which basically says it has to be approved by the FAA and part
>of the installation is to have an approved flight manual supplement. To
>get this approval for a non-TSO C129 GPS, the AFMS *will* contain the
>operating limitation
> "USE OF GPS LIMITED TO VFR."
>
>If you use this for IFR flight, you are in violation of:
>
>14CFR91.9 (a) ... no person may operate a civil aircraft without
>complying with the operating limitations specified in the approved
>Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual, markings, and placards, or as
>otherwise prescribed by the certificating authority of the country of
>registry.
>
Agreed. And I said the very same thing in my response, posted 12/1/98, to
the initial query in this thread.
Wombat asked, "I have a Garmin 250XL GPS-Com in my plane. It is placarded
for VFR use only. What are the limitiations for using it for instrument
flight? Can I use it as an en-route supplement to the nav heads or ...?"
I responded, "In this case the only limitation may be the placard itself.
FAR 91.9(a) says 'no person may operate a civil aircraft without complying
with the operating limitations specified in the approved Airplane or
Rotorcraft
Flight Manual, markings, and placards'."
>
>OK, the only real question left is, Why does that operating limitation
>have to exist to get the installation approved?
>
>The answer is in 14CFR23.1309 which addresses equipment installed in an
>aircraft. It's rather convoluted, but basically it requires specific
>levels of safety based on the potential consequences of a system
>failure. To determine the requirements a functional hazard assessment
>must be performed. If you do one for GPS navigation, a GPS that doesn't
>meet the requirements of TSO C129, doesn't meet the level of safety
>required for IFR flight, so it gets an operating limitation.
>
>A TSO'd GPS can't meet the requirements by itself, that's why it's
>defined as "supplemental" navigation equipment. If it were the only nav
>equipment in the aircraft, you wouldn't get IFR approval either.
>
>(It doesn't have to be TSO'd, just meet the requirements. But if it
>meets the requirements, it makes sense to get the TSO since the
>installer must submit show compliance by submitting "data acceptable to
>the administrator." The TSO meets this requirement.)
>
>The only way around this is to invoke 14CFR91.3 (b) the emergency
>deviation rule.
>
A handheld GPS is not installed equipment and is not prohibited by this
regulation. There is no regulation that prohibits the use of a handheld,
non-TSO'd GPS receiver during enroute IFR flight.
Bob Noel
<ronca...@usxchange.net> wrote:
> >The FARs are not written to the specificity you obviously desire,
> >
>
> Actually, they are written to that specificity. Take FAR 91.215 for
> example:
To be more accurate, some portions of the FARs are that specific.
[snip]
> No equipment needs to meet any TSO unless there is an applicable FAR that
> requires it to do so, the FARs are quite specific on that.
No. Read 21.601. It says the TSO is a method for getting approval.
approval is not exactly the same as having a TSO.
In fact, there is some equipment installed in aircraft that is
not TSO'd even though there is an applicable TSO. Such equipment
can also be approved via TC, STC, and Form 337 approvals.
[snip]
> Wombat asked, "I have a Garmin 250XL GPS-Com in my plane. It is placarded
> for VFR use only. What are the limitiations for using it for instrument
> flight? Can I use it as an en-route supplement to the nav heads or ...?"
>
> I responded, "In this case the only limitation may be the placard itself.
Have you figured out why that limitation exists?
Have you figured out why ALL installed GPS receivers that don't
meet the requirements of TSO-C129a are placarded as VFR ONLY?
Tarver Engineering
Bob Noel wrote in message ...
><ronca...@usxchange.net> wrote:
[snip]
>> No equipment needs to meet any TSO unless there is an applicable FAR that
>> requires it to do so, the FARs are quite specific on that.
>
>No. Read 21.601. It says the TSO is a method for getting approval.
>approval is not exactly the same as having a TSO.
>
>In fact, there is some equipment installed in aircraft that is
>not TSO'd even though there is an applicable TSO. Such equipment
>can also be approved via TC, STC, and Form 337 approvals.
The Manufacturer needs a PMA in order to repair any such alternatively
installed equipment. Otherwise no 8130 can be issued; for return to
service. In addition, the STC applicant must show compliance, for the part,
if it has no Part 21 approval.
>[snip]
>> Wombat asked, "I have a Garmin 250XL GPS-Com in my plane. It is
placarded
>> for VFR use only. What are the limitiations for using it for instrument
>> flight? Can I use it as an en-route supplement to the nav heads or ...?"
>>
>> I responded, "In this case the only limitation may be the placard itself.
>
>Have you figured out why that limitation exists?
>
>Have you figured out why ALL installed GPS receivers that don't
>meet the requirements of TSO-C129a are placarded as VFR ONLY?
Is it because a VFR only GPS is an "unsafe feature" of an IFR operating
airplane?
John
Steven P. McNicoll
Bob Noel wrote in message ...
><ronca...@usxchange.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >The FARs are not written to the specificity you obviously desire,
>> >
>>
>> Actually, they are written to that specificity. Take FAR 91.215 for
>> example:
>>
>
>
Exactly. The portions of the FARs that require any equipment to meet any
type of approval are that specific.
>
>[snip]
>> No equipment needs to meet any TSO unless there is an applicable FAR that
>> requires it to do so, the FARs are quite specific on that.
>
>No. Read 21.601. It says the TSO is a method for getting approval.
>approval is not exactly the same as having a TSO.
>
FAR 21.601 says; "An article manufactured under a TSO authorization, an FAA
letter of acceptance as described in Sec. 21.603(b), or an appliance
manufactured under a letter of TSO design approval described in Sec. 21.617
is an approved article or appliance for the purpose of meeting the
regulations of this chapter that require the article to be approved."
If something is required to be approved, there will be an FAR requiring it
to be approved. There is no FAR that requires a GPS to be "approved" for
use during IFR enroute flight.
>>
>> Wombat asked, "I have a Garmin 250XL GPS-Com in my plane. It is
>> placarded for VFR use only. What are the limitiations for using it for
instrument
>> flight? Can I use it as an en-route supplement to the nav heads or ...?"
>>
>> I responded, "In this case the only limitation may be the placard itself.
>>
>
>Have you figured out why that limitation exists?
>
>Have you figured out why ALL installed GPS receivers that don't
>meet the requirements of TSO-C129a are placarded as VFR ONLY?
>
I assume it's the erroneous belief of the regulation writers that an
installed GPS receiver that does not meet the requirements of TSO-C129 is
somehow unsafe for use during enroute flight under IFR.
Tarver Engineering
Steven P. McNicoll wrote in message ...
>I assume it's the erroneous belief of the regulation writers that an
>installed GPS receiver that does not meet the requirements of TSO-C129 is
>somehow unsafe for use during enroute flight under IFR.
That in no way protects the owner of the airplane from the grounding of that
airpalne. You might argue your point very effectively and release the
airplane after a couple of weeks, but that becomes expensive.
More likely your arguements would only extend the unairwothiness, of a
perfectly good airplane.
John
Bob Noel
<ronca...@usxchange.net> wrote:
> If something is required to be approved, there will be an FAR requiring it
> to be approved.
prove it.
Tarver Engineering
Bob Noel wrote in message ...
><ronca...@usxchange.net> wrote:
>
>> If something is required to be approved, there will be an FAR requiring
it
>> to be approved.
>
>prove it.
The FARs require it.
John
Bob Noel
<jta...@tminet.com> wrote:
> Bob Noel wrote in message ...
> >In article <fICc2.106$9L....@news3.ispnews.com>, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> ><ronca...@usxchange.net> wrote:
> >
> >> If something is required to be approved, there will be an FAR requiring
> it
> >> to be approved.
> >
> >prove it.
>
> The FARs require it.
where?
Tarver Engineering
Bob Noel wrote in message ...
>> ><ronca...@usxchange.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> If something is required to be approved, there will be an FAR
requiring
>> it
>> >> to be approved.
>> >
>> >prove it.
>>
>> The FARs require it.
>
>where?
Part 21.
John
Newps
would a manufacturer build an "IFR approved" GPS? And if there aren't any
standards set forth in the FAR's, just what the hell are they doing to these
boxes anyway? Why are avionics shops, at least around here, backed up for
months with IFR gps installations and their cert rides? Sorry.
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> Bob Noel wrote in message ...
> >In article <5G1c2.1257$W3....@news12.ispnews.com>, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> ><ronca...@usxchange.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >The FARs are not written to the specificity you obviously desire,
> >> >
> >>
> >> Actually, they are written to that specificity. Take FAR 91.215 for
> >> example:
> >>
> >
> >To be more accurate, some portions of the FARs are that specific.
> >
>
> Exactly. The portions of the FARs that require any equipment to meet any
> type of approval are that specific.
>
> >
> >[snip]
> >> No equipment needs to meet any TSO unless there is an applicable FAR that
> >> requires it to do so, the FARs are quite specific on that.
> >
> >No. Read 21.601. It says the TSO is a method for getting approval.
> >approval is not exactly the same as having a TSO.
> >
>
> FAR 21.601 says; "An article manufactured under a TSO authorization, an FAA
> letter of acceptance as described in Sec. 21.603(b), or an appliance
> manufactured under a letter of TSO design approval described in Sec. 21.617
> is an approved article or appliance for the purpose of meeting the
> regulations of this chapter that require the article to be approved."
>
> If something is required to be approved, there will be an FAR requiring it
> to be approved. There is no FAR that requires a GPS to be "approved" for
> use during IFR enroute flight.
>
> >>
> >> Wombat asked, "I have a Garmin 250XL GPS-Com in my plane. It is
> >> placarded for VFR use only. What are the limitiations for using it for
> instrument
> >> flight? Can I use it as an en-route supplement to the nav heads or ...?"
> >>
> >> I responded, "In this case the only limitation may be the placard itself.
> >>
> >
> >Have you figured out why that limitation exists?
> >
> >Have you figured out why ALL installed GPS receivers that don't
> >meet the requirements of TSO-C129a are placarded as VFR ONLY?
> >
>
Steven P. McNicoll
Bob Noel wrote in message ...
><ronca...@usxchange.net> wrote:
>>
>> If something is required to be approved, there will be an FAR requiring
>> it to be approved.
>>
>
>
How can it be otherwise? How can something be required if it is not even
mentioned in the FARs?
In any case, the burden of proof is on those who insist that the use of a
handheld GPS during IFR enroute flight is illegal. If you're certain that
it is illegal, it should be a simple matter for you to cite the regulation
that makes it illegal.
Steven P. McNicoll
Newps wrote in message <36733EA9...@mcn.net>...
>
>Let's assume for a minute you're right. Your not, but let's assume anyway.
>Why would a manufacturer build an "IFR approved" GPS?
>
To sell to those people who want them.
>
>And if there aren't any standards set forth in the FAR's, just what
>the hell are they doing to these boxes anyway?
>
The standards are set forth in TSO-C129a, but there is no FAR that requires
a GPS to meet that standard for enroute use under IFR.
>
>Why are avionics shops, at least around here, backed up for
>months with IFR gps installations and their cert rides?
>
Probably because many pilots want to be able to fly GPS approaches. Nobody
has advocated using a non-TSO'd unit to fly GPS approaches.
>
>Sorry.
>
You're forgiven.
>
>Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>> Bob Noel wrote in message ...
>> >In article <5G1c2.1257$W3....@news12.ispnews.com>, "Steven P. McNicoll"
>> ><ronca...@usxchange.net> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >The FARs are not written to the specificity you obviously desire,
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Actually, they are written to that specificity. Take FAR 91.215 for
>> >> example:
>> >>
>> >
>> >To be more accurate, some portions of the FARs are that specific.
>> >
>>
>> Exactly. The portions of the FARs that require any equipment to meet any
>> type of approval are that specific.
>>
>> >
>> >[snip]
>> >> No equipment needs to meet any TSO unless there is an applicable FAR
>> >> that requires it to do so, the FARs are quite specific on that.
>> >
>> >No. Read 21.601. It says the TSO is a method for getting approval.
>> >approval is not exactly the same as having a TSO.
>> >
>>
>> FAR 21.601 says; "An article manufactured under a TSO authorization, an
>> FAA letter of acceptance as described in Sec. 21.603(b), or an appliance
>> manufactured under a letter of TSO design approval described in Sec.
>> 21.617 is an approved article or appliance for the purpose of meeting the
>> regulations of this chapter that require the article to be approved."
>>
>> If something is required to be approved, there will be an FAR requiring
>> it to be approved. There is no FAR that requires a GPS to be "approved"
for
>> use during IFR enroute flight.
>>
>> >>
>> >> Wombat asked, "I have a Garmin 250XL GPS-Com in my plane. It is
>> >> placarded for VFR use only. What are the limitiations for using it
>> >> for instrument flight? Can I use it as an en-route supplement to the
nav
>> >> heads or...?"
>> >>
>> >> I responded, "In this case the only limitation may be the placard
>> >> itself.
>> >>
>> >
Bob Noel
<ronca...@usxchange.net> wrote:
> >> If something is required to be approved, there will be an FAR requiring
> >> it to be approved.
> >
> >prove it.
>
> How can it be otherwise? How can something be required if it is not even
> mentioned in the FARs?
You are assuming that the FARs are the only source of requirements.
What I would love to see is for you to prove that assertion
(without being circular).
>
> In any case, the burden of proof is on those who insist that the use of a
> handheld GPS during IFR enroute flight is illegal. If you're certain that
> it is illegal, it should be a simple matter for you to cite the regulation
> that makes it illegal.
1) the burden of proof is on you. You are claiming that it
is legal.
2) the regulation has been cited.
In any case, it would be a simple matter for you to ask your
friendly local flight standards office. I wonder why you don't.
Steven P. McNicoll
Bob Noel wrote in message ...
><ronca...@usxchange.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> If something is required to be approved, there will be an FAR
>> >> requiring it to be approved.
>> >>
>> >
>> >prove it.
>> >
>>
>> How can it be otherwise? How can something be required if it is not even
>> mentioned in the FARs?
>>
>
>You are assuming that the FARs are the only source of requirements.
>
They are. The regulatory requirements placed upon the aviation community
are found in the Federal Aviation Regulations.
>
>What I would love to see is for you to prove that assertion
>(without being circular).
>
I believe I already have. TSOs are not binding unless there is an FAR that
requires the TSO to be complied with, so says FAR 21.601. There are TSOs in
existence that cover the "approval" of a great many things, but you don't
have to use "approved" equipment in any operation unless required to do so
by the FARs.
"PART 21--CERTIFICATION PROCEDURES FOR PRODUCTS AND PARTS
Subpart O--Technical Standard Order Authorizations
Sec. 21.601 Applicability.
[snip]
(b) For the purpose of this subpart--
[snip]
(4) An article manufactured under a TSO authorization, an FAA
letter of acceptance as described in Sec. 21.603(b), or an appliance
manufactured under a letter of TSO design approval described in Sec. 21.617
is an approved article or appliance for the purpose of meeting the
regulations of this chapter that require the article to be approved."
>>
>> In any case, the burden of proof is on those who insist that the use of a
>> handheld GPS during IFR enroute flight is illegal. If you're certain
that
>> it is illegal, it should be a simple matter for you to cite the
regulation
>> that makes it illegal.
>>
>
>1) the burden of proof is on you. You are claiming that it
>is legal.
>
Yes, I make that claim because I have searched the FARs very thoroughly and
have found no regulation that prohibits the use of a handheld GPS during
enroute IFR flight. If it's not prohibited, it's legal.
Of course, my inability to find a such a regulation does not mean that it
doesn't exist, it's impossible to prove something does not exist. That's
why the burden of proof is on those who insist that the use of a handheld
GPS during enroute IFR flight is illegal. If they are certain that such
operation is illegal, then it should be a simple matter for them to cite the
regulation that is being violated by that operation. To date, no one has
been able to do so.
>
>2) the regulation has been cited.
>
Really? Odd that I missed it. What regulation is that?
>
>In any case, it would be a simple matter for you to ask your
>friendly local flight standards office. I wonder why you don't.
>
I did. I wrote the Milwaukee FSDO a few months ago, the last time this
subject came up in this forum. To date I have received no reply. I wonder
if they're having as much trouble finding that regulation as you are?
Tarver Engineering
Steven P. McNicoll wrote in message ...
>
>Bob Noel wrote in message ...
>><ronca...@usxchange.net> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> If something is required to be approved, there will be an FAR
>>> >> requiring it to be approved.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >prove it.
>>> >
>>>
>>> How can it be otherwise? How can something be required if it is not
even
>>> mentioned in the FARs?
>>>
>>
>>You are assuming that the FARs are the only source of requirements.
>>
>
>They are. The regulatory requirements placed upon the aviation community
>are found in the Federal Aviation Regulations.
FAA Orders are binding on all FAA employees, the alternative being a
violation of the Inspecttor General's Act.
<snip>
>Yes, I make that claim because I have searched the FARs very thoroughly and
>have found no regulation that prohibits the use of a handheld GPS during
>enroute IFR flight. If it's not prohibited, it's legal.
It is an "unsafe feature" and could lead to the grounding of the airplane.
John
Steven P. McNicoll
Tarver Engineering wrote in message <75gri0$407$1...@remarQ.com>...
>Steven P. McNicoll wrote in message ...
>>Bob Noel wrote in message ...
>>><ronca...@usxchange.net> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> If something is required to be approved, there will be an FAR
>>>> >> requiring it to be approved.
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> >prove it.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> How can it be otherwise? How can something be required if
>>>> it is not even mentioned in the FARs?
>>>>
>>>
>>>You are assuming that the FARs are the only source of requirements.
>>>
>>
>>They are. The regulatory requirements placed upon the aviation community
>>are found in the Federal Aviation Regulations.
>>
>
>FAA Orders are binding on all FAA employees, the alternative being a
>violation of the Inspecttor General's Act.
>
But they are not binding on the aviation community.
>
><snip>
>
>>
>>Yes, I make that claim because I have searched the FARs very thoroughly
and
>>have found no regulation that prohibits the use of a handheld GPS during
>>enroute IFR flight. If it's not prohibited, it's legal.
>>
>
>It is an "unsafe feature" and could lead to the grounding of the airplane.
>
Please explain how it is unsafe.
Please explain how it could lead to the grounding of the airplane.
Tarver Engineering
Steven P. McNicoll wrote in message ...
>
>>Steven P. McNicoll wrote in message ...
>>>Bob Noel wrote in message ...
>>>><ronca...@usxchange.net> wrote:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> If something is required to be approved, there will be an FAR
>>>>> >> requiring it to be approved.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >
>>>>> >prove it.
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>> How can it be otherwise? How can something be required if
>>>>> it is not even mentioned in the FARs?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You are assuming that the FARs are the only source of requirements.
>>>>
>>>
>>>They are. The regulatory requirements placed upon the aviation community
>>>are found in the Federal Aviation Regulations.
>>>
>>
>>FAA Orders are binding on all FAA employees, the alternative being a
>>
>
>But they are not binding on the aviation community.
The FAA's authority is administrative in nature, so you so have some point
there. Where the airplane has US registration, or the operator has a US
pilot's license, that equipment, or person, has voluntarily submitted
themselves to FAA's administrative authority. You of course, as an
individual, have a First Ammendment right to seek regulatory releif; the
"aviation community" has no such right. The aviation community could
contact the Kansas ACO, with these concerns, and request guidance be issued
supporting your position.
>><snip>
>>
>>>
>>>Yes, I make that claim because I have searched the FARs very thoroughly
>and
>>>have found no regulation that prohibits the use of a handheld GPS during
>>>enroute IFR flight. If it's not prohibited, it's legal.
>>>
>>
>>It is an "unsafe feature" and could lead to the grounding of the airplane.
>Please explain how it is unsafe.
That is a finding the Administrator must make, for this part of CFR 14 Part
21 to apply, I have already pointed out here that it is my beleif that
unloading the airways of small airplanes is a safety improvement. That is
why I tried to argue, originally, that this issue should not apply to Part
23 airplanes, but you were able to shoot me down on that one.
>Please explain how it could lead to the grounding of the airplane.
Part 21 provides for removal of certification where the Administrator finds
an "unsafe feature" of any airplane. I have known of people getting screwed
over for having the kind of pissing contest you are engageing in here.
John
Steven P. McNicoll
Tarver Engineering wrote in message <75h0je$qq1$1...@remarQ.com>...
>Steven P. McNicoll wrote in message ...
>>>Steven P. McNicoll wrote in message ...
>>>>
>>>>aviation community are found in the Federal Aviation Regulations.
>>>>
>>>
>>>FAA Orders are binding on all FAA employees, the alternative being a
>>>violation of the Inspector General's Act.
>>>
>>
>>But they are not binding on the aviation community.
>>
>
>The FAA's authority is administrative in nature, so you so have some point
>there. Where the airplane has US registration, or the operator has a US
>pilot's license, that equipment, or person, has voluntarily submitted
>themselves to FAA's administrative authority. You of course, as an
>individual, have a First Ammendment right to seek regulatory releif; the
>"aviation community" has no such right. The aviation community could
>contact the Kansas ACO, with these concerns, and request guidance be issued
>supporting your position.
>
Can you cite any FAA Order that is directed at US pilots or operators of US
registered aircraft that places regulatory requirements upon them?
>>>>
>>>>Yes, I make that claim because I have searched the FARs very
>>>>thoroughly and have found no regulation that prohibits the use
>>>>of a handheld GPS during enroute IFR flight. If it's not prohibited,
>>>>it's legal.
>>>>
>>>
>>>It is an "unsafe feature" and could lead to the grounding of the
>>>airplane.
>>>
>>
>>Please explain how it is unsafe.
>>
>
>That is a finding the Administrator must make, for this part of CFR 14 Part
>21 to apply, I have already pointed out here that it is my beleif that
>unloading the airways of small airplanes is a safety improvement. That is
>why I tried to argue, originally, that this issue should not apply to Part
>23 airplanes, but you were able to shoot me down on that one.
>
It was you that said a handheld GPS used during enroute IFR flight was an
"unsafe feature". In what way do you believe it is unsafe? What are the
hazards in such use?
>>
>>Please explain how it could lead to the grounding of the airplane.
>>
>
>Part 21 provides for removal of certification where the Administrator finds
>an "unsafe feature" of any airplane. I have known of people getting
>screwed over for having the kind of pissing contest you are engageing in
here.
>
That applies only to products for which a Type Certificate or a Supplemental
Type Certificate was issued. It would not apply to a handheld GPS.
Tarver Engineering
Steven P. McNicoll wrote in message ...
>
>>Steven P. McNicoll wrote in message ...
>>>>Steven P. McNicoll wrote in message ...
>>>>>
>>>>>aviation community are found in the Federal Aviation Regulations.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>FAA Orders are binding on all FAA employees, the alternative being a
>>>>violation of the Inspector General's Act.
>>>>
>>>
>>>But they are not binding on the aviation community.
>>>
>>
>>The FAA's authority is administrative in nature, so you so have some point
>>there. Where the airplane has US registration, or the operator has a US
>>pilot's license, that equipment, or person, has voluntarily submitted
>>themselves to FAA's administrative authority. You of course, as an
>>individual, have a First Ammendment right to seek regulatory releif; the
>>"aviation community" has no such right. The aviation community could
>>contact the Kansas ACO, with these concerns, and request guidance be
issued
>>supporting your position.
>Can you cite any FAA Order that is directed at US pilots or operators of
US
>registered aircraft that places regulatory requirements upon them?
No, an FAA Order places the requirements on the FSDO. An Airworthyness
Directive might be required to make this issue binding on Operators.
>>>>>Yes, I make that claim because I have searched the FARs very
>>>>>thoroughly and have found no regulation that prohibits the use
>>>>>of a handheld GPS during enroute IFR flight. If it's not prohibited,
>>>>>it's legal.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It is an "unsafe feature" and could lead to the grounding of the
>>>>airplane.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Please explain how it is unsafe.
>>>
>>
>>That is a finding the Administrator must make, for this part of CFR 14
Part
>>21 to apply, I have already pointed out here that it is my beleif that
>>unloading the airways of small airplanes is a safety improvement. That is
>>why I tried to argue, originally, that this issue should not apply to Part
>>23 airplanes, but you were able to shoot me down on that one.
>It was you that said a handheld GPS used during enroute IFR flight was an
>"unsafe feature". In what way do you believe it is unsafe? What are the
>hazards in such use?
There is a considerable amount of reliability testing related to systems and
equipment certification. I refer you to AC 20-138 for the requirements for
airworthyness approval of GPS navigation equipment.
RELATED FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS.
14 CFR parts 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 43, 91, 121, and 135.
>>>Please explain how it could lead to the grounding of the airplane.
>>Part 21 provides for removal of certification where the Administrator
finds
>>an "unsafe feature" of any airplane. I have known of people getting
>>screwed over for having the kind of pissing contest you are engageing in
>>here.
>That applies only to products for which a Type Certificate or a
Supplemental
>Type Certificate was issued. It would not apply to a handheld GPS.
It applies to the airplane's airworthyness.
John
Steven P. McNicoll
Tarver Engineering wrote in message <75hbhv$96g$1...@remarQ.com>...
>Steven P. McNicoll wrote in message ...
>>>Steven P. McNicoll wrote in message ...
>>>>>Steven P. McNicoll wrote in message ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>thoroughly and have found no regulation that prohibits the use
>>>>>>of a handheld GPS during enroute IFR flight. If it's not prohibited,
>>>>>>it's legal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>It is an "unsafe feature" and could lead to the grounding of the
>>>>>airplane.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Please explain how it is unsafe.
>>>>
>>>
>>>That is a finding the Administrator must make, for this part
>>>of CFR 14 Part 21 to apply, I have already pointed out here
>>>that it is my beleif that unloading the airways of small airplanes
>>>is a safety improvement. That is why I tried to argue, originally,
>>>that this issue should not apply to Part 23 airplanes, but you were
>>>able to shoot me down on that one.
>>>
>>
>>It was you that said a handheld GPS used during enroute IFR flight was an
>>"unsafe feature". In what way do you believe it is unsafe? What are the
>>hazards in such use?
>>
>
>There is a considerable amount of reliability testing related to
>systems and equipment certification.
>
That says nothing about why a handheld GPS used during enroute IFR flight
is an "unsafe feature". In what way do you believe it is unsafe? What are
the
hazards in such use?
>
>I refer you to AC 20-138 for the requirements for
>airworthyness approval of GPS navigation equipment.
>
>RELATED FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS.
>14 CFR parts 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 43, 91, 121, and 135.
>
I'm glad you brought that up. AC 20-138 establishes an acceptable means of
obtaining airworthiness approval of GPS equipment, but there is no
regulation that requires that approval be obtained. If you review paragraph
1. of AC 20-138 you'll see this; "Like all advisory material, this advisory
circular is not mandatory and does not constitute a requirement. As such,
the terms "shall" and "must" used in this advisory circular pertain to an
applicant who chooses to follow the method presented."
I refer you to Page i of the Advisory Circular Checklist, AC 00-2.12:
"3. Explanation of AC system. The FAA issues advisory circulars to inform
the aviation public in a systematic way of nonregulatory material. Unless
incorporated into a regulation by reference, the contents of an advisory
circular are not binding on the public. Advisory circulars are issued in a
numbered-subject system corresponding to the subject areas of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (FAR) (Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter
I, Federal Aviation Administration). An AC is issued to provide guidance
and information in a designated subject area or to show a method acceptable
to the Administrator for complying with a related Federal
Aviation Regulation."
So Advisory Circulars, like Technical Standard Orders, are not binding on
the public
unless incorporated into a Federal Aviation Regulation.
>>>>
>>>>Please explain how it could lead to the grounding of the airplane.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Part 21 provides for removal of certification where the Administrator
>>>finds an "unsafe feature" of any airplane. I have known of people
>>>getting screwed over for having the kind of pissing contest you are
>>>engageing in here.
>>>
>>
>>That applies only to products for which a Type Certificate or a
>>Supplemental Type Certificate was issued. It would not apply to
>>a handheld GPS.
>>
>
>It applies to the airplane's airworthyness.
>
How can a handheld GPS affect an airplanes airworthiness? It's not part of
the airplane.
Tarver Engineering
Steven P. McNicoll wrote in message ...
>
>>Steven P. McNicoll wrote in message ...
>>>>Steven P. McNicoll wrote in message ...
>>>>>>Steven P. McNicoll wrote in message ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>thoroughly and have found no regulation that prohibits the use
>>>>>>>of a handheld GPS during enroute IFR flight. If it's not prohibited,
>>>>>>>it's legal.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It is an "unsafe feature" and could lead to the grounding of the
>>>>>>airplane.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Please explain how it is unsafe.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>That is a finding the Administrator must make, for this part
>>>>of CFR 14 Part 21 to apply, I have already pointed out here
>>>>that it is my beleif that unloading the airways of small airplanes
>>>>is a safety improvement. That is why I tried to argue, originally,
>>>>that this issue should not apply to Part 23 airplanes, but you were
>>>>able to shoot me down on that one.
>>>>
>>>
>>>It was you that said a handheld GPS used during enroute IFR flight was an
>>>"unsafe feature". In what way do you believe it is unsafe? What are the
>>>hazards in such use?
>>>
>>
>>There is a considerable amount of reliability testing related to
>>systems and equipment certification.
>>
>
>That says nothing about why a handheld GPS used during enroute IFR flight
>is an "unsafe feature". In what way do you believe it is unsafe? What are
>the
>hazards in such use?
The reliability of handhelds is unknown. I have seen handhelds used for
ferry tickets, but this was not an IFR operation. IFR requirements are
based on the idea that there is an extreemly low probability of failure of
navigation equipments. This idea is based on the fact that if you are lost
in IMC, you are probably going to die.
>>I refer you to AC 20-138 for the requirements for
>>airworthyness approval of GPS navigation equipment.
>>
>>RELATED FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS.
>>14 CFR parts 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 43, 91, 121, and 135.
>>
>
>I'm glad you brought that up. AC 20-138 establishes an acceptable means of
>obtaining airworthiness approval of GPS equipment, but there is no
>regulation that requires that approval be obtained. If you review
paragraph
> 1. of AC 20-138 you'll see this; "Like all advisory material, this
advisory
>circular is not mandatory and does not constitute a requirement. As such,
>the terms "shall" and "must" used in this advisory circular pertain to an
>applicant who chooses to follow the method presented."
An alternate means of compliance is required where AC 20-138 is not used;
otherwise your equipment is not airworthy.
>I refer you to Page i of the Advisory Circular Checklist, AC 00-2.12:
>
>"3. Explanation of AC system. The FAA issues advisory circulars to inform
>the aviation public in a systematic way of nonregulatory material. Unless
>incorporated into a regulation by reference, the contents of an advisory
>circular are not binding on the public. Advisory circulars are issued in a
>numbered-subject system corresponding to the subject areas of the Federal
>Aviation Regulations (FAR) (Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter
>I, Federal Aviation Administration). An AC is issued to provide guidance
>and information in a designated subject area or to show a method acceptable
>to the Administrator for complying with a related Federal
>Aviation Regulation."
AC 20-138 is used to comply with the listed FARs, if you choose to not use
it you must show compliance using a different method.
>So Advisory Circulars, like Technical Standard Orders, are not binding on
>the public
>unless incorporated into a Federal Aviation Regulation.
They are only binding on those under the Administrative authority of FAA.
(ie US pilots and N registered airplanes)
>>>>>Please explain how it could lead to the grounding of the airplane.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Part 21 provides for removal of certification where the Administrator
>>>>finds an "unsafe feature" of any airplane. I have known of people
>>>>getting screwed over for having the kind of pissing contest you are
>>>>engageing in here.
>>>>
>>>
>>>That applies only to products for which a Type Certificate or a
>>>Supplemental Type Certificate was issued. It would not apply to
>>>a handheld GPS.
>>>
>>
>>It applies to the airplane's airworthiness.
>>
>
>How can a handheld GPS affect an airplanes airworthiness? It's not part of
>the airplane.
If you use it for navigation of the airplane, then it is part of that
airplane.
John
Steven P. McNicoll
Tarver Engineering wrote in message <75hhj9$n5r$1...@remarQ.com>...
>Steven P. McNicoll wrote in message ...
>>>Steven P. McNicoll wrote in message ...
>>>>
>>>>IFR flight was an "unsafe feature". In what way do you believe
>>>>it is unsafe? What are the hazards in such use?
>>>>
>>>
>>>There is a considerable amount of reliability testing related to
>>>systems and equipment certification.
>>>
>>
>>That says nothing about why a handheld GPS used during enroute
>>IFR flight is an "unsafe feature". In what way do you believe it is
>>unsafe? What are the hazards in such use?
>>
>
>The reliability of handhelds is unknown. I have seen handhelds used for
>ferry tickets, but this was not an IFR operation. IFR requirements are
>based on the idea that there is an extreemly low probability of failure of
>navigation equipments. This idea is based on the fact that if you are lost
>in IMC, you are probably going to die.
>
Why is that a hazard? ATC cannot clear an aircraft off airways or beyond
normal navaid usable distances unless radar monitoring and course guidance
are provided, and you still have all the installed navigational gear. The
addition of a handheld GPS does not increase the chances of getting lost.
>>>
>>>I refer you to AC 20-138 for the requirements for
>>>airworthyness approval of GPS navigation equipment.
>>>
>>>RELATED FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS.
>>>14 CFR parts 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 43, 91, 121, and 135.
>>>
>>
>>I'm glad you brought that up. AC 20-138 establishes an acceptable
>>means of obtaining airworthiness approval of GPS equipment, but
>>there is no regulation that requires that approval be obtained. If you
>>review paragraph 1. of AC 20-138 you'll see this; "Like all advisory
>>material, this advisory circular is not mandatory and does not constitute
>>a requirement. As such, the terms "shall" and "must" used in this
advisory
>>circular pertain to an applicant who chooses to follow the method
presented."
>>
>
>An alternate means of compliance is required where AC 20-138 is not used;
>otherwise your equipment is not airworthy.
>
Please cite the regulation that requires an alternate means of compliance
where AC 20-138 is not used.
>>
>>I refer you to Page i of the Advisory Circular Checklist, AC 00-2.12:
>>
>>"3. Explanation of AC system. The FAA issues advisory circulars to
>>inform the aviation public in a systematic way of nonregulatory material.
>>Unless incorporated into a regulation by reference, the contents of an
>>advisory circular are not binding on the public. Advisory circulars are
>>issued in a numbered-subject system corresponding to the subject areas
>>of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) (Title 14, Code of Federal
>>Regulations, Chapter I, Federal Aviation Administration). An AC is
>>issued to provide guidance and information in a designated subject area
>>or to show a method acceptable to the Administrator for complying with a
>>related Federal Aviation Regulation."
>>
>
>AC 20-138 is used to comply with the listed FARs, if you choose to not use
>it you must show compliance using a different method.
>
What FARs would be violated if AC 20-138 was not used? What is it that has
to be complied with if AC 20-138 is not used?
>>
>>So Advisory Circulars, like Technical Standard Orders, are not binding on
>>the public unless incorporated into a Federal Aviation Regulation.
>>
>
>They are only binding on those under the Administrative authority of FAA.
>(ie US pilots and N registered airplanes)
>
Advisory Circulars, like Technical Standard Orders, are not binding on those
under the Administrative authority of the FAA (ie US pilots and N registered
airplanes)
unless incorporated into a Federal Aviation Regulation.
>>>>
>>>>That applies only to products for which a Type Certificate or a
>>>>Supplemental Type Certificate was issued. It would not apply to
>>>>a handheld GPS.
>>>>
>>>
>>>It applies to the airplane's airworthiness.
>>>
>>
>>How can a handheld GPS affect an airplanes airworthiness? It's not part
>>of the airplane.
>>
>
>If you use it for navigation of the airplane, then it is part of that
airplane.
>
Nonsense. It's part of the airplane only if it's installed in the airplane.
LFransson
>Tarver Engineering wrote in message <75hbhv$96g$1...@remarQ.com>...
>>Steven P. McNicoll wrote in message ...
>>>Tarver Engineering wrote in message <75h0je$qq1$1...@remarQ.com>...
>>>>Steven P. McNicoll wrote in message ...
>>>>>Tarver Engineering wrote in message <75gri0$407$1...@remarQ.com>...
>>>>>>Steven P. McNicoll wrote in message ...
>>>>>>>
Is it just me, or is this getting ridiculous? How many times can a poster
quote what was previously quoted by a poster who quoted a previously quoted
post?
And on a related note, how much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck
could chuck wood?
Larry L. Fransson - ATP (CE-500), CFMEII
Macon, Georgia
"Pilots are just plane people with a different air about them."
Roy Smith
> >Tarver Engineering wrote in message <75hbhv$96g$1...@remarQ.com>...
> >>Steven P. McNicoll wrote in message ...
> >>>Tarver Engineering wrote in message <75h0je$qq1$1...@remarQ.com>...
> >>>>Steven P. McNicoll wrote in message ...
> >>>>>Tarver Engineering wrote in message <75gri0$407$1...@remarQ.com>...
> >>>>>>Steven P. McNicoll wrote in message ...
> >>>>>>>
>
> Is it just me, or is this getting ridiculous? How many times can a poster
> quote what was previously quoted by a poster who quoted a previously quoted
> post?
It's called a pissing contest.
Bob Noel
r...@popmail.med.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) wrote:
or it could indicate a complusive need to always have the last
word. ;-)
Gregory Travis
Tarver Engineering <jta...@tminet.com> wrote:
>>Please explain how it could lead to the grounding of the airplane.
>
>
>Part 21 provides for removal of certification where the Administrator finds
>an "unsafe feature" of any airplane. I have known of people getting screwed
>over for having the kind of pissing contest you are engageing in here.
Your reading of part 21, specifically your reading that part 21 applies
not only to things permanently affixed to the aircract but to all things
carried within the aircraft, is so expansive as to be worthless.
Under your interpretation, an aircraft could be grounded for virtually
any reason on the planet. A firearm, a pack of cigarettes, an x-tra cheese
double Whopper(TM), or an ornery cat could all be considered an
unsafe feature of an aircraft by your interpretation.
greg
--
gregory travis |"If you're going to kill someone there isn't much reason
gr...@littlebear.com|to get angry. You just pull the trigger. We need to smile
|with Novell when we pull the trigger." MSFT's Jim Allchin
Gregory Travis
Tarver Engineering <jta...@tminet.com> wrote:
>The reliability of handhelds is unknown. I have seen handhelds used for
>ferry tickets, but this was not an IFR operation. IFR requirements are
>based on the idea that there is an extreemly low probability of failure of
>navigation equipments. This idea is based on the fact that if you are lost
>in IMC, you are probably going to die.
That's simply not true. Yes, there are times when a loss of situational
awareness in IMC can be fatal but I'll wager that's not the probable
outcome. For example, if you're lost in clouds that have a base of
2,000' AGL, you're probably not going to die.
If anything, a surplus of naviagation equipment is probably worse from
a safety standpoint than is a deficit. The AA crew at Cali, the A320
crew at Strasbourg, the TWA 727 crew at Mt. Weather, the DC-10 crew at
Mt. Erebus, etc. were to a degree all lulled into complacency by the
embarassment of fuly certified navigational equipment they had.
On the other hand, Lindberg with no more than a compass and a clock to
guide him through the clouds, managed to make it across the Atlantic
without smacking into Ireland.
sdd...@yahoo.com
<snip>
> >>>>>>>Yes, I make that claim because I have searched the FARs very
> >>>>>>>thoroughly and have found no regulation that prohibits the use
> >>>>>>>of a handheld GPS during enroute IFR flight. If it's not prohibited,
> >>>>>>>it's legal.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>It is an "unsafe feature" and could lead to the grounding of the
> >>>>>>airplane.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Please explain how it is unsafe.
> >>>>>
>
<snip>
>>>>
> >>>
> >>>It was you that said a handheld GPS used during enroute IFR flight was an
> >>>"unsafe feature". In what way do you believe it is unsafe? What are the
> >>>hazards in such use?
> >>>
<snip>
> >
> >That says nothing about why a handheld GPS used during enroute IFR flight
> >is an "unsafe feature". In what way do you believe it is unsafe? What are
> >the
> >hazards in such use?
>
<snip>
> >>>
> >>
> >>It applies to the airplane's airworthiness.
> >>
> >
> >How can a handheld GPS affect an airplanes airworthiness? It's not part of
> >the airplane.
>
> If you use it for navigation of the airplane, then it is part of that
> airplane.
the charts I use a part of my navigation of the airplane and one of them is a
Rand McNally, That I some times refer to, does that make it part of my
airplane and hence not airworthy?
I also quite often use my $15 dollar watch to time my approaches, because I
forgot to set the clock before flight and quite frankly I don't always trust
that clock. Does that make my plane not airworthy?
I have also had a co-pilot use my handheld to get weather or ATIS for me, it
is not "approved" , does that make my plane not airworthy?
John- your argument falls apart as the handheld GPS is not repeat not part of
the plane and in fact the FAA treats it as baggage. You are not in the FAA's
eyes using it for navigation, you are ded recking, following a vector,
following a heading until the VOR comes in, etc. Therefore your argument is
specious and foolish.
Stu
>
> John
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
todd michael prine
s
On Sun, 20 Dec 1998, Bob Noel wrote:
> In article <roy-201298...@mcsv29-p1.med.nyu.edu>,
> r...@popmail.med.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) wrote:
>
> > lfra...@aol.com (LFransson) wrote:
> > > >Tarver Engineering wrote in message <75hbhv$96g$1...@remarQ.com>...
> > > >>Steven P. McNicoll wrote in message ...
> > > >>>Tarver Engineering wrote in message <75h0je$qq1$1...@remarQ.com>...
> > > >>>>Steven P. McNicoll wrote in message ...
> > > >>>>>Tarver Engineering wrote in message <75gri0$407$1...@remarQ.com>...
> > > >>>>>>Steven P. McNicoll wrote in message ...
> > > >>>>>>>
> > >
> > > Is it just me, or is this getting ridiculous? How many times can a poster
> > > quote what was previously quoted by a poster who quoted a previously quoted
> > > post?
> >
> > It's called a pissing contest.
>
> or it could indicate a complusive need to always have the last
> word. ;-)>
>
Nah, couldn't be...
Leonard Wojcik
LFransson wrote:
> Is it just me, or is this getting ridiculous? How many times can a poster
> quote what was previously quoted by a poster who quoted a previously quoted
> post?
>
> And on a related note, how much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck
> could chuck wood?
'Til it upchucks ??? :-)
Tarver Engineering
Steven P. McNicoll wrote in message
>
>>Steven P. McNicoll wrote in message ...
>>>Tarver Engineering wrote in message <75hbhv$96g$1...@remarQ.com>...
>>>>Steven P. McNicoll wrote in message ...
>>>>>
>>>>>IFR flight was an "unsafe feature". In what way do you believe
>>>>>it is unsafe? What are the hazards in such use?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>systems and equipment certification.
>>>>
>>>
>>>IFR flight is an "unsafe feature". In what way do you believe it is
>>>unsafe? What are the hazards in such use?
>>>
>>
>>ferry tickets, but this was not an IFR operation. IFR requirements are
>>based on the idea that there is an extreemly low probability of failure of
>>navigation equipments. This idea is based on the fact that if you are
lost
>>in IMC, you are probably going to die.
>>
>
>normal navaid usable distances unless radar monitoring and course guidance
>are provided, and you still have all the installed navigational gear. The
>addition of a handheld GPS does not increase the chances of getting lost.
ATC posting here claims that is not the case.
John
Tarver Engineering
Gregory Travis wrote in message <75j318$q9h$1...@sherrill.kiva.net>...
>In article <75h0je$qq1$1...@remarQ.com>,
>Under your interpretation, an aircraft could be grounded for virtually
>any reason on the planet. A firearm, a pack of cigarettes, an x-tra cheese
>double Whopper(TM), or an ornery cat could all be considered an
>unsafe feature of an aircraft by your interpretation.
That is correct.
John
Tarver Engineering
sdd...@yahoo.com wrote in message <75j8lt$8h5$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <75hhj9$n5r$1...@remarQ.com>,
> "Tarver Engineering" <jta...@tminet.com> wrote:
>>
>
><snip>
>
>> >>>>>>>Yes, I make that claim because I have searched the FARs very
>> >>>>>>>thoroughly and have found no regulation that prohibits the use
>> >>>>>>>of a handheld GPS during enroute IFR flight. If it's not
prohibited,
>> >>>>>>>it's legal.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>It is an "unsafe feature" and could lead to the grounding of the
>> >>>>>>airplane.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>Please explain how it is unsafe.
>> >>>>>
>>
><snip>
>
>
> >>>>
>> >>>
an
>> >>>"unsafe feature". In what way do you believe it is unsafe? What are
the
>> >>>hazards in such use?
>> >>>
>
>
>> >
>> >That says nothing about why a handheld GPS used during enroute IFR
flight
>> >is an "unsafe feature". In what way do you believe it is unsafe? What
are
>> >the
>> >hazards in such use?
>>
>
>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>It applies to the airplane's airworthiness.
>> >>
>> >
>> >How can a handheld GPS affect an airplanes airworthiness? It's not part
of
>> >the airplane.
>>
>> If you use it for navigation of the airplane, then it is part of that
>> airplane.
>
>the charts I use a part of my navigation of the airplane and one of them is
a
>Rand McNally, That I some times refer to, does that make it part of my
>airplane and hence not airworthy?
Do you have real charts as well?
>I also quite often use my $15 dollar watch to time my approaches, because I
>forgot to set the clock before flight and quite frankly I don't always
trust
>that clock. Does that make my plane not airworthy?
Does your watch indicate elapsed time?
>I have also had a co-pilot use my handheld to get weather or ATIS for me,
it
>is not "approved" , does that make my plane not airworthy?
Are you using your handheld for primary navigation?
>John- your argument falls apart as the handheld GPS is not repeat not part
of
>the plane and in fact the FAA treats it as baggage. You are not in the
FAA's
>eyes using it for navigation, you are ded recking, following a vector,
>following a heading until the VOR comes in, etc. Therefore your argument
is
>specious and foolish.
The discussion here is about primary means of navigation.
John
Steven P. McNicoll
Tarver Engineering wrote in message <75jpr8$k6m$1...@remarQ.com>...
>Steven P. McNicoll wrote in message
>>Tarver Engineering wrote in message <75hhj9$n5r$1...@remarQ.com>...
>>>
>>>ferry tickets, but this was not an IFR operation. IFR requirements are
>>>based on the idea that there is an extreemly low probability of failure
>>>of navigation equipments. This idea is based on the fact that if you are
>>>lost in IMC, you are probably going to die.
>>>
>>
>>Why is that a hazard? ATC cannot clear an aircraft off airways or beyond
>>normal navaid usable distances unless radar monitoring and course guidance
>>are provided, and you still have all the installed navigational gear. The
>>addition of a handheld GPS does not increase the chances of getting lost.
>>
>
>ATC posting here claims that is not the case.
>
That ATC posting is wrong.
FAA Order 7110.65 AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL
Chapter 4. IFR
Section 1. NAVAID USE LIMITATIONS
4-1-2. EXCEPTIONS
Altitude and distance limitations need not be applied when any of the
following conditions are met:
a. Routing is initiated by ATC or requested by the pilot and the
following is provided:
1. Radar monitoring.
2. As necessary, course guidance unless the aircraft is /E, /F, or
/G equipped.
NOTE-
[1] Para 4-4-1, ROUTE USE, requires radar monitoring be provided at FL 450
and below to aircraft on random (impromptu) RNAV routes.
Para 5-5-1, APPLICATION, requires radar separation be provided for these
routes at FL 450 and below.
[2] When a clearance is issued beyond the altitude and/or distance
limitations of a NAVAID, in addition to being responsible for maintaining
separation from other aircraft and airspace, the controller is responsible
for providing aircraft with information and advice related to significant
deviations from the expected flight path.
REFERENCE-
P/CG TERM- RADAR MONITORING.
b. Operational necessity requires and approval has been obtained from
the Frequency Management and Flight Inspection Offices to exceed them.
c. Requested routing is via an MTR.
REFERENCE-
FAAO 7110.65, METHODS, Para 5-6-2.
Tarver Engineering
Steven P. McNicoll wrote in message ...
>
>Tarver Engineering wrote in message <75jpr8$k6m$1...@remarQ.com>...
>>Steven P. McNicoll wrote in message
>>>Tarver Engineering wrote in message <75hhj9$n5r$1...@remarQ.com>...
>>>>
>>>>The reliability of handhelds is unknown. I have seen handhelds used for
>>>>ferry tickets, but this was not an IFR operation. IFR requirements are
>>>>based on the idea that there is an extreemly low probability of failure
>>>>of navigation equipments. This idea is based on the fact that if you
are
>>>>lost in IMC, you are probably going to die.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Why is that a hazard? ATC cannot clear an aircraft off airways or beyond
>>>normal navaid usable distances unless radar monitoring and course
guidance
>>>are provided, and you still have all the installed navigational gear.
The
>>>addition of a handheld GPS does not increase the chances of getting lost.
>>>
>>
>>ATC posting here claims that is not the case.
>>
>
>That ATC posting is wrong.
Good, that is much better than your post claiming to be an FAA employee not
bound by FAA Orders.
John
Steven P. McNicoll
Tarver Engineering wrote in message <75luia$sqd$1...@remarQ.com>...
>Steven P. McNicoll wrote in message ...
>>Tarver Engineering wrote in message <75jpr8$k6m$1...@remarQ.com>...
>>>
>>>
>>
>>That ATC posting is wrong.
>
>Good, that is much better than your post claiming to be an FAA employee not
>bound by FAA Orders.
>
I wrote no such message.
sdd...@yahoo.com
"Tarver Engineering" <jta...@tminet.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> >>>>>>It is an "unsafe feature" and could lead to the grounding of the
> >> >>>>>>airplane.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>Please explain how it is unsafe.
> >> >>>>>
> >
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >How can a handheld GPS affect an airplanes airworthiness? It's not part
> of
> >> >the airplane.
> >>
> >> If you use it for navigation of the airplane, then it is part of that
> >> airplane.
> >
> >the charts I use a part of my navigation of the airplane and one of them is
> a
> >Rand McNally, That I some times refer to, does that make it part of my
> >airplane and hence not airworthy?
>
> Do you have real charts as well?
>
yes and I actually use them, but sometimes as a supllement I use Rand McNally
, just as I use the vfr gps as a supplement to the radar vector, my dg and my
altimiter. This does not make any porton of my aircraft Unairworthy" as you
have claimed it does!
> >I also quite often use my $15 dollar watch to time my approaches, because I
> >forgot to set the clock before flight and quite frankly I don't always
> trust
> >that clock. Does that make my plane not airworthy?
>
> Does your watch indicate elapsed time?
can you point to anything that says it must have elapsed time, but to answer
your question it does- even though all that is required to my current
knowledge is a sweep second hand /o r a digital presentation of
hours:min:sec. But again the use of this as an aid to navigation still does
not make plane not airworthy does it?
>
> >I have also had a co-pilot use my handheld to get weather or ATIS for me,
> it
> >is not "approved" , does that make my plane not airworthy?
>
> Are you using your handheld for primary navigation?
no as indicated the "primary" means is a radar vector, ded reckoning,etc. the
vfr gps provides a damn good aid though ;->
>
> >John- your argument falls apart as the handheld GPS is not repeat not part
> of
> >the plane and in fact the FAA treats it as baggage. You are not in the
> FAA's
> >eyes using it for navigation, you are ded recking, following a vector,
> >following a heading until the VOR comes in, etc. Therefore your argument
> is
> >specious and foolish.
>
> The discussion here is about primary means of navigation.
it may be when you want to avoid your specious claim that the use of a vfr
gps in IFR conditions makes a plane not airworthy. The two have nothing to do
with each other. Now on the other hand if you where to shoot a GPS approach,
with an unapproved GPS that is a different story.
Your argument still is without merit!
Regards- Have a good holiday
Tarver Engineering
sdd...@yahoo.com wrote in message <75mek2$pvn$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <75jqgk$pdl$1...@remarQ.com>,
> "Tarver Engineering" <jta...@tminet.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> >>>>>>It is an "unsafe feature" and could lead to the grounding of the
>> >> >>>>>>airplane.
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>Please explain how it is unsafe.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>It applies to the airplane's airworthiness.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >How can a handheld GPS affect an airplanes airworthiness? It's not
part
>> of
>> >> >the airplane.
>> >>
>> >> If you use it for navigation of the airplane, then it is part of that
>> >> airplane.
>> >
>> >the charts I use a part of my navigation of the airplane and one of them
is
>> a
>> >Rand McNally, That I some times refer to, does that make it part of my
>> >airplane and hence not airworthy?
>>
>> Do you have real charts as well?
>>
>
>yes and I actually use them, but sometimes as a supllement I use Rand
McNally
>, just as I use the vfr gps as a supplement to the radar vector, my dg and
my
>altimiter. This does not make any porton of my aircraft Unairworthy" as you
>have claimed it does!
What I claimed is that a handheld can not be used as a primary means of IFR
navigation, any more than the tuna fish sandwich straw man this began with.
>> >I also quite often use my $15 dollar watch to time my approaches,
because I
>> >forgot to set the clock before flight and quite frankly I don't always
>> trust
>> >that clock. Does that make my plane not airworthy?
>>
>> Does your watch indicate elapsed time?
>
>can you point to anything that says it must have elapsed time, but to
answer
>your question it does- even though all that is required to my current
>knowledge is a sweep second hand /o r a digital presentation of
>hours:min:sec. But again the use of this as an aid to navigation still does
>not make plane not airworthy does it?
If the Administrator makes the finding that it is an unsafe feature of your
airplane, then it is a fact that the airplane is unairworthy.
>> >I have also had a co-pilot use my handheld to get weather or ATIS for
me,
>> it
>> >is not "approved" , does that make my plane not airworthy?
>>
>> Are you using your handheld for primary navigation?
>
>no as indicated the "primary" means is a radar vector, ded reckoning,etc.
the
>vfr gps provides a damn good aid though ;-
I agree, but keep in mind that your position must be that a handheld, or
tuna fish sandwich, is a safe for primary means IFR navigation; in order to
maintain the position I am opposed to. If you wish to debate some other
point, then you may not hold me to it.
>> >John- your argument falls apart as the handheld GPS is not repeat not
part
>> of
>> >the plane and in fact the FAA treats it as baggage. You are not in the
>> FAA's
>> >eyes using it for navigation, you are ded recking, following a vector,
>> >following a heading until the VOR comes in, etc. Therefore your
argument
>> is
>> >specious and foolish.
>>
>> The discussion here is about primary means of navigation.
>
>it may be when you want to avoid your specious claim that the use of a vfr
>gps in IFR conditions makes a plane not airworthy.
It is an unsafe feature of that airplane to use the unapproved GPS for IFR
navigation. Changing what this discussion is about may allow you to make
some irrelevent point, but it does not change my position on this matter.
Keep in mind that this began as navigating by tuna fish sandwich, for IFR
operations.
> The two have nothing to do
>with each other. Now on the other hand if you where to shoot a GPS
approach,
>with an unapproved GPS that is a different story.
What story is that? If an uncertified GPS it is unsafe for an approach, it
is also unsafe enroute. My position from the beginning, as I posted, is
that the handheld GPS is for "information only"; just like your Rand Mc
Nally map.
John
Steven P. McNicoll
Tarver Engineering wrote in message <75mh9t$432$1...@remarQ.com>...
>
>What I claimed is that a handheld can not be used as a primary means of IFR
>navigation, any more than the tuna fish sandwich straw man this began with.
>
But you never cited a regulation that prohibits such use. The GPS that is,
not the tuna sandwich.
>
>If the Administrator makes the finding that it is an unsafe feature of your
>airplane, then it is a fact that the airplane is unairworthy.
>
Please cite the regulation that gives the Administrator such authority.
>
>It is an unsafe feature of that airplane to use the unapproved GPS for IFR
>navigation. Changing what this discussion is about may allow you to make
>some irrelevent point, but it does not change my position on this matter.
>Keep in mind that this began as navigating by tuna fish sandwich, for IFR
>operations.
>
If you're going to declare it unsafe you should be able to explain why it's
unsafe.
>
>If an uncertified GPS it is unsafe for an approach, it is also unsafe
enroute.
>
Why?
Tarver Engineering
Steven P. McNicoll wrote in message
>
>Tarver Engineering wrote in message <75mh9t$432$1...@remarQ.com>...
>>
>>What I claimed is that a handheld can not be used as a primary means of
IFR
>>navigation, any more than the tuna fish sandwich straw man this began
with.
>>
>
>But you never cited a regulation that prohibits such use. The GPS that is,
>not the tuna sandwich.
I am tired of the pissing contest Mr.Mc Nicholl. You just be careful next
time you claim to be an FAA employee exempt from FAA Orders.
John
Steven P. McNicoll
Tarver Engineering wrote in message <75n81r$1ib$1...@remarQ.com>...
>Steven P. McNicoll wrote in message
><41Ff2.1323$D76....@news3.ispnews.com>...
>>Tarver Engineering wrote in message <75mh9t$432$1...@remarQ.com>...
>>>
>>>What I claimed is that a handheld can not be used as a primary means of
>>>IFR navigation, any more than the tuna fish sandwich straw man this began
>>>with.
>>>
>>
>>But you never cited a regulation that prohibits such use. The GPS that
is,
>>not the tuna sandwich.
>>
>
>I am tired of the pissing contest Mr.Mc Nicholl.
>
I conclude from that response that you know of no regulation which prohibits
the use of a handheld GPS for IFR enroute flight. Thank you.
>
>You just be careful next time you claim to be an FAA employee exempt from
FAA >Orders.
>
I am an FAA employee, I have said so many times in these forums, but I never
said I was exempt from FAA Orders.
sdd...@yahoo.com
"Tarver Engineering" <jta...@tminet.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>It applies to the airplane's airworthiness.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >How can a handheld GPS affect an airplanes airworthiness? It's not
> part
> >> of
> >> >> >the airplane.
> >> >>
> >> >> If you use it for navigation of the airplane, then it is part of that
> >> >> airplane.
>
> navigation, any more than the tuna fish sandwich straw man this began with.
>
you have now added "primary" which was not listed in your other posts and
your argument that it makes the plane some how un-airworthy is still wrong. I
have a VFR only loran in my plane that is placarded "for vfr use only", but I
can damn sure still use it in IFR as a means to navigate without effecting
airworthness of the plane in the least, so long as another "approved" method
is also used. That other method can even be old fashioned ded reckoning.
>
> If the Administrator makes the finding that it is an unsafe feature of your
> airplane, then it is a fact that the airplane is unairworthy.
in what way (so long as it is not hazardous cargo or pic has determined it
does not interfer with required navigation equipment could this determination
be made. -this is not even a good straw man argument.
>
> >> >I have also had a co-pilot use my handheld to get weather or ATIS for
> me,
> >> it
> >> >is not "approved" , does that make my plane not airworthy?
> >>
> >> Are you using your handheld for primary navigation?
> >
> >no as indicated the "primary" means is a radar vector, ded reckoning,etc.
> the
> >vfr gps provides a damn good aid though ;-
>
> I agree, but keep in mind that your position must be that a handheld, or
> tuna fish sandwich, is a safe for primary means IFR navigation; in order to
> maintain the position I am opposed to. If you wish to debate some other
> point, then you may not hold me to it.
I have never said that a handheld gps is a primary means of navigation either
in IFR or VFR for that matter. An your postion as you have set forth is that
it's use somehow makes aircraft un-airworthy. Please pount to a FAR that says
plane is no longer airworthy by virtue of what FAA consideres to be "lawful"
baggage. A handheld gps by FAA standards is just that baggage (just like the
tuna sandwich), you can use it to help you all you want but its use does not
in any way make the plane non-airworthy.
>
> It is an unsafe feature of that airplane to use the unapproved GPS for IFR
> navigation. Changing what this discussion is about may allow you to make
> some irrelevent point, but it does not change my position on this matter.
> Keep in mind that this began as navigating by tuna fish sandwich, for IFR
> operations.
it may still be used for IFR navigation as an aid to ded reckoning or
flying a radar vector quite legally.
>
> > The two have nothing to do
> >with each other. Now on the other hand if you where to shoot a GPS
> approach,
> >with an unapproved GPS that is a different story.
>
> What story is that? If an uncertified GPS it is unsafe for an approach, it
> is also unsafe enroute. My position from the beginning, as I posted, is
> that the handheld GPS is for "information only"; just like your Rand Mc
> Nally map.
the story that is different is reg that says you must have equipment
neccesary for the approach to fly it. I surely on a VOR approach, with the
VOR properly tuned also use my handheld gps for "situational awareness. This
becomes very useful when it is a VOR approach with the VOR being several
miles from end of runway and as it happens the use of even Loran for this
purpose is suggested in the AOPA's Single Pilot IFR pamphlet (a newer one
probably recommends a handheld gps). Your addmission that it can be used
properly for "information only" goes against your stated postiton that the
use of a handheld somehow renders palne not airworthy. I sincerly hope you
are not an A&P or you would ground a lot of good airplanes for no reason (and
probably let a lot of dangerous ones fly) by your clear misunderstanding of
the FAR's
>
> John
Bob Noel
[snip]
> I
> have a VFR only loran in my plane that is placarded "for vfr use only", but I
> can damn sure still use it in IFR as a means to navigate without effecting
> airworthness of the plane in the least, so long as another "approved" method
> is also used. That other method can even be old fashioned ded reckoning.
It's a subtle point, but the LORAN placarded as "for vfr use only"
can be used for situational awareness but not for primary or
supplemental means of IFR navigation.
After all, if the LORAN met the requirements for IFR supplemental
or primary means of navigation than it shouldn't have been placarded
as vfr-only.
Doesn't the pilot have to comply with the placards in the aircraft?
Steven P. McNicoll
sdd...@yahoo.com wrote in message <75n9ld$h1g$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <75mh9t$432$1...@remarQ.com>,
> "Tarver Engineering" <jta...@tminet.com> wrote:
>>
>> What I claimed is that a handheld can not be used as a primary
>>means of IFR navigation, any more than the tuna fish sandwich
>>straw man this began with.
>>
>
>you have now added "primary" which was not listed in your other
>posts and your argument that it makes the plane some how
>that is placarded "for vfr use only", but I can damn sure still use
>it in IFR as a means to navigate without effecting airworthness
>of the plane in the least, so long as another "approved" method
>is also used. That other method can even be old fashioned ded
>reckoning.
>
In this case, I don't think you can. Use of a Loran installed with a
placard reading "For VFR use only" would violate FAR 91.9(a). That's the
advantage of handheld equipment; no installation, no restrictive placard, no
limitations on use during IFR flight. Assuming you've complied with FAR
91.21, of course.
Sec. 91.9 Civil aircraft flight manual, marking, and placard requirements.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, no person may
operate a civil aircraft without complying with the operating limitations
specified in the approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual, markings,
and placards, or as otherwise prescribed by the certificating authority of
the country of registry.
Sec. 91.21 Portable electronic devices.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may
operate, nor may any operator or pilot in command of an aircraft allow the
operation of, any portable electronic device on any of the following
U.S.-registered civil aircraft:
(1) Aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier operating
certificate or an operating certificate; or
(2) Any other aircraft while it is operated under IFR.
(b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to--
(1) Portable voice recorders;
(2) Hearing aids;
(3) Heart pacemakers;
(4) Electric shavers; or
(5) Any other portable electronic device that the operator of the
aircraft has determined will not cause interference with the navigation or
communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used.
(c) In the case of an aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier
operating certificate or an operating certificate, the determination
required by paragraph (b)(5) of this section shall be made by that operator
of the aircraft on which the particular device is to be used. In the case of
other aircraft, the determination may be made by the pilot in command or
other operator of the aircraft.
sdd...@yahoo.com
ihates...@hw1nospam.net (Bob Noel) wrote:
> In article <75n9ld$h1g$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, sdd...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> [snip]
> > have a VFR only loran in my plane that is placarded "for vfr use only", but
I
> > can damn sure still use it in IFR as a means to navigate without effecting
> > airworthness of the plane in the least, so long as another "approved" method
> > is also used. That other method can even be old fashioned ded reckoning.
>
> can be used for situational awareness but not for primary or
> supplemental means of IFR navigation.
>
> After all, if the LORAN met the requirements for IFR supplemental
> or primary means of navigation than it shouldn't have been placarded
> as vfr-only.
>
> Doesn't the pilot have to comply with the placards in the aircraft?
>
> --
> Bob
subtle point taken and accepted, it really isn't for navigation it is for
"situational awareness enhancment". BTW the suggestion to use it on a VOR
approach in particular came from the DE who gave me my instrument check ride.
His theory which he told me after the flight was use every thing and anything
that helps to point you in the right direction he also said although he would
have made me turn it off for a t least a portion of flight to use the
autopilot more. Then I showed him the small sticker that said inoperative
that he could not see (it is now operative, but that is another story).