Can you File your Route Direct for IFR flight Plan?
ilsub
He was mentinoning that he could file his Route "direct" from OSU
(COlumbus OH)
to New Hamphshire.
My instructor told me that I had to file flight plan such that I can
navigate on my own. That means I have to select some Navaid as way
points.
Any comments on this?
Thank you.
Ilsub Jung
Bob Gardner
enroute, in contact with ATC, you can ask for a vector direct.
Bob Gardner
"ilsub" <il...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a8ca1294.02030...@posting.google.com...
John R. Copeland
When I learn where the favorite local gates are, I include them in my flight plan. For instance, trying to go direct from OSU to Wichita, they always start me with radar vectors to DQN (Dayton). Coming back home to OSU, I know my approach gate will normally be the GUNNE intersection, so I file to there and never have to copy an amended clearance somewhere in the vicinity of Indianapolis.
Perhaps your instructor was really saying to file "Direct" only when you have approved RNAV capability. That's good advice.
---JRC---
"ilsub" <il...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:a8ca1294.02030...@posting.google.com...
vincent p. norris
existed.
You do have to be able to navigate, but that doesn't mean you have to
fly airways.
vince norris
Steven P. McNicoll
They're both right. You can file direct, and you should always be able to
fly what you file.
Barry
The Air Traffic Controller's Manual FAAO 7110.65M defines "approach gate"
as:
"New-2001-1 Approach Gate revised January 25, 2001}
Approach Gate - An imaginary point used within ATC as a basis for vectoring
aircraft to the final approach course. The gate will be established along
the final approach course 1 mile from the final approach fix on the side
away from the airport and will be no closer than 5 miles from the landing
threshold."
I've always known it as such, also. Does your "approach gate" at GUNNE
conform to the above definition, or is ATC back there using some alternate
means of defining approach gates? Tailwinds. - antique examiner
John R. Copeland <jcop...@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
news:5Qdh8.142254$s43.33...@typhoon.columbus.rr.com...
Professor Taylor isn't wrong when he says you can *file* direct from
departure point to a distant destination. But very frequently the actual
clearance you'll receive will have something like Radar Vectors to a nearby
VOR, then direct to destination.
When I learn where the favorite local gates are, I include them in my flight
plan. For instance, trying to go direct from OSU to Wichita, they always
start me with radar vectors to DQN (Dayton). Coming back home to OSU, I
know my approach gate will normally be the GUNNE intersection, so I file to
there and never have to copy an amended clearance somewhere in the vicinity
of Indianapolis.
Perhaps your instructor was really saying to file "Direct" only when you
have approved RNAV capability. That's good advice.C---
Casey Webster
familiar with his airport) at DFW there are 4 sets of arrival "gates" and 4
sets of departure "gates", all are about 35 nm from the airport. The dep
gates are N,S,E and W from the airport, slightly past the bounds of the
class B, and there are 4 named intersections per direction that represent
the gates. Arrivals are the same (4 intersection each), but are at NW, NE,
SE and SW bearings from the airport.
Each of the DP's for the area will send you through one of the departure
gates, and the STARS all bring you in on one of the arrival gates, and
although i havent flown here, i'm told that if you are transitioning in or
out of the class B, you will be vectored through one of them.
"Barry" <nospam...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:a64k55$dif$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net...
Rod Madsen
gate" and "arrival gate".
Rod
"Casey Webster" <ca...@trifocus.net> wrote in message
news:4xlh8.54718$6j2.3...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
John R. Copeland
Sorry for my error.
But whatever they're named, it's useful to learn where your local gates are.
---JRC---
"Barry" <nospam...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:a64k55$dif$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net...
Newps
Barry wrote:
>Hi John:
>The Air Traffic Controller's Manual FAAO 7110.65M defines "approach gate"
>as:
>"New-2001-1 Approach Gate revised January 25, 2001}
>Approach Gate - An imaginary point used within ATC as a basis for vectoring
>aircraft to the final approach course. The gate will be established along
>the final approach course 1 mile from the final approach fix on the side
>away from the airport and will be no closer than 5 miles from the landing
>threshold."
>
>I've always known it as such, also. Does your "approach gate" at GUNNE
>conform to the above definition, or is ATC back there using some alternate
>means of defining approach gates? Tailwinds. - antique examiner
>
As used like this a "gate" means something else. The busier airspaces
will have a number of gates, usually about 30 miles from the airport.
All aircraft must exit or enter the airspace thru one of these gates.
DFW has this setup. They use four VOR's and call them cornerposts.
All arrival routes will come in over one of these corner posts. I'm
not sure if they also route the departures over the same VOR's. Using
gates like this is only used in very high density airspace because if it
isn't very busy it is a very inefficient use of airspace. At the class
C I work we only require center to have all aircraft at or descending to
13 thousand. We take arrivals from anywhere and send departures to
center on whatever route the aircraft wants to fly.
Stan Gosnell
news:a8ca1294.02030...@posting.google.com:
It depends on what equipment you have. If you have an IFR approved GPS,
you can certainly file direct. You might not get it, but you can file it.
If all you have is a VOR, it would be foolish to file direct, even if it
were legal. Legality & practicality aren't the same thing.
--
Regards,
Stan
Steven P. McNicoll
"Stan Gosnell" <stang@[204.52.135.1]> wrote in message
news:Xns91C98116677...@204.52.135.10...
>
> It depends on what equipment you have. If you have an IFR approved GPS,
> you can certainly file direct.
>
Just as you can with a non-approved GPS.
>
> You might not get it, but you can file it.
> If all you have is a VOR, it would be foolish to file direct, even if it
> were legal.
>
It is legal.
ilsub
What were you using for navigation?
vp...@psu.edu (vincent p. norris) wrote in message news:<3c856af6...@news.psu.edu>...
AJ
> and you should always be able to fly what you file.
"Should always be able to fly"...Philosophy or a cause coming out of you?
"Should" is only recommended, clearances are mandatory (with exceptions).
>
>
Matt Ketcham
You can file direct with a VFR GPS? I know the AIM is not the CFR but I
thought use of an IFR GPS for navigation was only approved if the database
was current and it was in fact a certifed installation. What if you had a
VFR GPS Nav/Com (like the KX135) and thats it? Can you file IFR direct? A
reg quotation would be helpful.
Thanks,
Matt
"Steven P. McNicoll" <ronca...@writeme.com> wrote in message
news:u8cqdgi...@corp.supernews.com...
Steven P. McNicoll
"Matt Ketcham" <mske...@nomediaonespam.net> wrote in message
news:iROh8.13552$Or3.1...@typhoon.mn.ipsvc.net...
>
> You can file direct with a VFR GPS?
>
Sure.
>
> I know the AIM is not the CFR but I thought use of an IFR GPS for
> navigation was only approved if the database was current and it was
> in fact a certifed installation.
>
No approval or certification is required.
>
> What if you had a VFR GPS Nav/Com (like the KX135) and thats it?
> Can you file IFR direct?
>
Yes.
>
> A reg quotation would be helpful.
>
There's no regulation to quote. Since there's no regulation prohibiting it,
it's legal.
Bob Noel
Ketcham" <mske...@nomediaonespam.net> wrote:
> You can file direct with a VFR GPS?
yes. because the VFR GPS isn't what allows you to file/fly direct
in a radar environment (neither would IFR GPS).
--
Bob
(I think people can figure out how to email me... )
(replace ihatessppaamm with my name (rnoel) and hw1 with mediaone)
Cheryl Bavister
prevalent. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE the navigation ability of GPS. But
I really hate it when pilots flight plans consist merely of the departure
and arrival airports. Especially when I don't know where that obscure
destination is, or the route goes directly through heavily used military
airspace. Then I'm spending my time looking up the destination to see if
it's north, south, east or west and making a feasible route. The clearance
I come up with on the fly may not be as efficient as one a pilot could get
with some map application, but hey, I'm usually busy! I believe somewhere it
is written that there should be at least a navaid in each Center's airspace
in the flight plan. (I would have to go look this up at work though.) I do
try to give direct whenever I can, but at least for the initial clearance
it's nice to have a navaid or two to work with, especially in a flight plan
over several states.
C.Bavister, ZOA
--
"ilsub" <il...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a8ca1294.02030...@posting.google.com...
Christian
news:CXUh8.1671$Nd.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> I believe somewhere it
> is written that there should be at least a navaid in each Center's
airspace
> in the flight plan. (I would have to go look this up at work though.) I
do
http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIM/Chap5/aim0501.html#5-1-7
AIM 5-1-7: Flight Plan - IFR Flights
d. Area Navigation (RNAV)
3. Pilots of aircraft equipped with operational area navigation equipment
may file for random RNAV routes throughout the National Airspace System,
where radar monitoring by ATC is available, in accordance with the following
procedures.
(a) File airport-to-airport flight plans prior to departure.
(b) File the appropriate RNAV capability certification suffix in the
flight plan.
(c) Plan the random route portion of the flight plan to begin and end
over appropriate arrival and departure transition fixes or appropriate
navigation aids for the altitude stratum within which the flight will be
conducted. The use of normal preferred departure and arrival routes
(DP/STAR), where established, is recommended.
(d) File route structure transitions to and from the random route
portion of the flight.
(e) Define the random route by waypoints. File route description
waypoints by using degree-distance fixes based on navigational aids which
are appropriate for the altitude stratum.
(f) File a minimum of one route description waypoint for each ARTCC
through whose area the random route will be flown. These waypoints must be
located within 200 NM of the preceding center's boundary.
(g) File an additional route description waypoint for each turnpoint
in the route.
(h) Plan additional route description waypoints as required to ensure
accurate navigation via the filed route of flight. Navigation is the pilot's
responsibility unless ATC assistance is requested.
(i) Plan the route of flight so as to avoid prohibited and restricted
airspace by 3 NM unless permission has been obtained to operate in that
airspace and the appropriate ATC facilities are advised.
--
Christian
Man must exist in a state of balance between risk and safety. Pure risk
leads to self-destruction. Pure safety leads to stagnation. In between lies
survival and progress.
Norm Melick
>
> Steven,
> You can file direct with a VFR GPS? I know the AIM is not the CFR but I
> thought use of an IFR GPS for navigation was only approved if the database
> was current and it was in fact a certifed installation. What if you had a
> VFR GPS Nav/Com (like the KX135) and thats it? Can you file IFR direct? A
> reg quotation would be helpful.
> Thanks,
> Matt
Matt,
Do not fall into the trap of asking or relying on Steve McBabbles
interpretation of any FAR's, or IFR operations. He doesn't know what
he's talking about. You are correct in your understanding of using an
GPS under IFR. Please refer to AIM 1-1-22 (b)(1)(a through g). It is
very explicit. The regulation requiring you to have the minimum
equipment appropriate to the ground facilities to be used has not been
changed. In addition, if your flight requires an alternate, the
alternate must have an SIAP other than a GPS approach. A
VFR GPS Nav/Com like the KX135 can certainly be used as a situational
awareness tool, IFR or VFR, as could a handheld GPS. As for filing
direct with a "VFR" GPS, you can file direct with or without any GPS.
The only pilot requirement is that your request is approved by ATC.
However, you must be able to navigate direct to where you want to go,
when ATC clears you "present position direct".
Lastly, don't buy into the old argument that "The AIM is not
regulatory". The AIM is a book that explains how the FAA intends for you
to conduct your flight. In an administrative enforcement hearing, the
standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt", not "innocent until
proven guilty". The FAA will introduce the AIM into evidence, and once
the Administrative Law Judge admits it into evidence, (he will, trust
me), it becomes the standard to which the FAA expects us to operate our
aircraft. In effect, it becomes law. That's the dirty little secret that
McBabble, and others who point out that the AIM is not regulatory, don't
bother to tell.
Do not bet your certificate on Mcbabble. He's already been challenged to
call his FSDO and tell them he intends to operate an aircraft on an IFR
flight plan with nothing more than a hand held GPS, file and fly this
flight, then call his FSDO and tell them that that he in fact did this
flight. So far, he hasn't had the balls to try it. Read the FAR's, the
AIM, and do your very best to comply with them both.
Ignore McBabble. Let him put up his certificate.
Norm Melick
vincent p. norris
>> existed.
>Curious.
>What were you using for navigation
Two examples: The airway from my home field, UNV (central PA) to
either DCA or IAD has a dogleg, via Harrisburg. I discovered, years
ago, that the radial from the DCA VOR to UNV (distance about 100 nm)
goes right through LISON intersection. So instead of filing the
airway to HAR and then DCA, I filed "Direct LISON direct DCA," and
usually got it. I was never asked how I did it.
Similarly, the radial from Dulles went right past MAPEL, so I filed
"Direct MAPEL direct IAD." And usually got it.
I would DR after takeoff, depending on forecast winds, but by the time
I got to 5 or 6,000 feet, I could pick up DCA or IAD VOR and follow
the radial.
Returning, I'd file "Direct PSB" and later get a vector to the UNV
outer marker, or I could fly to it using the ADF.
A close look at the Enroute charts will often reveal possibilities
like these.
vince norris
James M. Knox
news:3C8847F4...@worldnet.att.net:
> Do not fall into the trap of asking or relying on Steve McBabbles
> interpretation of any FAR's, or IFR operations. He doesn't know what
> he's talking about.
I can *not* believe that I am rushing to defend Steve (not that he can't
defend himself)... heaven knows that he and I have gone round and round
about enough stuff in the past. But the truth is, the post I saw from
Steve on this was CORRECT.
First off, simplify the issues. As far as the official FAA word is, a
handheld GPS simply does not exist. A "VFR GPS" is essentially the same
thing -- nothing! Okay... if it doesn't exist, then the question becomes
much simpler: Can you file direct?
Of course! Any time you want to! [You may not get it, but that's a
completely different issue. <G>] A clock and a compass are required
equipment, and that's all you need to navigate direct. [Not recommended,
but legal.] Standard clearance: "Nxxxxx, heading nnn, when able direct YYY
vor." May be hundreds of miles before you start receiving the VOR, and
meanwhile you are just following a heading, tracking your position by
estimated groundspeed. Been done since the dawn of IFR.
That handheld GPS? Just a handy little "positional awareness" device to
help make sure you follow that old whiskey compass accurately.
jmk
Matt Ketcham
Called the local FSDO re: this topic 5 minutes before I read your post.
They stated that VFR is not useable for legal primary navigation while on an
IFR flight (situational awareness fine). The operations guy also said that
a IFR certified installation w/o the current database can not be legally
used as a substitute for ADF/DME. When in doubt I call FSDO. He also
mentioned that he just returned form OK re:part 135 and 91 and IFR GPS
environment. Not to worry--I use this board to learn, not for
interpretation of Regs.
Thanks for the post
Matt
"Norm Melick" <hen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3C8847F4...@worldnet.att.net...
Norm Melick
> Norm Melick <hen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
> news:3C8847F4...@worldnet.att.net:
>
> > Do not fall into the trap of asking or relying on Steve McBabbles
> > interpretation of any FAR's, or IFR operations. He doesn't know what
> > he's talking about.
>
> I can *not* believe that I am rushing to defend Steve (not that he can't
> defend himself)... heaven knows that he and I have gone round and round
> about enough stuff in the past. But the truth is, the post I saw from
> Steve on this was CORRECT.
Matt posted:
"I know the AIM is not the CFR but I thought use of an IFR GPS for
navigation was only approved if the database was current and it was
in fact a certifed installation".
Steve posted:
"No approval or certification is required".
WRONG.
> First off, simplify the issues. As far as the official FAA word is, a
> handheld GPS simply does not exist. A "VFR GPS" is essentially the same
> thing -- nothing! Okay... if it doesn't exist, then the question becomes
> much simpler: Can you file direct?
Hence my statement; "As for filing direct with a "VFR" GPS, you can file
direct with or without any GPS.
The only pilot requirement is that your request is approved by ATC.
However, you must be able to navigate direct to where you want to go,
when ATC clears you "present position direct".
> Of course! Any time you want to! [You may not get it, but that's a
> completely different issue. <G>] A clock and a compass are required
> equipment, and that's all you need to navigate direct. [Not recommended,
> but legal.] Standard clearance: "Nxxxxx, heading nnn, when able direct YYY
> vor." May be hundreds of miles before you start receiving the VOR, and
> meanwhile you are just following a heading, tracking your position by
> estimated groundspeed. Been done since the dawn of IFR.
See my above statement.
> That handheld GPS? Just a handy little "positional awareness" device to
> help make sure you follow that old whiskey compass accurately.
Hence my statement: "A VFR GPS Nav/Com like the KX135 can certainly be
used as a situational awareness tool, IFR or VFR, as could a handheld
GPS".
So you agree with what I have stated. Still think Mcbabbles post is
correct?
Norm
Norm Melick
>
> Norm,
> Not to worry--I use this board to learn, not for interpretation of Regs.
You'll have a long and safe flying career.
Norm
KGruber
And for a totally different opinion, call a different FSDO.
Karl
les_I...@waitforit.com
<mske...@nomediaonespam.net> wrote:
>Norm,
>
>Called the local FSDO re: this topic 5 minutes before I read your post.
>They stated that VFR is not useable for legal primary navigation while on an
>IFR flight (situational awareness fine). The operations guy also said that
>a IFR certified installation w/o the current database can not be legally
>used as a substitute for ADF/DME. When in doubt I call FSDO. He also
>mentioned that he just returned form OK re:part 135 and 91 and IFR GPS
>environment. Not to worry--I use this board to learn, not for
>interpretation of Regs.
>
>Thanks for the post
>Matt
But when you pin them down, you find that they do not know what the
hell they are talking about.
"VFR [GPS] is not useable"?
What the hell does that mean, exactly? Does it mean I cannot have it
on board? Does it mean I cannot look at it duting flight? Does it
mean I cannot follow headings that happen to be shown on it and
indicate the way to where I want to go?
What the hell is "legal primary naviigation"? Where is it defined?
What does it mean, precisely? Is it the navigation instrument I must
look at more than 50% of the time?
And what the hell does "situational awareness only" mean?
"Situational Awareness" means to me that I know where I am and I know
where I am going. This is another way of saying "navigation", if you
ask me. So I can use it to know where I am and where I am going, but
I cannot use it to "navigate"? What poppycock.
There is so much unadulterated bullshit that swirls around this GPS
stuff that it is downright amusing.
Bob Bartch
the alternate could be completely VFR with no published approach.
Bob
Norm Melick wrote:
> Matt Ketcham wrote:
>
>>Steven,
>>You can file direct with a VFR GPS? I know the AIM is not the CFR but I
>>thought use of an IFR GPS for navigation was only approved if the database
>>was current and it was in fact a certifed installation. What if you had a
>>VFR GPS Nav/Com (like the KX135) and thats it? Can you file IFR direct? A
>>reg quotation would be helpful.
>>Thanks,
>>Matt
>>
>
> Matt,
>
SNIP
In addition, if your flight requires an alternate, the
> alternate must have an SIAP other than a GPS approach.
SNIP
Casey Webster
> direct with or without any GPS.
> The only pilot requirement is that your request is approved by ATC.
> However, you must be able to navigate direct to where you want to go,
> when ATC clears you "present position direct".
You seem to maintain that the only way you can file direct is with an IFR
approved GPS, and not using your handheld. What other people keep
saying, and you seem to not be hearing, is that you dont need the IFR
GPS to file direct. can i not file direct to a VOR without an IFR GPS?
i would think that a VHF nav radio would suit just fine, and i could use
a handheld to back me up.
The point i keep hearing is that the IFR GPS isnt needed to file direct,
as long as you have any other legal method of navigation (compass and timer
mentioned earlier). Afterall, what did people do before GPS came along?
Foureyes
destination included. As long as that lat & long is in there, no one seems
to have a problem. Without it, I'm often asked it or otherwise
interrogated. Does lat and long fix the problem or is it still a pain?
"Cheryl Bavister" <terv...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:CXUh8.1671$Nd.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Norm Melick
>
> > Hence my statement; "As for filing direct with a "VFR" GPS, you can file
> > direct with or without any GPS.
> > The only pilot requirement is that your request is approved by ATC.
> > However, you must be able to navigate direct to where you want to go,
> > when ATC clears you "present position direct".
>
> You seem to maintain that the only way you can file direct is with an IFR
> approved GPS, and not using your handheld.
Read my above quote again, then tell me how you came to the conclusion
that I maintain "that the only way you can file direct is with an IFR
approved GPS, and not using your handheld".
Unbelievable.
Norm Melick
Norm Melick
>
> OK, I give up. Why does the alternate have to have an SIAP?? I read that
> the alternate could be completely VFR with no published approach.
> Bob
>
> Norm Melick wrote:
You are correct. I was attempting to explain the requirement that if the
weather at the alternate you selected required you to do an approach,
the airport could not be served by a GPS approach only.
Norm Melick
Doug
IFR GPS, and a VOR/GS onboard. (I also have a handheld GPS). This rule is a
concern for me, primarily because I have never been able to determine if I
can fly an ILS with ONLY a VOR/GS (no marker beacons, no DME, no GPS, no
ADF), in the scenario where the GPS signals from outer space fail.
The only one I am SURE of is flying a VOR. VOR approaches are fairly rare
however.
I have been practicing ILS's with just my VOR/GS (and radar vectors). Seems
to work.
"Norm Melick" <hen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3C890363...@worldnet.att.net...
Defly
babbling you guys do is over semantics and the rest is aviation urban legend.
Thrown into the fray is the "legal" FAA position vs. real world practicality.
There are a few basics that cover the whole deal. I can't quote FAR's because
I'm sitting at my desk not poring over my FAR book. Lets run down the basics.
1. The FAR's say that a pilot operating under IFR ( the rules, not IMC the
conditions) must use navigation equipment appropriate to the navaids involved.
IE VOR radios for VOR approaches, ADF for NDB approaches, VOR for enroute
airway nav etc. (That's what primary navigation system means) 2. If you are
going to legally file direct from VOR to VOR their service volumes (reception
radius) must overlap. 3. You can pretty much file direct anywhere you want.
You probably won't get it every time and you won't get it at all if you'll be
in an area where you'll be out of radar contact IE the northern lower peninsula
of Michigan. 4. A GPS used for IFR navigation must have TSO approval - no
handhelds have that - and a current database. 5. The FAA considers GPS
approved for IFR navigation to be area navigation devices just like VOR based
RNAV. 6. If you file via airways, and put "GPS equipped" in the remarks box,
you'll usually get a direct "routing" from ATC if you ask for it and some major
airspace IE ORD isn't in the way. 7. If you ask for and get a direct routing
you can go direct using any damn system you want because ATC is responsible for
separating your paint from someone else's. 8. Filing direct, and getting
direct from ATC are 2 COMPLETELY different things. 9. Always ask for direct
from ATC. 10. If you fly over Canada ATC almost always asks if you can go
direct. I always tell them I have a handheld and they have always said
"proceed direct".
I think this whole issue is pretty simple and I just don't see why it's always
flogged so vitriolically on this NG
les_I...@waitforit.com
On 08 Mar 2002 21:14:06 GMT, de...@aol.com (Defly) wrote:
>Fer cryin' out loud. Can't this just be settled once and for all? Most of the
>babbling you guys do is over semantics and the rest is aviation urban legend.
>Thrown into the fray is the "legal" FAA position vs. real world practicality.
>There are a few basics that cover the whole deal. I can't quote FAR's because
>I'm sitting at my desk not poring over my FAR book. Lets run down the basics.
>1. The FAR's say that a pilot operating under IFR ( the rules, not IMC the
>conditions) must use navigation equipment appropriate to the navaids involved.
>IE VOR radios for VOR approaches, ADF for NDB approaches, VOR for enroute
>airway nav etc. (That's what primary navigation system means)
1. The FAR's say no such thing. And simply because this is what
"primary navigation system" means to you does not make it an
official definition.
> 2. If you are
>going to legally file direct from VOR to VOR their service volumes (reception
>radius) must overlap.
2. Wrong again. Such a filing is not "illegal".
>3. You can pretty much file direct anywhere you want.
>You probably won't get it every time and you won't get it at all if you'll be
>in an area where you'll be out of radar contact IE the northern lower peninsula
>of Michigan. 4. A GPS used for IFR navigation must have TSO approval - no
>handhelds have that - and a current database.
4. More error, and I challenge you to post a regulation that says what
you claim. What you say may be true to install a panel mount, there
is no such requirement on "usage".
> 5. The FAA considers GPS
>approved for IFR navigation to be area navigation devices just like VOR based
>RNAV. 6. If you file via airways, and put "GPS equipped" in the remarks box,
>you'll usually get a direct "routing" from ATC if you ask for it and some major
>airspace IE ORD isn't in the way. 7. If you ask for and get a direct routing
>you can go direct using any damn system you want because ATC is responsible for
>separating your paint from someone else's. 8. Filing direct, and getting
>direct from ATC are 2 COMPLETELY different things. 9. Always ask for direct
>from ATC. 10. If you fly over Canada ATC almost always asks if you can go
>direct. I always tell them I have a handheld and they have always said
>"proceed direct".
>
Mostly true, but irrelevant.
>I think this whole issue is pretty simple and I just don't see why it's always
>flogged so vitriolically on this NG
>
Perhaps because of erroneous information in posts like this one.
Doug
navigation equipment to file direct, the FARs don't and most ATC systems
don't have a rule against it. Also, most pilots have a handheld or other VFR
GPS that works perfectly well. Thus the ambiguity, at least in some circles.
The reality is you can file direct, and if you get it, you can fly it with
whatever equipment you have (or don't have).
At least that is my take on it.
(I have an IFR GPS, so I don't worry about it)
"Defly" <de...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020308161406...@mb-ba.aol.com...
Bob Noel
"Doug" <anoth...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> The ambiguity comes from the AIM saying you need IFR certified area
> navigation equipment to file direct, the FARs don't and most ATC systems
> don't have a rule against it. Also, most pilots have a handheld or other
> VFR
> GPS that works perfectly well. Thus the ambiguity, at least in some
> circles.
> The reality is you can file direct, and if you get it, you can fly it
> with
> whatever equipment you have (or don't have).
>
> At least that is my take on it.
>
> (I have an IFR GPS, so I don't worry about it)
Let me toss this out: the confusion comes, in part, from people
attempting to apply logic/reason to government regulations. It's
sort of like the fun we have with logging PIC vs actually being
PIC.
To the best of my knowledge, I can file anything I want (accepting
a clearance I can't comply with could be a different matter).
ATC can't give you a clearance direct without you being in radar
coverage (when the aircraft would be beyond the usable service
volume of the navaid). The fact that the pilot has or doesn't have
a handheld GPS is just a red herring. The only thing that matters
is whether or not there is radar coverage.
or look at it this way: For any aircraft equippage scenario,
having a handheld GPS will not change the routing the pilot can
fly IFR.
Doug
"Bob Noel" <ihates...@hw1nospam.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:ihatessppaamm-94D...@netnews.attbi.com...
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> Do not fall into the trap of asking or relying on Steve McBabbles
> interpretation of any FAR's, or IFR operations. He doesn't know what
> he's talking about. You are correct in your understanding of using an
> GPS under IFR. Please refer to AIM 1-1-22 (b)(1)(a through g). It is
> very explicit. The regulation requiring you to have the minimum
> equipment appropriate to the ground facilities to be used has not been
> changed. In addition, if your flight requires an alternate, the
> alternate must have an SIAP other than a GPS approach.
>
Wrong again, Normy. The alternate does not need to have an SIAP.
§ 91.169 IFR flight plan: Information required.
(c) IFR alternate airport weather minima. Unless otherwise authorized by
the Administrator, no person may include an alternate airport in an IFR
flight plan unless appropriate weather reports or weather forecasts, or a
combination of them, indicate that, at the estimated time of arrival at the
alternate airport, the ceiling and visibility at that airport will be at or
above the following weather minima:
(2) If no instrument approach procedure has been published in part 97 of
this chapter and no special instrument approach procedure has been issued by
the Administrator to the operator, for the alternate airport, the ceiling
and visibility minima are those allowing descent from the MEA, approach, and
landing under basic VFR.
>
> A VFR GPS Nav/Com like the KX135 can certainly be used as a situational
> awareness tool, IFR or VFR, as could a handheld GPS. As for filing
> direct with a "VFR" GPS, you can file direct with or without any GPS.
> The only pilot requirement is that your request is approved by ATC.
> However, you must be able to navigate direct to where you want to go,
> when ATC clears you "present position direct".
>
> Lastly, don't buy into the old argument that "The AIM is not
> regulatory". The AIM is a book that explains how the FAA intends for you
> to conduct your flight.
>
The AIM is also a book that proclaims itself to be nonregulatory. Are you
saying the AIM is wrong, Normy?
See subparagraph d. of the AIM Preface below:
Flight Information Publication Policy
The following is in essence, the statement issued by the FAA Administrator
and published in the December 10, 1964, issue of the Federal Register,
concerning the FAA policy as pertaining to the type of information that will
be published as NOTAM's and in the Aeronautical Information Manual.
a. It is a pilot's inherent responsibility to be alert at all times for
and in anticipation of all circumstances, situations, and conditions
affecting the safe operation of the aircraft. For example, a pilot should
expect to find air traffic at any time or place. At or near both civil and
military airports and in the vicinity of known training areas, a pilot
should expect concentrated air traffic and realize concentrations of air
traffic are not limited to these places.
b. It is the general practice of the agency to advertise by NOTAM or other
flight information publications such information it may deem appropriate;
information which the agency may from time to time make available to pilots
is solely for the purpose of assisting them in executing their regulatory
responsibilities. Such information serves the aviation community as a whole
and not pilots individually.
c. The fact that the agency under one particular situation or another may
or may not furnish information does not serve as a precedent of the agency's
responsibility to the aviation community; neither does it give assurance
that other information of the same or similar nature will be advertised,
nor, does it guarantee that any and all information known to the agency will
be advertised.
d. This publication, while not regulatory, provides information which
reflects examples of operating techniques and procedures which may be
requirements in other federal publications or regulations. It is made
available solely to assist pilots in executing their responsibilities
required by other publications.
Consistent with the foregoing, it shall be the policy of the Federal
Aviation Administration to furnish information only when, in the opinion of
the agency, a unique situation should be advertised and not to furnish
routine information such as concentrations of air traffic, either civil or
military. The Aeronautical Information Manual will not contain informative
items concerning everyday circumstances that pilots should, either by good
practices or regulation, expect to encounter or avoid.
>
> In an administrative enforcement hearing, the
> standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt", not "innocent until
> proven guilty". The FAA will introduce the AIM into evidence, and once
> the Administrative Law Judge admits it into evidence, (he will, trust
> me),
>
But Normy, in these forums you've shown yourself to be untrustworthy.
>
> it becomes the standard to which the FAA expects us to operate our
> aircraft. In effect, it becomes law. That's the dirty little secret that
> McBabble, and others who point out that the AIM is not regulatory, don't
> bother to tell.
>
> Do not bet your certificate on Mcbabble. He's already been challenged to
> call his FSDO and tell them he intends to operate an aircraft on an IFR
> flight plan with nothing more than a hand held GPS, file and fly this
> flight, then call his FSDO and tell them that that he in fact did this
> flight. So far, he hasn't had the balls to try it.
>
Unlike you, Normy, I'll always respond to a challenge.
The following message first appeared in this forum under the subject "Going
direct to an intersection" on December 4, 1999:
I sent the following message to eleven of the fourteen FSDOs in the Great
Lakes Region:
"I have a question regarding the use of a handheld GPS receiver
during IFR enroute flight.
Let's say I file from MBS direct to SEA in my BE36/A. My Bonanza
has two nav/coms, ADF, GS receiver, DME, marker beacon receiver,
transponder, encoder, and an autopilot. But I intend to use my
handheld GPS receiver for enroute navigation, which I have previously
determined will not cause interference with the navigation or communication
system on my airplane. ATC clears me as filed and I proceed on my merry way
direct to Seattle.
Does this operation violate any FAR?"
I received E-mail responses from four FSDOs, I have changed only
identification of offices and individuals.
From FSDO "A":
Dear Steven,
Thank you for your question concerning GPS Navigation.
You must comply with the limitations of your GPS. There isn't
a handheld alive that is approved for IFR enroute or terminal
navigation, so to answer your question, no, you cannot use the
GPS for anything during your IFR Flight. I recommend that you
review your GPS Manual provided by the factory.
I hope this answers your question, Steven.
Sincerely,
John Doe
FSDO "A"
Dear Mr. Doe,
Thank you for your prompt response.
My question and scenario are completely hypothetical, I don't own a
GPS (or a Bonanza, unfortunately), so I have no GPS manual to
review. But I'm afraid you didn't answer my question; I wanted to
know what regulation, if any, was being violated in the scenario.
What FAR prohibits the use of a handheld GPS during enroute IFR
flight? What regulation requires me to comply with the limitations
of my GPS? What regulation requires the GPS, or any other nav
system for that matter, to be approved for IFR enroute flight?
Sincerely,
Steven P. McNicoll
No further messages were received from FSDO "A".
From FSDO "B":
Dear Steven,
Does this operation violate any FAR?
FAR - "singular" NO, "pural" YES
or only if the FAA accident investigation team has to pry it out of
your cold hands at the site of the crash, otherwise no one will know.
Sorry, but I just can't pass up to opportunity to put a little humor into
my work. Seriously here is the"spin" that most FAA types put on
the answer to this question.
Hand held GPS units are not approved for flight into IFR conditions. Panel
mount GPS units may be certified for enroute portions only,
or the high dollar units that meet all the FAA's certification
requirements can be used for enroute and approaches, these units
are also panel mounted units.
Further, the panel mounted units are to be installed by properly
certificated technicians and the equipment list, weight and balance
of the aircraft should reflect the additional equipment. (No the FAA
doesn't make it easy.)
So in the case of a handheld GPS for IFR flight, the unit is not
certified for that use and is not authorized by FARs.
Richard Roe
FSDO "B"
Dear Mr. Roe,
Thank you for your response.
I appreciate humor as much as anyone, but I don't see how we
arrived "at the site of the crash". This operation presents no
undue hazard.
I'm aware that hand held GPS units are not approved for flight
into IFR conditions, and that GPS installations CAN be approved
for IFR flight. But after an extensive search, I cannot find any
regulation REQUIRING that GPS have that approval in order to
be used during IFR enroute flight.
You say that this operation would violate several FARs, could
you cite them please?
Sincerely,
Steven P. McNicoll
No further messages were received from FSDO "B".
From FSDO "C":
Dear Steve,
I am forwarding your question to our Avionics Inspector;
Apollo Garmin. This is in his area of expertise.
Thank you for using our website.
Guy Fawkes
FSDO "C"
Steve,
I got together with our Avionics Inspector and have an
answer for you.
"A PORTABLE GPS CANNOT BE APPROVED IN THE
AIRCRAFT FOR INSTRUMENT FLIGHT RULES (IFR) OR
VISUAL FLIGHT RULES UNLESS THE COMPLETE SYSTEM
IS INSTALLED AND EVALUATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE INTERIM POLICY GUIDANCE DATED MARCH 20, 1992,
AS AMENDED, PERTAINING TO THE APPROVAL OF GPS
EQUIPMENT."
VFR only not IFR.
Let me know if we can be of any further assistance.
Guy Fawkes
FSDO "C"
Dear Mr. Fawkes,
Thank you for your response. I understand that a portable
GPS receiver cannot be approved for IFR flight, but what
regulation prohibits a non-approved GPS receiver from
being used during IFR flight?
Steven P. McNicoll
Steven,
Per my Avionics Inspector the following 14CFR Paragraph
answers your question (specifically para (b)(5):
----------------------------------
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.
------------------------
Guy Fawkes
FSDO "C"
Dear Mr. Fawkes,
FAR 91.21(b)(5) permits the operation of any portable electronic
device, other than a portable voice recorder, hearing aid, heart pacemaker,
or electric shaver, 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.
Recall that in my scenario I stated that I had previously determined
that my handheld GPS receiver does not cause interference with
the navigation or communication system on my airplane. It seems
to me that I have complied with FAR 91.21 to the letter.
Steven P. McNicoll
No further messages were received from FSDO "C"
From FSDO "D":
Dear Mr. Steven P. McNicoll
In response to your question, does this operation violate
any FAR?
Yes, it does.
You may file IFR as a (slant) /A.
The handheld GPS is not acceptable as RNAV and is contrary to:
14 Code of Federal Regulations(CFR), Part 21 sub part K and O.
14 CFR 23.1307
14 CFR 23.1309(b)
14 CFR 91.21
14 CFR 91.205
These are referenced in FAA pamphlet FAA-P-8000-3.
Thank you for your interest in aviation safety. Please call if you have any
questions, (987) 654-3210.
Inspector John Smith
FSDO "D"
Dear Mr. Smith,
Thank you for your response. Please see below for additional
questions and comments.
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> Dear Mr. Steven P. McNicoll
>
> In response to your question, does this operation violate
> any FAR?
>
> Yes, it does.
>
> You may file IFR as a (slant) /A.
>
> The handheld GPS is not acceptable as RNAV
>
What regulation specifies what is acceptable and what is not
acceptable as RNAV?
>
> and is contrary to:
> 14 Code of Federal Regulations(CFR), Part 21 sub part K and O.
>
How can that be? A handheld GPS is not a part or an appliance,
it is not installed in or attached to the aircraft. To my knowledge
there is no regulation that requires a GPS receiver to comply with
a TSO.
>
> 14 CFR 23.1307
>
I don't see how Part 23 is applicable at all, this does not involve
any change to a type certificate.
A handheld GPS receiver is not equipment necessary for the
airplane to operate at the maximum operating altitude or in the
kinds of operations and meteorological conditions for which it
is certified. Why would it need to be included in the type design?
Given that it is a portable device, how could it be included in the
type design?
>
> 14 CFR 23.1309(b)
>
14 CFR 23.1309(b) refers to installed equipment, but a
handheld GPS is not installed equipment.
>
> 14 CFR 91.21
>
Recall that I had previously determined my handheld GPS does
not cause interference with the navigation or communication
system on my airplane.
>
> 14 CFR 91.205
>
How is this regulation being violated? My aircraft contains all
of the instruments and equipment specified 14 CFR 91.205 for
IFR operations, and those instruments and items of equipment
are in operable condition.
>
> These are referenced in FAA pamphlet FAA-P-8000-3.
>
How may I obtain this pamphlet?
>
> Thank you for your interest in aviation safety.
> Please call if you have any questions, (987) 654-3210.
>
> Inspector John Smith
> FSDO "D"
>
Dear Mr. Steven P. McNicoll,
Your Bonanza was probably built in accordance with 14 CFR 23
(FAR 23), and if you intend to use the aircraft for IFR flight, it
should have the equipment specified in 14 CFR 91.205. The
hand-held GPS is not included in 91.205 because it is not
approved for IFR flight. In fact no GPS systems are mentioned
in 91.205, any GPS system that is approved for IFR use and is
going to be permanently installed in an aircraft needs to be
approved for that specific make and model of aircraft. The FAA
will not approve a GPS installation for IFR use if the GPS unit
wasn't manufactured to the minimum specifications of Technical
Standard Order-129A (TSO-C129A). At this point in time, no
hand-held GPS unit meets the minimum specifications spelled
out in TSO-C129A. TSO-C129A specifies the criteria by which
an installed GPS system, intended for certification in IFR
operations, will be built. A hand-held, portable GPS is not built
to these specifications.
The pamphlet(FAA-P-8000-3) we previously mentioned is available
at "http://gps.faa.gov/Library/gps1.pdf" on the Internet. In
FAA-P-8000-3, chapter 1, page 1-7, the first paragraph under
section 1.3. Hand-held or portable GPS receivers may be used
as a supplement to Visual Flight Rules only.
If you have any further questions you should contact your local F. A.
A. FSDO for more information. We are an Air Carrier Office and
deal with the airlines. Your local FSDO will have Inspectors who
deal with Part 91 operators. From the address on your e-mail it
appears that you are in the Milwaukee FSDO area. There phone
number is (414) 486-2920. They also have an Internet web-site.
The address is: "http://www.faa.gov/fsdo/mke".
Thank You,
Inspector John Smith
FSDO "D"
Dear Mr. Smith,
Thank you for your response. Please see additional comments
and questions below.
Sincerely,
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> Dear Mr. Steven P. McNicoll,
>
> Your Bonanza was probably built in accordance with
> 14 CFR 23 (FAR 23), and if you intend to use the aircraft
> for IFR flight, it should have the equipment specified in
> 14 CFR 91.205.
>
Please understand that this is a completely hypothetical scenario,
I do not own a Bonanza. My hypothetical Bonanza contains all of
the instruments and equipment specified in 14 CFR 91.205.
>
> The hand-held GPS is not included in 91.205 because it is
> not approved for IFR flight.
>
If my aircraft contains all of the instruments and equipment
specified in 14 CFR 91.205, then I am in compliance with that
regulation. What regulation prevents me from using a device
that is not mentioned in 91.205?
>
> In fact no GPS systems are mentioned in 91.205, any GPS
> system that is approved for IFR use and is going to be
> permanently installed in an aircraft needs to be approved for
> that specific make and model of aircraft. The FAA will not
> approve a GPS installation for IFR use if the GPS unit wasn't
> manufactured to the minimum specifications of Technical
> Standard Order-129A (TSO-C129A). At this point in time,
> no hand-held GPS unit meets the minimum specifications
> spelled out in TSO-C129A. TSO-C129A specifies the
> criteria by which an installed GPS system, intended for
> certification in IFR operations, will be built.
>
> A hand-held, portable GPS is not built to these specifications.
>
I understand that, but I can find no regulation that requires a GPS
receiver that is used for IFR enroute flight to be permanently
installed in the aircraft or to meet the specifications of TSO C-129a.
>
> The pamphlet(FAA-P-8000-3) we previously mentioned is
> available at "http://gps.faa.gov/Library/gps1.pdf" on the
> Internet.
>
> In FAA-P-8000-3, chapter 1, page 1-7, the first paragraph
> under section 1.3. Hand-held or portable GPS receivers
> may be used as a supplement to Visual Flight Rules only.
>
I don't believe that pamphlet has the force of law. 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-129a was not to be used
during IFR flight, then there would be an FAR that required
any GPS receiver used during IFR flight to meet that standard.
>
> If you have any further questions you should contact your local F. A.
> A. FSDO for more information. We are an Air Carrier Office and
> deal with the airlines. Your local FSDO will have Inspectors who
> deal with Part 91 operators. From the address on your e-mail it
> appears that you are in the Milwaukee FSDO area. There phone
> number is (414) 486-2920. They also have an Internet web-site.
> The address is: "http://www.faa.gov/fsdo/mke".
>
> Thank You,
> Inspector John Smith
> FSDO "D"
>
I have contacted eleven of the fourteen FSDOs in the Great Lakes Region. I
gave them all this same scenario and asked them all the
same question. Seven of them responded, all stating that
navigation by handheld GPS receiver during enroute flight under
IFR is illegal, but none of them could cite any law that would be
violated by such use! It seems to me that if it is illegal, then there
must be a regulation that is being violated; if there is no regulation
being violated, then it is not illegal.
Sincerely,
Steven P. McNicoll
No further messages were received from FSDO "D".
Norm Melick
>
> "Norm Melick" <hen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:3C8847F4...@worldnet.att.net...
> >
> > Do not fall into the trap of asking or relying on Steve McBabbles
> > interpretation of any FAR's, or IFR operations. He doesn't know what
> > he's talking about. You are correct in your understanding of using an
> > GPS under IFR. Please refer to AIM 1-1-22 (b)(1)(a through g). It is
> > very explicit. The regulation requiring you to have the minimum
> > equipment appropriate to the ground facilities to be used has not been
> > changed. In addition, if your flight requires an alternate, the
> > alternate must have an SIAP other than a GPS approach.
> >
>
> Wrong again, Normy. The alternate does not need to have an SIAP.
Nope. It depends, shit for brains. A competent and current IFR pilot
knows when you designate an alternate airport that has only one approach
available, it can't be a GPS approach. Stick to your day job, and leave
the operational stuff to us professional pilots.
> The AIM is also a book that proclaims itself to be nonregulatory. Are you
> saying the AIM is wrong, Normy?
No dip shit. I'm saying that you have no idea how the FAA uses the AIM
against pilots at an enforcement hearing, and what your telling the
pilots is pure bullshit from a low time private pilot that attempts to
use his position as an ATC specialist to get some sort of credibility.
You have no credibility, and from what I've been hearing, you may want
to start including the statement that the opinions you express are
yours, and do not represent the Administrator.
> > In an administrative enforcement hearing, the
> > standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt", not "innocent until
> > proven guilty". The FAA will introduce the AIM into evidence, and once
> > the Administrative Law Judge admits it into evidence, (he will, trust
> > me),
> >
>
> But Normy, in these forums you've shown yourself to be untrustworthy.
Hardly.
> > it becomes the standard to which the FAA expects us to operate our
> > aircraft. In effect, it becomes law. That's the dirty little secret that
> > McBabble, and others who point out that the AIM is not regulatory, don't
> > bother to tell.
> >
> > Do not bet your certificate on Mcbabble. He's already been challenged to
> > call his FSDO and tell them he intends to operate an aircraft on an IFR
> > flight plan with nothing more than a hand held GPS, file and fly this
> > flight, then call his FSDO and tell them that that he in fact did this
> > flight. So far, he hasn't had the balls to try it.
> >
>
> Unlike you, Normy, I'll always respond to a challenge.
Oh I'm counting on it.
> The following message first appeared in this forum under the subject "Going
> direct to an intersection" on December 4, 1999:
So when exactly did you "respond to the challenge", and call the FAA and
tell them that you were going to operate an aircraft under IFR, with
only a handheld GPS, go out and actually fly the flight, and call the
FSDO back and tell them that in fact you just came back from an IFR
flight using only a handheld GPS. Hmmmmmmm stevie?
> I sent the following message to eleven of the fourteen FSDOs in the Great
> Lakes Region:
Big deal. The challenge was FLY an IFR flight, not talk about one. As I
said before, NO BALLS.
I'll say it again. Anybody who listens to your crap about the AIM,
handheld GPS, and anything else concerning the operational aspects of an
IFR flight is just dumb, and deserves anything the FAA throws at them at
the enforcement hearing.
Norm Melick
Bob Noel
"Doug" <anoth...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Radar goes down, people still get clearances.
not direct beyond the service volume of the US NAS Navaids.
Steven P. McNicoll
"Matt Ketcham" <mske...@nomediaonespam.net> wrote in message
news:Tb5i8.13658$Or3.1...@typhoon.mn.ipsvc.net...
>
> Called the local FSDO re: this topic 5 minutes before I read your post.
> They stated that VFR is not useable for legal primary navigation while on
> an IFR flight (situational awareness fine).
>
I don't suppose they said what law such usage violated?
>
> When in doubt I call FSDO.
>
Why?
Steven P. McNicoll
"Norm Melick" <hen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3C88E3F7...@worldnet.att.net...
>
> Matt posted:
>
> "I know the AIM is not the CFR but I thought use of an IFR GPS for
> navigation was only approved if the database was current and it was
> in fact a certifed installation".
>
Actually, Matt posted:
"You can file direct with a VFR GPS? I know the AIM is not the CFR but I
thought use of an IFR GPS for navigation was only approved if the database
was current and it was in fact a certifed installation. What if you had a
VFR GPS Nav/Com (like the KX135) and thats it? Can you file IFR direct? A
reg quotation would be helpful."
>
> Steve posted:
>
> "No approval or certification is required".
>
> WRONG.
>
No, it's quite correct. GPS does not require approval or certification to
be used for IFR enroute navigation. If you believe otherwise then please
cite the regulations requiring approval and/or certification.
Steven P. McNicoll
"Foureyes" <Four...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:3c890...@news1.prserv.net...
>
> I'm curious. I've been filing direct ap to ap with the lat & long of the
> destination included. As long as that lat & long is in there, no one
> seems to have a problem. Without it, I'm often asked it or otherwise
> interrogated. Does lat and long fix the problem or is it still a pain?
>
Sounds like a flight plan processing problem. If the computer doesn't
recognize the destination airport it can't process the flight plan. Adding
the coordinates allows processing to the coordinates.
Steven P. McNicoll
> of the babbling you guys do is over semantics and the rest is aviation
> urban legend. Thrown into the fray is the "legal" FAA position vs. real
> world practicality.
>
But the FAA doesn't take a "legal" position. The FAA's position is not
supported by the law.
>
> There are a few basics that cover the whole deal. I can't quote FAR's
> because I'm sitting at my desk not poring over my FAR book. Lets run down
the
> basics.
> 1. The FAR's say that a pilot operating under IFR ( the rules, not IMC the
> conditions) must use navigation equipment appropriate to the navaids
> involved.
>
I don't think you'll find any FAR that says that.
>
> IE VOR radios for VOR approaches, ADF for NDB approaches,
> VOR for enroute airway nav etc. (That's what primary navigation system
> means)
>
Where did you find "primary navigation system" defined?
>
> 2. If you are going to legally file direct from VOR to VOR their service
volumes
> (reception radius) must overlap.
>
Please cite the regulation requiring that.
>
> 4. A GPS used for IFR navigation must have TSO approval - no
> handhelds have that - and a current database.
>
Please cite the regulation that requires GPS used for IFR enroute navigation
to have TSO approval.
>
> 6. If you file via airways, and put "GPS equipped" in the remarks
> box, you'll usually get a direct "routing" from ATC if you ask for it and
some
> major airspace IE ORD isn't in the way.
>
Just as you will if you don't file via airways and leave the remarks box
empty.
Norm Melick
>
> "Norm Melick" <hen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:3C88E3F7...@worldnet.att.net...
> >
> > Matt posted:
> >
> > "I know the AIM is not the CFR but I thought use of an IFR GPS for
> > navigation was only approved if the database was current and it was
> > in fact a certifed installation".
> >
>
> Actually, Matt posted:
>
> "You can file direct with a VFR GPS? I know the AIM is not the CFR but I
> thought use of an IFR GPS for navigation was only approved if the database
> was current and it was in fact a certifed installation. What if you had a
> VFR GPS Nav/Com (like the KX135) and thats it? Can you file IFR direct? A
> reg quotation would be helpful."
Actually, I was responding to what I quoted:
"I know the AIM is not the CFR but I thought use of an IFR GPS for
navigation was only approved if the database was current and it was in
fact a certifed installation".
> > Steve posted:
> >
> > "No approval or certification is required".
> >
> > WRONG.
> >
>
> No, it's quite correct. GPS does not require approval or certification to
> be used for IFR enroute navigation. If you believe otherwise then please
> cite the regulations requiring approval and/or certification.
I believe otherwise. I know otherwise. It's all spelled out in the
current AIM.
Norm Melick
They probably referenced what a current and qualified IFR pilot would
reference. The AIM, the particular AFM and TSO documents.
> > When in doubt I call FSDO.
> >
>
> Why?
What a stupid question.
Dan Luke
> When in doubt I call FSDO.
And for tax shelter advice, do you call the IRS? Your FSDO is feeding
you a load of BS.
--
Dan
N9387D at BFM
Norm Melick
>
> "Matt Ketcham" wrote:
> > When in doubt I call FSDO.
>
> And for tax shelter advice, do you call the IRS? Your FSDO is feeding
> you a load of BS.
What a ridicules and irresponsible statement to make. Who is BS'ing who?
Norm Melick
Craig Prouse
Sometimes it's the statements out of the FSDO that are ridiculous and
irresponsible. Case in point:
FSDO: Hello?
Me: Uh, yeah. My temporary certificate is 121 days old, and I'd like to
keep flying, so if it's not too much trouble, I'd like to get a field issue
of a new temporary, and perhaps we should figure out why I don't have my
pilot certificate yet.
FSDO: Well, OK City is pretty backed up. It'll probably be here any day
now. Do you really need a temporary?
Me: I need to take my airplane to another airport for its annual.
FSDO: You don't need an instrument rating for that.
Me: No, but I need a pilot certificate.
FSDO: But you have a pilot certificate. It just doesn't show your
instrument rating.
Me: No, I gave my pilot certificate to the DPE and he gave me a temporary,
which is now 121 days old and therefore invalid.
FSDO: Oh... I guess you do...
Now in fact, my entire application package (8710, knowledge test results,
etc.) had been lost by the FAA, so just waiting for OK City was terrible
advice. Not to mention that they were suggesting that I just keep flying
with an expired temporary. It is also the opinion of a representative of
the same FSDO that laminating a pilot certificate is illegal. Go figure.
Dan Luke
> > > When in doubt I call FSDO.
> >
> > And for tax shelter advice, do you call the IRS? Your FSDO is
feeding
> > you a load of BS.
>
> What a ridicules and irresponsible statement to make. Who is BS'ing
who?
Matt's FSDO said "...that VFR [GPS] is not useable for legal primary
navigation while on an IFR flight..."
That is BS on two counts: 1) The FSDO cannot produce a regulatory
definition of "primary navigation" and 2) There is no Part 91 regulation
for light aircraft that prohibits using VFR GPS for enroute navigation
on an IFR flight as long as the pilot has determined that it will not
interfere with the NAV or COM systems.
To say that pilots must abide by the opinion of whomever picks up the
phone at the FSDO is beyond ridiculous - it's crazy. FSDO's performance
in interpreting the CFR is about on a par with IRS offices' interpreting
the tax code: IOW, dismal. Anyone who uncritically believes either one
is naive, at best.
Norm Melick
> Matt's FSDO said "...that VFR [GPS] is not useable for legal primary
> navigation while on an IFR flight..."
That is a correct statement.
> That is BS on two counts: 1) The FSDO cannot produce a regulatory
> definition of "primary navigation" and 2) There is no Part 91 regulation
> for light aircraft that prohibits using VFR GPS for enroute navigation
> on an IFR flight as long as the pilot has determined that it will not
> interfere with the NAV or COM systems.
Bullshit. Read the AIM.
> To say that pilots must abide by the opinion of whomever picks up the
> phone at the FSDO is beyond ridiculous - it's crazy. FSDO's performance
> in interpreting the CFR is about on a par with IRS offices' interpreting
> the tax code: IOW, dismal. Anyone who uncritically believes either one
> is naive, at best.
So you don't believe the FAA, who issued your certificate, and are
automatically expert witnesses in an administrative hearing, and you'll
believe this NG? That is the height of naivety, to say the least.
If nothing else, it's just plain stupid.
Norm Melick
Dan Luke
> Dan Luke wrote:
>
> > Matt's FSDO said "...that VFR [GPS] is not useable for legal primary
> > navigation while on an IFR flight..."
>
> That is a correct statement.
Can you produce a regulatory definition of "primary navigation," Norm?
> > That is BS on two counts: 1) The FSDO cannot produce a regulatory
> > definition of "primary navigation" and 2) There is no Part 91
regulation
> > for light aircraft that prohibits using VFR GPS for enroute
navigation
> > on an IFR flight as long as the pilot has determined that it will
not
> > interfere with the NAV or COM systems.
>
> Bullshit. Read the AIM.
Yes, Norm, I understand your holy crusade: that the AIM has the *weight*
of regulation because it may be used against a pilot in an enforcement
action. That is beside the point I was making. To wit: there is a very
good chance that an opinion one gets over the phone from a FSDO will be
BS.
> So you don't believe the FAA, who issued your certificate, and are
> automatically expert witnesses in an administrative hearing, and
you'll
> believe this NG?
I'll believe the written regulations, not the opinions of FSDO's, which
cannot even agree among themselves, as you well know. A pilot who tried
to behave in a way that protected him from the all capricious
interpretations of FSDO's would never be able to get near an airplane.
Norm Melick
>
> "Norm Melick" wrote:
> > Dan Luke wrote:
> >
> > > Matt's FSDO said "...that VFR [GPS] is not useable for legal primary
> > > navigation while on an IFR flight..."
> >
> > That is a correct statement.
>
> Can you produce a regulatory definition of "primary navigation," Norm?
The "rule" is 91.205(d)(2).
> Yes, Norm, I understand your holy crusade: that the AIM has the *weight*
> of regulation because it may be used against a pilot in an enforcement
> action. That is beside the point I was making.
Your "point" is wrong. If you think that you can go into an enforcement
hearing, and tell the judge that yo don't have to comply with the AIM
because it is not law, your crazy. Quit taking the AIM so frivolously.
> To wit: there is a very good chance that an opinion one gets over the phone from a FSDO will be
> BS.
First off, FSDO's can't speak for the Administrator. If you want an
"opinion", go ask the Office of Chief Counsel. They are the only ones
that speak for the FAA.
> > So you don't believe the FAA, who issued your certificate, and are
> > automatically expert witnesses in an administrative hearing, and
> > you'll believe this NG?
>
> I'll believe the written regulations, not the opinions of FSDO's, which
> cannot even agree among themselves, as you well know. A pilot who tried
> to behave in a way that protected him from the all capricious
> interpretations of FSDO's would never be able to get near an airplane.
If I were you, I'd get off my high horse, and start complying with the
AIM as well. Your current thinking about how the AIM plays in the grand
scheme of things is wrong.
Norm Melick
Dan Luke
> > Can you produce a regulatory definition of "primary navigation,"
Norm?
>
> The "rule" is 91.205(d)(2).
Obviously, you can't.
> Your "point" is wrong.
Whoosh! You've missed it again.
> If you think that you can go into an enforcement
> hearing, and tell the judge that yo don't have to comply with the AIM
> because it is not law, your crazy. Quit taking the AIM so frivolously.
You are becoming tiresome.
> First off, FSDO's can't speak for the Administrator.
Then why were you so upset when I impugned their veracity? You're
chasing your tail, Norm.
> If you want an
> "opinion", go ask the Office of Chief Counsel. They are the only ones
> that speak for the FAA.
So you'd advise Matt *not* to call the FSDO, right? By George, we might
be getting somewhere!
> If I were you, I'd get off my high horse, and start complying with the
> AIM as well. Your current thinking about how the AIM plays in the
grand
> scheme of things is wrong.
Well, maybe not.
Norm Melick
>
> "Norm Melick" wrote:
> > > Can you produce a regulatory definition of "primary navigation,"
> Norm?
> >
> > The "rule" is 91.205(d)(2).
> Obviously, you can't.
Just did, moron. Did the FAA rescind that rule?
> > Your "point" is wrong.
>
> Whoosh! You've missed it again.
I haven't missed anything. It is you that refuses to deal with reality.
Ignore the AIM at your own risk.
> > If you think that you can go into an enforcement
> > hearing, and tell the judge that yo don't have to comply with the AIM
> > because it is not law, your crazy. Quit taking the AIM so frivolously.
>
> You are becoming tiresome.
Non responsive, but at least I'll still have my certificate, as opposed
to you, who will be laughed out of court. I've seen this happen more
than once. I don't care if you believe it or not. Just bet your
certificate, not someone else's.
> > First off, FSDO's can't speak for the Administrator.
>
> Then why were you so upset when I impugned their veracity? You're
> chasing your tail, Norm.
I wasn't upset, and you didn't "impugn" anything. With a choice of
contacting the local FSDO, and this NG, the answer is blatantly obvious
to anyone who has a modacom of brains. You'd better start realizing the
importance of the AIM, and quit hiding behind the tiresome and wrong
"It's not regulatory" bullshit.
> > If you want an "opinion", go ask the Office of Chief Counsel. They are the only ones
> > that speak for the FAA.
>
> So you'd advise Matt *not* to call the FSDO, right?
No, he did the right thing. I might also point out that every FSDO I've
contacted, and McBabble contacted, was VERY consistent in their answer.
You can't use an unapproved GPS for navigation. There answer is right
out of the AIM. Deal with it.
> By George, we might be getting somewhere!
So you're agreeing with me then?
> > If I were you, I'd get off my high horse, and start complying with the
> > AIM as well. Your current thinking about how the AIM plays in the
> > grand scheme of things is wrong.
> Well, maybe not.
Then once again. Bet your certificate. Don't come crying if you get your
ass busted. Especially after 14 FSDO inspectors have told you not to.
Norm Melick
Dan Luke
> > > > Can you produce a regulatory definition of "primary navigation,"
> > Norm?
> > >
> > > The "rule" is 91.205(d)(2).
> > Obviously, you can't.
>
> Just did, moron. Did the FAA rescind that rule?
Perhaps reading comprehension is a struggle for you. That would explain
your inability to understand either my posts or 91.205(d)(2), which
contains no reference to "primary navigation", refers to navigational
equipment appropriate to ground facilities, and makes no mention of GPS,
at all.
> > > Your "point" is wrong.
> >
> > Whoosh! You've missed it again.
>
> I haven't missed anything. It is you that refuses to deal with
reality.
> Ignore the AIM at your own risk.
My point had nothing to do with the AIM.
> > You are becoming tiresome.
>
> Non responsive,
That carries little weight coming from someone who tried to dodge a
challenge to define "primary navigation" by citing 91.205(d)(2).
> but at least I'll still have my certificate, as opposed
> to you, who will be laughed out of court. I've seen this happen more
> than once. I don't care if you believe it or not. Just bet your
> certificate, not someone else's.
More beside-the-point hot air.
> I wasn't upset, and you didn't "impugn" anything.
I refuse to look up the big words for you, Norm.
> With a choice of
> contacting the local FSDO, and this NG, the answer is blatantly
obvious
> to anyone who has a modacom of brains.
Is that a kind of radio?
> You'd better start realizing the
> importance of the AIM, and quit hiding behind the tiresome and wrong
> "It's not regulatory" bullshit.
Beside the point, again.
> > So you'd advise Matt *not* to call the FSDO, right?
>
> No, he did the right thing.
But Norm, you said they don't speak for the FAA!
> So you're agreeing with me then?
When you imply that FSDO's aren't to be relied upon for accurate
statements about the FAR's, yes.
Andrew Sarangan
I have personal experiences with FSDO who gave itterly incorrect
answers to well known topics such as logging PIC vs acting PIC, flying
with expired charts etc.. Unless the interpretation comes from the
chief counsel in Washington I would not believe what the FSDO says.
Andrew Sarangan
> Steven,
> You can file direct with a VFR GPS? I know the AIM is not the CFR but I
> thought use of an IFR GPS for navigation was only approved if the database
> was current and it was in fact a certifed installation. What if you had a
> VFR GPS Nav/Com (like the KX135) and thats it? Can you file IFR direct? A
> reg quotation would be helpful.
> Matt
You can file direct with a compass. Dead reckoning is a perfectly
acceptable form of IFR navigation. If you have a hikers gps, consider
that as dead reckoning. As long as you don't deviate from your cleared
route, no one is going to ask what you used for navigation.
Only approaches require specific equipment. You can use anything for
enroute portion.
Unknown
opinion, after considerable discussion, was don't push it. If you
don't file /G then you are probably going to be OK. However, if you
are filing direct the chances are you are going to get an amended
clearance along the way and as long as the non IFR certified GPS is
not your primary nav source you can use it. This conversation went on
for about 20 minutes and spilled over to the after class gab fest that
night. I don't think any of us agreed but none of us wanted to be the
test case for the FED's if there was a problem.
On 9 Mar 2002 22:17:32 -0800, andrew....@usa.net (Andrew
Sarangan) wrote:
______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
With NINE Servers In California And Texas - The Worlds Uncensored News Source
Doug
IFR GPS or other approved area naviagation. The system will accept it. And
frequently you can get it. I've done it, so have others. But you better have
charts and naviagation equipment to cope if radar goes down (for me it would
be VOR and go on airways or just cancel and go VFR). Nuff said.
Norm Melick
>
> "Norm Melick" wrote:
> > > > > Can you produce a regulatory definition of "primary navigation,"
> > > Norm?
> > > >
> > > > The "rule" is 91.205(d)(2).
> > > Obviously, you can't.
> >
> > Just did, moron. Did the FAA rescind that rule?
>
> Perhaps reading comprehension is a struggle for you. That would explain
> your inability to understand either my posts or 91.205(d)(2), which
> contains no reference to "primary navigation", refers to navigational
> equipment appropriate to ground facilities, and makes no mention of GPS,
> at all.
Perhaps reading comprehension is a struggle for YOU. Do you not
understand that 91.205(d)(2) still applies, and that the use of GPS is
not approved as the sole means of navigation, and this subject is
adequately covered in the AIM?
> > > > Your "point" is wrong.
> > >
> > > Whoosh! You've missed it again.
> >
> > I haven't missed anything. It is you that refuses to deal with
> > reality. Ignore the AIM at your own risk.
>
> My point had nothing to do with the AIM.
Therein lies you problem.
> > > You are becoming tiresome.
> >
> > Non responsive,
>
> That carries little weight coming from someone who tried to dodge a
> challenge to define "primary navigation" by citing 91.205(d)(2).
Coming from someone who shows such a frivolous attitude towards the AIM,
It doesn't surprise me why you are so ignorant concerning the use of
GPS. I didn't "dodge" anything. You, on the other hand, hide behind the
ridicules theory that the AIM is not "law", therefore I don't have to
comply with it. Wrong.
> > but at least I'll still have my certificate, as opposed
> > to you, who will be laughed out of court. I've seen this happen more
> > than once. I don't care if you believe it or not. Just bet your
> > certificate, not someone else's.
>
> More beside-the-point hot air.
It's "beside-the-point hot air" that I'll have my certificate, and you
won't, because I understand the importance of the AIM, and you don't? I
see.
> > I wasn't upset, and you didn't "impugn" anything.
>
> I refuse to look up the big words for you, Norm.
There your words, danny boy. You should probably look them up before you
try to use them.
> > With a choice of contacting the local FSDO, and this NG, the answer is blatantly
> > obvious to anyone who has a modacom of brains.
>
> Is that a kind of radio?
Probably in your world.
> > You'd better start realizing the importance of the AIM, and quit hiding behind the tiresome and wrong
> > "It's not regulatory" bullshit.
>
> Beside the point, again.
No, it's exactly the point. If you believe otherwise, bet your
certificate, take the challenge. Just quit telling the members of this
NG that you can ignore the AIM.
> > > So you'd advise Matt *not* to call the FSDO, right?
> >
> > No, he did the right thing.
>
> But Norm, you said they don't speak for the FAA!
But danny, they don't! However, they do have some room to work in, and
they are the "expert" witnesses that will be called by the Administrator
to explain to the judge that they have told you numerous times to not
use an unapproved GPS in IFR operations. If you feel they are in error,
it's your duty to request the "definitive" (is that too big a word for
you), answer from the Office of Chief Counsel. Knowledgeable pilots
would know this.
> > So you're agreeing with me then?
>
> When you imply that FSDO's aren't to be relied upon for accurate
> statements about the FAR's, yes.
Are you really this ignorant? FSDO's will give accurate statements about
the FAR's, as they understand them, and with guidance from internal
memos. If you don't agree with them, then ask for an interpretation from
the Office of Chief Counsel. To do otherwise is just stupid.
Norm Melick
Norm Melick
> You can file direct with a compass. Dead reckoning is a perfectly
> acceptable form of IFR navigation. If you have a hikers gps, consider
> that as dead reckoning. As long as you don't deviate from your cleared
> route, no one is going to ask what you used for navigation.
Tell me. Just what information contained in the hikers GPS database
would be of any benefit to a pilot?
Norm Melick
Norm Melick
> I have personal experiences with FSDO who gave itterly incorrect
> answers to well known topics such as logging PIC vs acting PIC, flying
> with expired charts etc.. Unless the interpretation comes from the
> chief counsel in Washington I would not believe what the FSDO says.
If you knew they were incorrect answers, why did you bother with the
FSDO?
Noem Melick
Norm Melick
>
> Me too. The proof, to me, is in the pudding. Try filing direct without any
> IFR GPS or other approved area naviagation. The system will accept it. And
> frequently you can get it. I've done it, so have others. But you better have
> charts and naviagation equipment to cope if radar goes down (for me it would
> be VOR and go on airways or just cancel and go VFR). Nuff said.
So where is the problem? Sounds to me as if the system, and you,
performed as it should.
Dan Wegman
"Norm Melick" <hen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3C8B840A...@worldnet.att.net...
Andrew makes a good point. Even without the navigation database, any GPS
receiver will point the way since you always navigate "TO" somewhere when
using a GPS. Having never used a hikers GPS, I don't know what database
information is installed but one could probably select a waypoint near the
intended destination such as a town or other landmark. For more precise
navigation, LAT/LON coordinates for nav aids and intersections could be
added to the user waypoint list so despite the lack of an aviation database,
the hikers' GPS can still be useful in flight. I imagine it would still
tell you ground speed, ETA, etc.
An excellent article on the use of GPS for enroute IFR was published in the
October 1999 issue of IFR Magazine. The main point made is that you must
have legal instruments to shoot the approach. How you get to the IAP - map,
watch, compass; ded reckoning; handheld GPS; visual check points; ATC
vectors - is not a concern IF IN A RADAR ENVIRONMENT. You can request a
direct vector if it makes you feel better, and then follow it with your
handheld. ATC vectoring is a legal IFR navigation method. But as with
everything else in IFR flight, you need to have a Plan B if the GPS dies or
the radar goes down.
les_I...@waitforit.com
<wegmand....@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>"Norm Melick" <hen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>news:3C8B840A...@worldnet.att.net...
>> Andrew Sarangan wrote:
>>
>> > You can file direct with a compass. Dead reckoning is a perfectly
>> > acceptable form of IFR navigation. If you have a hikers gps, consider
>> > that as dead reckoning. As long as you don't deviate from your cleared
>> > route, no one is going to ask what you used for navigation.
>>
>> Tell me. Just what information contained in the hikers GPS database
>> would be of any benefit to a pilot?
>>
>> Norm Melick
>>
>
>Andrew makes a good point. Even without the navigation database, any GPS
>receiver will point the way since you always navigate "TO" somewhere when
>using a GPS. Having never used a hikers GPS, I don't know what database
>information is installed but one could probably select a waypoint near the
>intended destination such as a town or other landmark.
Aviation waypoints are easily downloaded and loaded into a hikers GPS.
Been doing it for years.
Dan Luke
> > That carries little weight coming from someone who tried to dodge a
> > challenge to define "primary navigation" by citing 91.205(d)(2).
>
> Coming from someone who shows such a frivolous attitude towards the
AIM,
> It doesn't surprise me why you are so ignorant concerning the use of
> GPS. I didn't "dodge" anything. You, on the other hand, hide behind
the
> ridicules theory that the AIM is not "law", therefore I don't have to
> comply with it. Wrong.
Still can't do it, can you, Norm?
> > When you imply that FSDO's aren't to be relied upon for accurate
> > statements about the FAR's, yes.
>
> If you don't agree with them, then ask for an interpretation from
> the Office of Chief Counsel. To do otherwise is just stupid.
So, if you agree with them, they must be right? That's our little Normy!
Tarver Engineering
"Dan Luke" <c172rg...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:u8kke19...@news.supernews.com...
> "Norm Melick" wrote:
> > > > When in doubt I call FSDO.
> > >
> > > And for tax shelter advice, do you call the IRS? Your FSDO is
> feeding
> > > you a load of BS.
> >
> > What a ridicules and irresponsible statement to make. Who is BS'ing
> who?
>
> Matt's FSDO said "...that VFR [GPS] is not useable for legal primary
> navigation while on an IFR flight..."
>
> That is BS on two counts: 1) The FSDO cannot produce a regulatory
> definition of "primary navigation" and
CFR 14 Part 1:
Long-range navigation system (LRNS). An electronic navigation unit that
is approved for use under instrument flight rules as a primary means of
navigation, and has at least one source of navigational input, such as
inertial navigation system, global positioning system, Omega/very low
frequency, or Loran C.
§ 91.705 Operations within airspace designated as Minimum Navigation
Performance Specification Airspace.
{New-97-5 Revised April 4, 1997, effective August 4, 1997}
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may
operate a civil aircraft of U.S. registry in airspace designated as Minimum
Navigation Performance Specifications airspace unless -
(1) The aircraft has approved navigation performance capability that
complies with the requirements of appendix C of this part; and
(2) The operator is authorized by the Administrator to perform such
operations.
(b) The Administrator may authorize a deviation from the requirements of
this section in accordance with Section 3 of appendix C to this part.
91xC.2
The navigation performance capability required for aircraft to be
operated in the airspace defined in section 1 of this appendix is as
follows:
(a) The standard deviation of lateral track errors shall be less than 6.3
NM (11.7 Km). Standard deviation is a statistical measure of data about a
mean value. The mean is zero nautical miles. The overall form of data is
such that the plus and minus 1 standard deviation about the mean encompasses
approximately 68 percent of the data and plus or minus two deviations
encompasses approximately 95 percent.
(b) The proportion of the total flight time spent by aircraft 30 NM (55.6
Km) or more off the cleared track shall be less than 5.3 x 10-4 (less than 1
hour in 1,887 flight hours).
(c) The proportion of the total flight time spent by aircraft between 50
NM and 70 NM (92.6 Km and 129.6 Km) off the cleared track shall be less than
13 x 10-5 (less than 1 hour in 7,693 flight hours.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
Although the VFR GPS probably meets the requirements Enroute, it is not
proven so.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
91xC.3
Air traffic control (ATC) may authorize an aircraft operator to deviate
from the requirements of § 91.705 for a specific flight if, at the time of
flight plan filing for that flight, ATC determines that the aircraft may be
provided appropriate separation and that the flight will not interfere with,
or impose a burden upon, the operations of other aircraft which meet the
requirements of § 91.705.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------
It does seem the actual rules of operation are however, made by ATC.
John
Robert Moore
> Performance Specification Airspace.
Hmmmm.....I wonder what flight operations in "Oceanic Airspace"
under the MNPS has to do with filing and flying a "Domestic
Airspace" IFR flight plan?
Bob
Tarver Engineering
"Robert Moore" <rmoo...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns91CD9FF8D48F5rm...@65.32.1.7...
Only in that there is a demostration under Chart C with respect to FSDO
Authority and ATC Authority, with respect to Navigation.
The FSDO gave the correct answer ,under their Authority, but Enroute
operations using GPS without SA seem to be working fine under ATC control.
John
John Godwin
news:3c8b...@news.sierratel.com:
> § 91.705 Operations within airspace designated as Minimum Navigation
> Performance Specification Airspace.
§ 91.701 Applicability.
(a) This subpart applies to the operations of civil aircraft of U.S.
registry outside of the United States and the operations of foreign civil
aircraft within the United States.
--
John Godwin
Silicon Rallye
(remove SPAMNOT from email address)
Tarver Engineering
"John Godwin" <Ne...@avilineSPAMNOT.com> wrote in message
news:Xns91CD90EB4F317Go...@209.249.90.101...
> "Tarver Engineering" <jta...@sierratel.com> wrote in
> news:3c8b...@news.sierratel.com:
>
> > § 91.705 Operations within airspace designated as Minimum Navigation
> > Performance Specification Airspace.
>
> § 91.701 Applicability.
>
> (a) This subpart applies to the operations of civil aircraft of U.S.
> registry outside of the United States and the operations of foreign civil
> aircraft within the United States.
It is only included as a means of demonstrating the difference between FSDO
and ATC authority.
John
Andrew Sarangan
You can program anything into a hikers GPS. Look up the coordinates
from the AF/D and punch it in, or you can use a computer program to
upload the coordinates you want from the AF/D database. I have written
a program to do just that. Take a look at
http://www.geocities.com/asarangan/garmin.html
Norm Melick
>
> "Norm Melick" wrote:
> > > That carries little weight coming from someone who tried to dodge a
> > > challenge to define "primary navigation" by citing 91.205(d)(2).
> >
> > Coming from someone who shows such a frivolous attitude towards the
> AIM,
> > It doesn't surprise me why you are so ignorant concerning the use of
> > GPS. I didn't "dodge" anything. You, on the other hand, hide behind
> the
> > ridicules theory that the AIM is not "law", therefore I don't have to
> > comply with it. Wrong.
>
> Still can't do it, can you, Norm?
Just did. You're in deep denial. As I said before, quit treating the AIm
so frivolously.
> > > When you imply that FSDO's aren't to be relied upon for accurate
> > > statements about the FAR's, yes.
> >
> > If you don't agree with them, then ask for an interpretation from
> > the Office of Chief Counsel. To do otherwise is just stupid.
>
> So, if you agree with them, they must be right? That's our little Normy!
If the FSDO isn't right and the Office of Chief Counsel isn't right,
then who is right, dipstick?
Norm Melick
And you feel confident that this "hikers GPS" will be of some benefit to
you in an emergency, or for that matter, a normal IFR flight in IMC
conditions?
Unbelievable.
Norm Melick
> Aviation waypoints are easily downloaded and loaded into a hikers GPS.
>
> Been doing it for years.
And you feel comfortable flying around with a "hikers GPS"?
Unbelievable.
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> Nope. It depends, shit for brains. A competent and current IFR pilot
> knows when you designate an alternate airport that has only one approach
> available, it can't be a GPS approach. Stick to your day job, and leave
> the operational stuff to us professional pilots.
>
It's very unlikely you are now or have ever been a professional pilot,
Normy. Your knowledge of the FARs and ATC procedures is far below what
would be expected of a professional pilot.
The filed alternate does not need to have an SIAP of any kind, I posted the
applicable regulation, read it. Or have someone read it to you.
>
> No dip shit. I'm saying that you have no idea how the FAA uses the AIM
> against pilots at an enforcement hearing, and what your telling the
> pilots is pure bullshit from a low time private pilot that attempts to
> use his position as an ATC specialist to get some sort of credibility.
> You have no credibility, and from what I've been hearing, you may want
> to start including the statement that the opinions you express are
> yours, and do not represent the Administrator.
>
I don't use any of my aviation experience to support my positions, Normy, I
use facts, logic, and verifiable documentation. You provide nothing to
support your fantasies, you use name-calling and personal attacks in lieu of
a cogent argument.
>
> Hardly.
>
Who do you think you're fooling? Veteran users of these forums are on to
you, the newbies soon will be.
>
> Oh I'm counting on it.
>
The deed is done, Normy, it was done over two years ago. What part didn't
you understand?
>
> So when exactly did you "respond to the challenge", and call the FAA and
> tell them that you were going to operate an aircraft under IFR, with
> only a handheld GPS, go out and actually fly the flight, and call the
> FSDO back and tell them that in fact you just came back from an IFR
> flight using only a handheld GPS. Hmmmmmmm stevie?
>
Late autumn 1999.
It doesn't have to be an actual flight, Normy, a hypothetical flight works
just as well.
>
> Big deal. The challenge was FLY an IFR flight, not talk about one. As I
> said before, NO BALLS.
>
You're not in a position to decide who has balls and who doesn't, Normy.
>
> I'll say it again. Anybody who listens to your crap about the AIM,
> handheld GPS, and anything else concerning the operational aspects of an
> IFR flight is just dumb, and deserves anything the FAA throws at them at
> the enforcement hearing.
>
And if they do, Normy, just what would they be charged with violating?
James M. Knox
> Hence my statement; "As for filing direct with a "VFR" GPS, you can
> file direct with or without any GPS.
> The only pilot requirement is that your request is approved by ATC.
> However, you must be able to navigate direct to where you want to go,
> when ATC clears you "present position direct".
Complete agreement...
> Matt posted:
>
> "I know the AIM is not the CFR but I thought use of an IFR GPS for
> navigation was only approved if the database was current and it was
> in fact a certifed installation".
And to bring this one back up again... A non-approved IFR GPS is a VFR
GPS, as useful as any other. The requirement for database currency is not
controlled by the FAR's, but by the supplement to the POH that is part of
the GPS installation and approval. Restrictions and conditions contained
within it become regulatory, just as does those same type things in your
aircraft POH ("Spins Prohibited", "100LL Fuel Only", etc.).
The majority of these supplements *do* require a current DB in order to use
the GPS for approaches. *Most* do not require a current DB for enroute and
terminal operations. Some (example, UPSAT) do not require a current DB for
anything, but *do* require that the information *used* in the DB be
current. [I.e. The pilot must very the approaches, etc. prior to use.]
Norm, without going through everything word by word, I don't see any
disagreement between what you and I said.
-----------------------------------------------
James M. Knox
TriSoft ph 512-385-0316
1109-A Shady Lane fax 512-366-4331
Austin, Tx 78721 jk...@trisoft.com
-----------------------------------------------
Steven P. McNicoll
"Norm Melick" <hen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3C897E7F...@worldnet.att.net...
>
> I believe otherwise.
>
That's fine, you're free to believe whatever you choose.
>
> I know otherwise.
>
No you don't, you cannot "know" something to be what it is not. You can
"believe" it, but you cannot "know" it.
>
> It's all spelled out in the current AIM.
>
The AIM is not regulatory.
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> They probably referenced what a current and qualified IFR pilot would
> reference. The AIM, the particular AFM and TSO documents.
>
None of those are laws.
>
> What a stupid question.
>
Actually, the question was quite valid, your response is stupid.
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> What a ridicules and irresponsible statement to make. Who is BS'ing who?
>
The statement is not far from wrong. I believe the term "BS'ing" implies
deliberate obfuscation. The response from FSDO was certainly incorrect, but
I doubt it was deliberate.
James M. Knox
> We got into this question in a BPPP school last weekend. The general
> opinion, after considerable discussion, was don't push it. If you
> don't file /G then you are probably going to be OK. However, if you
> are filing direct the chances are you are going to get an amended
> clearance along the way and as long as the non IFR certified GPS is
> not your primary nav source you can use it.
At least no one here seems to be arguing that first part. To file /G
requires "approved" IFR GPS (after they changed it from a "glass cockpit"
designation. Use all the GPS equipment you want, but don't file /G without
at least a C-129 approved unit, installed and signed off by the FAA.
None of the above paragraph I just said, however, should stop anyone from
requesting (and receiving) a "direct" clearance, either within or outside
of the service volume of the ground navaids.
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> That is a correct statement.
>
Not if the GPS is a handheld.
>
> Bullshit. Read the AIM.
>
The AIM is not regulatory.
>
> So you don't believe the FAA, who issued your certificate, and are
> automatically expert witnesses in an administrative hearing, and you'll
> believe this NG? That is the height of naivety, to say the least.
>
So FAA personnel are incapable of error?
James M. Knox
Many of us have been *comfortable* flying around IFR for years WITHOUT a
GPS of any kind (I worked on one of the first military contracts to develop
the first GPS receivers). Even used to get cleared "direct" now and then.
<G>
James M. Knox
news:3c890...@news1.prserv.net:
> I'm curious. I've been filing direct ap to ap with the lat & long of
> the destination included. As long as that lat & long is in there, no
> one seems to have a problem. Without it, I'm often asked it or
> otherwise interrogated. Does lat and long fix the problem or is it
> still a pain?
The problem is memory. Although any inexpensive copy of Destination Direct
can have every intersection, airport, victor and low altitude enroute
number, and MOA, and... well, just about anything you would ever want to
know about flying around in the USA, and run on just about the cheapest PC
out there, the sad truth is that the computer located at most centers does
not even have all that information for their own area.
To the pilot, one thing that means is that if you file to a named fix in
another centers control, the issuing computer may well not know where it
is. [In fact, it used to be recommended that you name at least one fix in
every SECTOR.] Things like DUAT automatically stick in the LAT/LON so the
computer can verify your route. Certainly doesn't hurt anything.
Unfortunately, that "Remarks" section is now getting used to fix so many
legacy problems with IFR routing that it no longer fits on a center routing
strip.
Steven P. McNicoll
"Norm Melick" <hen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3C8AA6A0...@worldnet.att.net...
>
> The "rule" is 91.205(d)(2).
>
The term "primary navigation" does not appear anywhere in Part 91.
>
> Your "point" is wrong. If you think that you can go into an enforcement
> hearing, and tell the judge that yo don't have to comply with the AIM
> because it is not law, your crazy. Quit taking the AIM so frivolously.
>
That the judge in an enforcement hearing might choose to ignore the law is
beside the point.
>
> If I were you, I'd get off my high horse, and start complying with the
> AIM as well. Your current thinking about how the AIM plays in the grand
> scheme of things is wrong.
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> Just did, moron. Did the FAA rescind that rule?
>
Try actually reading that rule, Normy, or have somebody read it to you. The
term "primary navigation" does not appear in it.
>
> I wasn't upset, and you didn't "impugn" anything. With a choice of
> contacting the local FSDO, and this NG, the answer is blatantly obvious
> to anyone who has a modacom of brains.
>
Just how many brains are there in a "modacom"?
>
> You'd better start realizing the
> importance of the AIM, and quit hiding behind the tiresome and wrong
> "It's not regulatory" bullshit.
>
So you're saying the AIM is regulatory? What do you base that on?
>
> No, he did the right thing. I might also point out that every FSDO I've
> contacted, and McBabble contacted, was VERY consistent in their answer.
> You can't use an unapproved GPS for navigation. There answer is right
> out of the AIM. Deal with it.
>
None of the FSDOs I contacted gave the same answer. Most didn't answer at
all.
Steven P. McNicoll
"Andrew Sarangan" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in message
news:be77fdf6.02030...@posting.google.com...
>
> I have personal experiences with FSDO who gave itterly incorrect
> answers to well known topics such as logging PIC vs acting PIC, flying
> with expired charts etc.. Unless the interpretation comes from the
> chief counsel in Washington I would not believe what the FSDO says.
>
Normy has provided information in this forum that indicates the Office of
Chief Counsel is no more reliable than FSDO.
Steven P. McNicoll
"Doug" <anoth...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:_1Li8.3664$P4.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> Me too. The proof, to me, is in the pudding. Try filing direct without
> any IFR GPS or other approved area naviagation. The system will
> accept it. And frequently you can get it. I've done it, so have others.
> But you better have charts and naviagation equipment to cope if radar
> goes down (for me it would be VOR and go on airways or just cancel
> and go VFR).
>
Just as it would be for anyone flying with an IFR GPS.
John R. Copeland
---JRC---
"James M. Knox" <jk...@trisoft.com> wrote in message news:Xns91CE5ACC8373...@10.0.0.1...
> "Foureyes" <Four...@attglobal.net> wrote in
> news:3c890...@news1.prserv.net:
>
>
>
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> Perhaps reading comprehension is a struggle for YOU.
>
That does not appear to be the case.
>
> Do you not understand that 91.205(d)(2) still applies,
>
I'm sure he does, he hasn't written anything which would indicate he did
not.
>
> and that the use of GPS is not approved as the sole means of navigation,
>
It doesn't have to be.
>
> and this subject is adequately covered in the AIM?
>
The AIM is not regulatory.
>
> Coming from someone who shows such a frivolous attitude towards the AIM,
> It doesn't surprise me why you are so ignorant concerning the use of
> GPS. I didn't "dodge" anything. You, on the other hand, hide behind the
> ridicules theory that the AIM is not "law", therefore I don't have to
> comply with it. Wrong.
>
It's not a theory, the AIM is not law, it says so in the AIM.
>
> It's "beside-the-point hot air" that I'll have my certificate, and you
> won't, because I understand the importance of the AIM, and you don't? I
> see.
>
With regard to matters aeronautical, there is little that you understand.
>
> There your words, danny boy. You should probably look them up before you
> try to use them.
>
That's good advice, Normy, you should heed it yourself. Start with
"ridicules", "modacom", and "your".
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> If the FSDO isn't right and the Office of Chief Counsel isn't right,
> then who is right, dipstick?
>
Those that profess there is no law prohibiting the use of a non-approved GPS
for IFR enroute navigation are right.
Andrew Sarangan
> >
> > You can program anything into a hikers GPS. Look up the coordinates
> > from the AF/D and punch it in, or you can use a computer program to
> > upload the coordinates you want from the AF/D database. I have written
> > a program to do just that. Take a look at
> > http://www.geocities.com/asarangan/garmin.html
>
> And you feel confident that this "hikers GPS" will be of some benefit to
> you in an emergency, or for that matter, a normal IFR flight in IMC
> conditions?
>
> Unbelievable.
If you believe that an aviation GPS was somehow superior to a hikers
GPS, then you have been misinformed. They both contain identical
circuitry. The only difference is in the pre-programmed navigational
database in the aviation unit, while the hikers GPS has an empty
database (which you can program yourself).
Approach certified GPS is a different story. They contain a special
unit for checking signal integrity and for alerting waypoint passage.
Bottom line: there is nothing illegal or unsafe about using a hikers
GPS to help your situational awareness during enroute IFR.
On the other hand, to some people the $100 outdoor GPS doesn't give
them the warm and fuzzy as a $500 aviation unit.
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> And you feel confident that this "hikers GPS" will be of some benefit to
> you in an emergency, or for that matter, a normal IFR flight in IMC
> conditions?
>
> Unbelievable.
>
It's unbelievable that any professional pilot would feel otherwise.
But then again, there's no reason to believe any professional pilot does
feel otherwise.
Andrew Sarangan
Do you feel comfortable flying around with a compass?
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> Unbelievable.
>
What's unbelievable about it? Why shouldn't he feel comfortable?
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> On the other hand, to some people the $100 outdoor GPS doesn't give
> them the warm and fuzzy as a $500 aviation unit.
>
How do these $100 outdoor GPSs indicate speed and distance?
Norm Melick
>
> "Norm Melick" <hen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:3C8963EB...@worldnet.att.net...
> >
> > Nope. It depends, shit for brains. A competent and current IFR pilot
> > knows when you designate an alternate airport that has only one approach
> > available, it can't be a GPS approach. Stick to your day job, and leave
> > the operational stuff to us professional pilots.
> >
>
> It's very unlikely you are now or have ever been a professional pilot,
> Normy.
As I have stated before, coming from a pussy boy who was conceived from
the sperm scrapped off your mothers thigh, I could care less what you
think. You're not in a position to decide who has aviation experience
who doesn't, stevie. The fact is you're not qualified to carry my flight
bag.
> Your knowledge of the FARs and ATC procedures is far below what
> would be expected of a professional pilot.
Again, you're not in any position to decide who has knowledge of the
FARs and ATC procedures and who doesn't. The fact is that your posts
have shown your knowledge of the FARs and ATC procedures to be far below
what would be expected of a private pilot, much less someone who claims
to be an air traffic controller. It's pathetically obvious that you have
never piloted an aircraft, and your thousands of hours behind a joystick
and Microsoft 98 will never elevate your abilities as a wannabe pilot.
> The filed alternate does not need to have an SIAP of any kind, I posted the
> applicable regulation, read it.
A current and qualified instrument pilot knows that this is not
necessarily true. I have already explained this in a previous post. This
is a prime example why you shouldn't be posting about a subject you know
nothing about. Leave the operational stuff to us professionals, pussy
boy.
> Or have someone read it to you.
Well stevie boy, bring your FAR/AIM and 7110.65, and come right on over
and read it to me. My address in California is:
15311 1/4 Woodruff PL.
Bellflower, CA
Aaaanytime, pussy boy. Anytime.
> > No dip shit. I'm saying that you have no idea how the FAA uses the AIM
> > against pilots at an enforcement hearing, and what your telling the
> > pilots is pure bullshit from a low time private pilot that attempts to
> > use his position as an ATC specialist to get some sort of credibility.
> > You have no credibility, and from what I've been hearing, you may want
> > to start including the statement that the opinions you express are
> > yours, and do not represent the Administrator.
> >
>
> I don't use any of my aviation experience to support my positions, Normy,
That is painfully obvious. You have none. I doubt very much that you
have ever flown an aircraft of any kind, or worked at any ATC facility.
Unless emptying the trash cans count. Your knowledge of the FARs and
ATC procedures is far below what would be expected of any pilot, much
less an air traffic controller.
> I use facts, logic, and verifiable documentation.
Really? When did you start this?
> You provide nothing to support your fantasies,
On the contrary.
> you use name-calling and personal attacks in lieu of a cogent argument.
Read your opening statement of this post, pussy boy. I respond in kind.
When you start attacking my aviation experience, I know I've won the
battle.
> > Hardly.
> >
>
> Who do you think you're fooling?
I'm not attempting to "fool" anyone. Anytime you post this ignorant crap
of yours concerning a subject you know nothing about, I'll be right here
shoving it right down your throat.
> Veteran users of these forums are on to you, the newbies soon will be.
Great. My three decades and 17000+ hours of aviation experience will be
very valuable to them, as opposed to your frantic copying and pasting of
a subject you obviously know nothing about, and have never been able to
master.
> > Oh I'm counting on it.
> >
>
> The deed is done, Normy, it was done over two years ago.
Yes stevie, it most certainly was. As I said, I'm counting on your
continued posts.
> What part didn't you understand?
The part where you tell us that you are a real air traffic controller
(highly unlikely), or an current and qualified instrument pilot, again,
highly unlikely.
> > So when exactly did you "respond to the challenge", and call the FAA and
> > tell them that you were going to operate an aircraft under IFR, with
> > only a handheld GPS, go out and actually fly the flight, and call the
> > FSDO back and tell them that in fact you just came back from an IFR
> > flight using only a handheld GPS. Hmmmmmmm stevie?
> >
>
> Late autumn 1999.
Another of your lies.
> It doesn't have to be an actual flight, Normy, a hypothetical flight works
> just as well.
No it doesn't stevie. Stand up to the plate and put your certificates on
the line. Stop acting like the coward you are and post erroneous and
dangerous information on this NG, and ask the users of this NG to put
their certificates, and lives, on the line. The FAA won't start
enforcement proceedings from a hypothetical flight. You know this,
otherwise you would take the challenge and actually FLY.
> > Big deal. The challenge was FLY an IFR flight, not talk about one. As I
> > said before, NO BALLS.
> >
>
> You're not in a position to decide who has balls and who doesn't, Normy.
Oh but I am. No f***ing balls, pussy boy. No f***ing balls.
> > I'll say it again. Anybody who listens to your crap about the AIM,
> > handheld GPS, and anything else concerning the operational aspects of an
> > IFR flight is just dumb, and deserves anything the FAA throws at them at
> > the enforcement hearing.
> >
>
> And if they do, Normy, just what would they be charged with violating?
For starters, 91.13(a).
Take the challenge, pussy boy. FLY!!
Norm Melick
>
> "Norm Melick" <hen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:3C897E7F...@worldnet.att.net...
> >
> > I believe otherwise.
> >
>
> That's fine, you're free to believe whatever you choose.
> >
> > I know otherwise.
> >
>
> No you don't, you cannot "know" something to be what it is not. You can
> "believe" it, but you cannot "know" it.
I know what I know. You do not know what I know. I know, with
confidence, that you know nothing about the subject we speak.
> > It's all spelled out in the current AIM.
> >
>
> The AIM is not regulatory.
You're free to believe whatever you choose.