Legal to file 'Direct' without IFR approved GPS?
Steven P. McNicoll
"J Fallows" <fal...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000614211624...@ng-md1.aol.com...
>
> Imagine the following circumstance please:
>
> * Intended route is "direct" from departure to destination,
> to save time and distance versus Victor-airway routing;
>
> * Plane does NOT have IFR-certified GPS, but pilot has
> handheld GPS (Garmin 295) Plane also has VOR/DME;
>
> * Flight conditions are VMC
>
> In those circumstances -- with VMC as the crucial element --
> would it be legal to file an IFR plan with "direct" routing?
>
Yes, perfectly legal, VMC or IMC. Such routing can only be had in a radar
environment, however.
>
> This would require, of course, something other than the Garmin
> 295 being the primary navigation means.
>
Why?
>
> But since it is VMC, could you claim that pilotage, dead reckoning,
> following the sectionals, etc was the primary means for this IFR
> flight, with the 295 as a backup?
>
I suppose, but why?
>
> Bonus question: as a practical matter, would there be any
> advantage in filing and flying this route IFR, versus going
> VFR direct and getting flight following?
>
If the weather's crappy, yes; if the weather's good, not really.
>
> What I imagine to be the advantage involves the possibility of
> entering IMC conditions. In that case, you'd already be "in the
> system" -- although to claim something other than the Garmin
> as your primary navigation in IMC you'd have to be doing
> repeated VOR radial/distance calculations to plot your course.
>
Why would you have to claim anything as your primary navigation in IMC?
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> I may have been misinformed, but I'd seen a whole barrage of info about
> handheld GPS's not being authorized as "primary" navigation tools
>
No doubt you have, but no such authorization is required.
Norm
I have flown a very similar route (RNT to Sunriver) many times. First, I
have never gotten direct going south out of Seattle area. You will always
(at least for me) get the preferred route which is RV to OLM V165 UBG then
as filed. I have RNAV and a IFR GPS and when at busy Class B areas it is
rare to get direct until you are well away from the Class B. What I do now
is if it is VFR at my departure, I file my IFR flight plan with the
departure point as a convenient point away from the busy Class B area, I get
VFR flight following to that point then get my IFR clearance. I put a note
in the remarks section that I will be picking up my clearance airborne.
For your route, possibly try filing with the departure point as the ALDER
fix on V495??
As an aside, I have found that if the WX is VFR it is much simpler to just
fly VFR with VFR flight following. I don't see much advantage flying on an
IFR flight plan in VFR conditions compared to flying VFR with VFR flight
following. So if its VFR, use your GPS 295 and go direct with VFR flight
following.
Now to answer your question, I believe you could file direct on an IFR
flight plan in VFR WX and have no GPS at all! Just don't file /G or /I and
use a line on your sectional and your eyeballs.
Just my .02
Norm
J Fallows <fal...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000614211624...@ng-md1.aol.com...
> Imagine the following circumstance please:
>
> * Intended route is "direct" from departure to destination, to save time
and
> distance versus Victor-airway routing;
>
> * Plane does NOT have IFR-certified GPS, but pilot has handheld GPS
(Garmin
> 295) Plane also has VOR/DME;
>
> * Flight conditions are VMC
>
> In those circumstances -- with VMC as the crucial element -- would it be
legal
> to file an IFR plan with "direct" routing? This would require, of course,
> something other than the Garmin295 being the primary navigation means. But
> since it is VMC, could you claim that pilotage, dead reckoning, following
the
> sectionals, etc was the primary means for this IFR flight, with the 295 as
a
> backup?
>
> Bonus question: as a practical matter, would there be any advantage in
filing
> and flying this route IFR, versus going VFR direct and getting flight
> following? What I imagine to be the advantage involves the possibility of
> entering IMC conditions. In that case, you'd already be "in the system" --
> although to claim something other than the Garmin as your primary
navigation in
> IMC you'd have to be doing repeated VOR radial/distance calculations to
plot
> your course.
>
> I am planning such a trip shortly -- Seattle (BFI) to Bend, Oregon --
and
> would welcome advice on the legality and practicality of this sort of IFR
> "direct" filing. If the conditions start out being IMC, then I'd just file
and
> fly the V-airway route.
> Thanks for any guidance, Jim Fallows
J Fallows
J Fallows
>> 295 being the primary navigation means.
>>
>
I may have been misinformed, but I'd seen a whole barrage of info about
handheld GPS's not being authorized as "primary" navigation tools. If I've
misunderstood this, then I'm glad I asked!
Propman
means of navigation. If you're in radar contact, you don't need anything
else. Besides, just because you're off airway navigating direct doesn't
mean you can't use your VOR to constantly monitor your location. It's
simple with a DME, and not very much harder to find the intersection of two
radials.
Why is it that everyone assumes you can't go direct with anything other than
a GPS/Loran. Even flight instructors get this one wrong all the time.
-Propman
"J Fallows" <fal...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000614222658...@ng-md1.aol.com...
Jerry Kurata
that you have the navigation skill to get there. In your case you can do
this by simple pilotage. Therefore you primary navigation is via pilotage,
not your handheld GPS.
Tarver Engineering
J Fallows <fal...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000614222658...@ng-md1.aol.com...
> >> This would require, of course, something other than the Garmin
> >> 295 being the primary navigation means.
> >>
> >
> >Why?
>
> I may have been misinformed, but I'd seen a whole barrage of info about
> handheld GPS's not being authorized as "primary" navigation tools. If I've
> misunderstood this, then I'm glad I asked!
Radar is your primary in the case described. A handheld is not approved for
any navigation, but is an aid to dead reconing.
John
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Newps
J Fallows wrote:
>
> Imagine the following circumstance please:
>
> * Intended route is "direct" from departure to destination, to save time and
> distance versus Victor-airway routing;
>
> * Plane does NOT have IFR-certified GPS, but pilot has handheld GPS (Garmin
> 295) Plane also has VOR/DME;
>
> * Flight conditions are VMC
>
> In those circumstances -- with VMC as the crucial element -- would it be legal
> to file an IFR plan with "direct" routing?
VMC means nothing. ATC doesn't care. Ask FSDO and they will tell you
this is not legal.
This would require, of course,
> something other than the Garmin295 being the primary navigation means. But
> since it is VMC, could you claim that pilotage, dead reckoning, following the
> sectionals, etc was the primary means for this IFR flight, with the 295 as a
> backup?
ATC doesn't care, FSDO won't like it.
>
> Bonus question: as a practical matter, would there be any advantage in filing
> and flying this route IFR, versus going VFR direct and getting flight
> following?
Only separation services, if you care.
Bob Noel
(J Fallows) wrote:
> I may have been misinformed, but I'd seen a whole barrage of info about
> handheld GPS's not being authorized as "primary" navigation tools. If I've
> misunderstood this, then I'm glad I asked!
you did not misunderstand. It isn't authorized.
--
Bob
(I think people can figure out how to email me...)
(replace ihatessppaamm with my name (rnoel) and hw1 with mediaone)
Steven P. McNicoll
"Bob Noel" <ihates...@hw1nospam.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:ihatessppaamm-1...@192.168.1.150...
>
> you did not misunderstand. It isn't authorized.
>
No authorization required.
J Fallows
>>
>No authorization required.
I'm starting to feel less bad about the fact that I'm confused -- but I remain
confused nonetheless. Is the explanation here that FSDO cares exactly how
you're getting "primary" nav guidance -- and ATC doesn't care, as long as
you're on radar? Or some other explanation? Thanks all around, Jim Fallows
Bob Noel
(J Fallows) wrote:
This applies to US registered aircraft CONUS operating under part 91.
Let me put it this way: imagine any scenario you like in terms
of aircraft equippage (installed navigation equipment), desired
routing with the US NAS, and being IFR or VFR. Carrying a handheld
GPS will not effect (affect?) the routing that you will be able to
fly legally.
Does that help at all?
macho...@nosoup4u.net
are stringent requirements for selling and installing GPS units in
aircraft for IFR navigation.
Many pilots interpret these requirements as applying to themseelves as
well.
As otheres have pointed out, if you suspend a ham sandwich from a
string, and it helps you navigate, you can use it, even though it
might not be approved by the FAA.
J Fallows
Finally got the picture here. Again thanks.
Newps
J Fallows wrote:
>
> >> you did not misunderstand. It isn't authorized.
> >>
> >No authorization required.
>
> I'm starting to feel less bad about the fact that I'm confused -- but I remain
> confused nonetheless. Is the explanation here that FSDO cares exactly how
> you're getting "primary" nav guidance -- and ATC doesn't care, as long as
> you're on radar? Or some other explanation? Thanks all around, Jim Fallows
FSDO cares about all the real nit pick rules. ATC cares about how to
efficiently move traffic. Sometimes they differ.
vincent p. norris
>Imagine the following circumstance please:
>
> * Intended route is "direct" from departure to destination, to save time and
>distance versus Victor-airway routing;
>
>....... This would require, of course,
>something other than the Garmin295 being the primary navigation means. But
>since it is VMC, could you claim that pilotage, dead reckoning,
Dead reckoning does not require your ability to see the ground.
About the legality, I have filed direct from central PA to LISON or
MAPEL intersection, at the north edge of the DCA-Dulles Class B, in
IMC, many years ago, before GPS was introduced. That was a distance
of about 100 nm, direct. I got it about four times out of five.
Actually, I got it five times out of five, but about one time out of
five I'd later get an amended clearance to go past Harrisburg.
vince norris
thomas tripp
> Imagine the following circumstance please:
>
> * Intended route is "direct" from departure to destination, to save time
and
> distance versus Victor-airway routing;
>
(Garmin
> 295) Plane also has VOR/DME;
>
> * Flight conditions are VMC
>
> In those circumstances -- with VMC as the crucial element -- would it be
legal
> to file an IFR plan with "direct" routing?
The navigation and communications equipment required for IFR flight is
vague. FAR 91.205(d) says only "two-way radio communications system and
navigational equipment appropriate to the ground facilities to be used."
During my oral exam for the instrument checkride, my DE claimed that it
would be perfectly legal to fly IFR in solid IMC with nothing but a two-way
radio. How? Fly from departure to destination via dead reckoning then land
utilizing an ASR approach. I've never actually tried it and didn't have the
nerve to ask if he had....
In a more practical light, the AIM says 1-1-21 (b)(1)(a) that a VFR only GPS
can be used in IFR only as an aid to situational awareness. If you could
figure out how to fly direct using your VOR/DME equipment you are perfectly
free to file direct using your GPS as a "situational aide" only wink wink,
nudge, nudge.
Regards,
Tom Tripp
CP-ASEL/PP-Glider
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> I'm starting to feel less bad about the fact that I'm confused -- but
> I remain confused nonetheless. Is the explanation here that FSDO
> cares exactly how you're getting "primary" nav guidance -- and ATC
> doesn't care, as long as you're on radar? Or some other explanation?
>
This topic comes up periodically. I suggest you search Deja for the
following subjects in the rec.aviation.ifr forum: Is VFR GPS use legal?,
What does "when able" mean?, GPS Direct filing, Going direct to an
intersection, how do you file direct?, RNAV, Non-IFR Cert GPS Use, Dead
Reckoning IFR, Dead Reckoning IFR - Part 2, The final word on GPS as sole
navigation?
Steve Sampson
there's a great article by John Deakin on the Avweb site on this very topic
(http://www.avweb.com/articles/pelperch/pelp0011.html). John also has some
great articles on Props and Mixture. I've found these latter to be
particularly useful having transitioned from fixed pitch Cessna's to the CS
prop on my recently acquired Cherokee 6.
Steve
thomas tripp <twt...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:18A25.3044$ds.8...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> J Fallows <fal...@aol.com> wrote in message
J Fallows
>(http://www.avweb.com/articles/pelperch/pelp0011.html)
Ah, yes -- very good article. If I'd known about this to start with, I
wouldn't have raised the question in the first place! But such is the nature of
life on Usenet. Now I know, and I hope any other lurkers not previously
informed know too. Thanks to all. jf
hklin...@my-deja.com
Nice to meet you here!
My 2 centimes worth after gone through this a couiple of weeks back at
BFI...
in VMC and under VFR: Basic dead reckoning pilotage with additional help
from whatever is in the plane.
with a filed IFR plan:
FAR 91.205(d) says "two-way radio communications system and navigational
equipment appropriate to the ground facilities to be used." GPS isn't
even based on ground facilities, so that's another complicating factor
here. I'd say as long as you have the capability to know where you are
and able to make position reports as requested, you're OK.
On a lighter note: If you can SEE the VORs when in VMC you're OK too, as
you have the equipment (eyes) to use the ground facilities.....
Caution: Direct (off airway) routes may have obstacle clearance
challenges!!
Han Klinkspoor (LFPX)
In article <20000617143656...@ng-md1.aol.com>,
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Steven P. McNicoll
<hklin...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8iskpe$mku$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> with a filed IFR plan:
>
> FAR 91.205(d) says "two-way radio communications system and navigational
> equipment appropriate to the ground facilities to be used." GPS isn't
> even based on ground facilities, so that's another complicating factor
> here. I'd say as long as you have the capability to know where you are
> and able to make position reports as requested, you're OK.
>
Sec. 91.205 dictates what instruments and equipment an aircraft must contain
and in what condition they must be for various operations. It does not say
what equipment must be used, or what may not be used, for navigation.
Norm Melick
> I may have been misinformed, but I'd seen a whole barrage of info about
> handheld GPS's not being authorized as "primary" navigation tools. If
> I've misunderstood this, then I'm glad I asked!
As others have said, you didn't misunderstand. VFR and
hand-held GPS systems are not authorized for IFR navigation,
instrument approaches, or as a principal instrument flight
reference. From the AIM:
b. General Requirements
1. Authorization to conduct any GPS operation under IFR
requires that:
{New-99-8 Revised July 15, 1999}
(a) GPS navigation equipment used must be approved in
accordance with the requirements specified in TSO C-129, or
equivalent, and the installation must be done in accordance
with Notice 8110.47 or 8110.48, or equivalent. Equipment
approved in accordance with TSO C-115a does not meet the
requirements of TSO C-129. VFR and hand-held GPS systems are
not authorized for IFR navigation, instrument approaches, or
as a principal instrument flight reference. During IFR
operations they may be considered only an aid to situational
awareness.
(b) Aircraft using GPS navigation equipment under IFR must
be equipped with an approved and operational alternate means
of navigation appropriate to the flight. Active monitoring
of alternative navigation equipment is not required if the
GPS receiver uses RAIM for integrity monitoring. Active
monitoring of an alternate means of navigation is required
when the RAIM capability of the GPS equipment is lost.
Norm Melick
Steven P. McNicoll
"Norm Melick" <hen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:395244A5...@worldnet.att.net...
>
> As others have said, you didn't misunderstand. VFR and
> hand-held GPS systems are not authorized for IFR navigation,
>
No authorization is required.
Dennis Monroe
point is, as another poster said, what is your primary means of navigation?
The unapproved GPS cannot be primary means for IFR navigation. So, when you
file, do not file /G and you have not noted it as primary. You can use it
for all the help you want. But think of what would get you from A-B, off
airways, if it fails? Answers: A) ATC radar. B) VOR navigation to a nearby
VOR or intersection. C) Your DG and mag. compass. These then, are your
primary means of IFR navigation and you are perfectly legal filing direct.
--
Dennis Monroe PP-ASEL-IA C172 N84226
"Newps" <scn...@home.com> wrote in message
news:394902C5...@home.com...
>
>
> J Fallows wrote:
> >
> > Imagine the following circumstance please:
> >
> > * Intended route is "direct" from departure to destination, to save
time and
> > distance versus Victor-airway routing;
> >
> > * Plane does NOT have IFR-certified GPS, but pilot has handheld GPS
(Garmin
> > 295) Plane also has VOR/DME;
> >
> > * Flight conditions are VMC
> >
> > In those circumstances -- with VMC as the crucial element -- would it be
legal
> > to file an IFR plan with "direct" routing?
>
> VMC means nothing. ATC doesn't care. Ask FSDO and they will tell you
> this is not legal.
>
> This would require, of course,
> > something other than the Garmin295 being the primary navigation means.
But
> > since it is VMC, could you claim that pilotage, dead reckoning,
Norm Melick
> No authorization is required.
Is this your opinion, or are you speaking for the FAA?
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> Is this your opinion, or are you speaking for the FAA?
>
It's not a matter of opinion. There is simply nothing that requires it to
be "authorized".
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> I'll ask you again. Is this your opinion, or are you
> speaking for the FAA?
>
Please refer to my previous answer.
Norm Melick
> >
> > Is this your opinion, or are you speaking for the FAA?
> >
>
> be "authorized".
Bob Noel
<hen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > It's not a matter of opinion. There is simply nothing that requires it to
> > be "authorized".
>
> I'll ask you again. Is this your opinion, or are you
> speaking for the FAA?
he doesn't have any basis/authority for speaking for the FAA.
Newps
Dennis Monroe wrote:
>
> Just to confuse you more, I disagree with Newps on this one. The critical
> point is, as another poster said, what is your primary means of navigation?
> The unapproved GPS cannot be primary means for IFR navigation. So, when you
> file, do not file /G and you have not noted it as primary. You can use it
> for all the help you want. But think of what would get you from A-B, off
> airways, if it fails? Answers: A) ATC radar. B) VOR navigation to a nearby
> VOR or intersection. C) Your DG and mag. compass. These then, are your
> primary means of IFR navigation and you are perfectly legal filing direct.
But you didn't disagree with me. I said ATC doesn't care. FSDO
does. I don't care if you use a handheld or not for your primary means
of nav. The legalities of that simply don't affect me. If you are able
to do what you say you can, then I don't care. Now, if you're flying
around using that handheld as primary/only nav and FSDO finds out,
they'll nail you to the wall. But my life happily goes on.
Norm Melick
> >
> > I'll ask you again. Is this your opinion, or are you
> > speaking for the FAA?
> >
>
Then I consider your previous answer and this one non
responsive, and repeat my response, for the benefit of the
people in this NG.
VFR and hand-held GPS systems are not authorized for IFR
navigation,
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> Now, if you're flying around using that handheld as primary/only
> nav and FSDO finds out, they'll nail you to the wall.
>
With what will they nail him to the wall?
Steven P. McNicoll
Also from the AIM:
Flight Information Publication Policy
"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."
The FAA publishes the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) to make readily
available to the aviation community the regulatory requirements placed upon
them. Since no FAR requires a GPS unit to be "authorized" for IFR use, such
authorization is not required.
Use of a GPS unit installed with a placard reading "For VFR use only" would
violate FAR 91.9(a). That's the advantage of handheld equipment; no
installation, no restrictive placard, no limitations on use during IFR
flight. Assuming you've complied with FAR 91.21, of course.
This subject rises periodically in this forum. If you wish to get up to
speed on it, I suggest you review the following threads:
Warren
having an ILS instead of NDB approach. In IMC, just toss the duck out and follow
him in. <smile>
macho...@nosoup4u.net wrote:
> Most of the confusion, you will find, stems from the fact that there
> are stringent requirements for selling and installing GPS units in
> aircraft for IFR navigation.
>
> Many pilots interpret these requirements as applying to themseelves as
> well.
>
> As otheres have pointed out, if you suspend a ham sandwich from a
> string, and it helps you navigate, you can use it, even though it
> might not be approved by the FAA.
>
> On 15 Jun 2000 22:21:47 GMT, fal...@aol.com (J Fallows) wrote:
>
> >>> you did not misunderstand. It isn't authorized.
> >>>
> >>No authorization required.
> >
> >I'm starting to feel less bad about the fact that I'm confused -- but I remain
> >confused nonetheless. Is the explanation here that FSDO cares exactly how
> >you're getting "primary" nav guidance -- and ATC doesn't care, as long as
Piper News Reader
--
"Norm Melick" <hen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:395801DF...@worldnet.att.net...
> 91.13 comes to mind.
It also could be he simply gets nailed by a mountain or tower that he flew into.
After many hours of IFR GPS nav time I more fully appreciate the meaning of the
term"supplementary navigation." I always have a VOR tuned in when able and/or
always know my non-coupled heading so I can get somewhere useful (as compared
to lost or CFIT) if the GPS fails for whatever reason.
I could also quote the holy scripture, urr the FARS, but basic common sense seems
more evident in some than others, and little can change that, yes? After all, one
could legally go off in zero-zero, so why not also use a handheld while doing it and
prove what a great pilot?
Phil T
-----------------------------
N9312P PA24-260C
Norm Melick
> Also from the AIM:
>
> Flight Information Publication Policy
>
> "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."
So what is your point? If it is to prove that you can cut
and paste, you've proven this ability many times.
> The FAA publishes the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) to make
> readily available to the aviation community the regulatory requirements placed upon them.
You forgot the quotes here. These were cut cut from the
AIM, correct?
How about these quotes, from the AIM:
"This manual is designed to provide the aviation community
with basic flight information and ATC procedures for use in
the National Airspace System (NAS) of the United States."
OR:
"This manual contains the fundamentals required in order to
fly in the United States NAS."
> Since no FAR requires a GPS unit to be "authorized" for IFR use, such
> authorization is not required.
1. Is this your opinion, or are you speaking for the FAA?
2. Is this going to be your defense in an NTSB hearing?
The fact is, the FAA says that VFR and hand-held GPS systems
are not authorized for IFR navigation, instrument
approaches, or as a principal instrument flight reference.
They have stated that during IFR operations they may be
considered only an aid to situational awareness. If you
want to fly your aircraft in IFR operations, using a hand
held GPS for IFR navigation, instrument approaches, or as a
principal instrument flight reference, knowing full well
that the FAA has published statements that prohibit this
type of operation, be my guest. My question is why are you
encouraging other pilots to ignore these FAA statements,
even after you called FSDO's and were told that such
operations were prohibited. At the very least, you owe it
to these same pilots to describe the consequences of not
complying with the AIM, getting caught, and ending up before
an Administrative Law Judge in an NTSB hearing.
You do know the consequences, don't you?
> Use of a GPS unit installed with a placard reading "For VFR use only" would
> violate FAR 91.9(a).
Is this your opinion, or are you speaking for the FAA?
If you operate a civil aircraft without complying with the
operating limitations specified in the approved Airplane or
Rotorcraft Flight Manual, markings, and placards, or as
otherwise prescribed by the certificating authority of the
country of registry, then yes, there could be a violation of
91.9(a). Using a "VFR use" GPS for situational awareness
purposes never violated any FAR, during any flight
operation.
> That's the advantage of handheld equipment; no installation, no
> restrictive placard, no limitations on use during IFR flight.
Is this your opinion, or are you speaking for the FAA?
When used as a tool to increase situational awareness, there
never is/was any limitations on use, VFR or IFR.
> Assuming you've complied with FAR 91.21, of course.
When you install the GPS in accordance with Notice 8110.47
or 8110.48, and is then approved in accordance with the
requirements specified in TSO C-129, FAR 91.21 does not
apply.
> This subject rises periodically in this forum. If you wish to get up to
> speed on it, I suggest you review the following threads:
>
> Is VFR GPS use legal?, What does "when able" mean?, GPS Direct filing, Going
> direct to an intersection, how do you file direct?, RNAV, Non-IFR Cert GPS
> Use, Dead Reckoning IFR, Dead Reckoning IFR - Part 2, The final word on GPS as sole
> navigation?
Why would I review these "threads" to assure that I comply
with the FAR's, AIM, etc.? When I feel the need to "get up
to speed", which obviously I am, it will be by reading the
appropriate FAA publications, not some misinformed,
blatantly wrong opinions from you, or any news group.
From the AIM:
b. General Requirements
Looks to me as if you're the one who needs to do some
reading and "get up to speed".
Norm Melick
Norm Melick
> It also could be he simply gets nailed by a mountain or tower that he flew into.
After reading your post, there really is nothing else to
say. I have the feeling that you are going to enjoy a long
and safe life as a certificated pilot. Not necessarily
because of your pilot abilities, certificates held or the
number of hours in your logbook.
It's your attitude.
Norm Melick
Norm Melick
> During my oral exam for the instrument checkride, my DE claimed that it
> would be perfectly legal to fly IFR in solid IMC with nothing but a two-way
> radio. How? Fly from departure to destination via dead reckoning then land
> utilizing an ASR approach.
I'd say that since Steve McNicoll is so sure that such an
operation is safe and legal, that he gets the weather ship
duty, and gives it a go.
He's got my vote.
Newps
>
> It also could be he simply gets nailed by a mountain or tower that he flew into.
Nah, except for ZLC, you have to be in radar contact to go direct.
MACKLIN
"Norm Melick" <hen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:395822F8...@worldnet.att.net...
> Piper News Reader wrote:
>
> > It also could be he simply gets nailed by a mountain or tower that he
flew into.
>
BARR DOUG
(non-VFR GPS) to fly the route you are flying. If you do that, then
you can use your VFR GPS to assist you.
Of course, no one is saying that you will get busted if you DON'T
have approved equipment to fly the route. But lets face it, you are
flying IFR, wouldn't you WANT two or more independent systems in case
one fails??? I sure would. (Actually, not counting pilotage and dead
reconing, I have three, IFR GPS, VOR, and battery handheld GPS).
The problem is, the VFR handhelds are so inexpensive and so accurate,
that once you have one, it is tempting to use it all the time, even
in IFR. I am planning to use mine in IFR just for practice, incase I
loose my IFR GPS. Sounds like a good idea to me.
I also practice the following. Navigate to the outer marker, shoot an
ILS, do a missed approach back to the VOR. My GPS fails (and my DME),
I have no way to navigate to the outer marker (I don't have marker
beacons). So I do a VOR approach (the one I am thinking of the VOR is
off the field about 7 mile, so I time the inbound leg).
Could happen.
Oh, and BTW, how about a little less bickering? I mean I hope all of
you have good flights, enjoy aviation and fly safe!
David Kornreich
<hen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
So which is the unsafe or illegal part--- navigation via dead reckoning or
flying an ASR appraoch? If you can't do either of these things safely and
legally, then I suggest that you give up flying IFR.
Anyone who has read these newsgroups for any length of time has seen all
of your arguments before. You merely state them with a greater air of
condescention. I therefore predict that your next claim will be that IFR
in class G airspace without a flight plan is illegal.
DA
--
David A. Kornreich, CP-ASEL/IA -><- dk...@alderan.tn.cornell.edu
Cornell University Space Sciences
The Fraternal Order of the Eternal Employees of Floyd
** We Specialize in Circumstances Beyond Our Control **
David Kornreich
DOUG) wrote:
> I think the key is, you have to have approved navigation equipment
> (non-VFR GPS) to fly the route you are flying. If you do that, then
> you can use your VFR GPS to assist you.
In most airspace, what you need is navigation equipment appropriate to the
facilities to be used. If you can fly V666 without reference to the VOR,
you don't need a VOR receiver in your airplane to file for V666, although
it might be a good idea to bring one anyway.
> Of course, no one is saying that you will get busted if you DON'T
> have approved equipment to fly the route. But lets face it, you are
> flying IFR, wouldn't you WANT two or more independent systems in case
> one fails??? I sure would. (Actually, not counting pilotage and dead
> reconing, I have three, IFR GPS, VOR, and battery handheld GPS).
Sure you would. But there is no required equipment for a "route." You can
always dead reckon it if you want and are able, with or without the
assistance of some kind of secondary navigation such as GPS.
And on the subject of the route to file, you can file a flight plan from
any point in space to any point in space via any route you like regardless
of the navigation equipment you are using. I know folks who file IFR
direct legs to/from the lat/long of their private field pretty regularly.
Just be prepared to be able to fly your requested route.
> Oh, and BTW, how about a little less bickering? I mean I hope all of
> you have good flights, enjoy aviation and fly safe!
Hear, hear.
Norm Melick
>
> If you don't fly into the rocks it is your altitude.
Hmmm. Yea, you got a point there.
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> So what is your point?
>
The point is the AIM is not regulatory.
>
> You forgot the quotes here. These were cut cut from the
> AIM, correct?
>
No, although I believe it or similar wording does appear in the AIM and
other FAA publications.
>
> How about these quotes, from the AIM:
>
> "This manual is designed to provide the aviation community
> with basic flight information and ATC procedures for use in
> the National Airspace System (NAS) of the United States."
>
> OR:
>
> "This manual contains the fundamentals required in order to
> fly in the United States NAS."
>
What about them?
>
> 1. Is this your opinion, or are you speaking for the FAA?
>
No.
>
> 2. Is this going to be your defense in an NTSB hearing?
>
Hearing?
>
> The fact is, the FAA says that VFR and hand-held GPS systems
> are not authorized for IFR navigation, instrument
> approaches, or as a principal instrument flight reference.
>
What FAR prohibits the use of a handheld GPS for IFR enroute navigation?
>
> They have stated that during IFR operations they may be
> considered only an aid to situational awareness. If you
> want to fly your aircraft in IFR operations, using a hand
> held GPS for IFR navigation, instrument approaches, or as a
> principal instrument flight reference, knowing full well
> that the FAA has published statements that prohibit this
> type of operation, be my guest.
>
So what is legal or illegal is whatever some FAA official says it is, not
what is codified in the FARs, is that what you're saying?
>
> My question is why are you encouraging other pilots to ignore
> these FAA statements, even after you called FSDO's and were
> told that such operations were prohibited.
>
Recall that most of the FSDOs didn't respond, the five that did respond did
not agree, and none of them were able to clearly cite any FAR that was
violated.
>
> At the very least, you owe it to these same pilots to describe
> the consequences of not complying with the AIM, getting caught,
> and ending up before an Administrative Law Judge in an NTSB hearing.
>
Just what are the legal consequences of not complying with a document that
declares itself to be nonregulatory?
>
> You do know the consequences, don't you?
>
Nope.
>
> If you operate a civil aircraft without complying with the
> operating limitations specified in the approved Airplane or
> Rotorcraft Flight Manual, markings, and placards, or as
> otherwise prescribed by the certificating authority of the
> country of registry, then yes, there could be a violation of
> 91.9(a). Using a "VFR use" GPS for situational awareness
> purposes never violated any FAR, during any flight
> operation.
>
How are you complying with the placard if you use something which is
placarded "For VFR use only" during IFR flight?
>
> When used as a tool to increase situational awareness, there
> never is/was any limitations on use, VFR or IFR.
>
Is this your opinion, or are you speaking for the FAA?
>
> When you install the GPS in accordance with Notice 8110.47
> or 8110.48, and is then approved in accordance with the
> requirements specified in TSO C-129, FAR 91.21 does not
> apply.
>
Handheld GPS units are generally NOT installed..
>
> Why would I review these "threads" to assure that I comply
> with the FAR's, AIM, etc.?
>
You would review them if you wanted to learn something about GPS use in
aviation.
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> 91.13 comes to mind.
>
How would FAR 91.13 be applicable?
Steven P. McNicoll
"BARR DOUG" <ba...@Colorado.EDU> wrote in message
news:8jaoem$koa$1...@peabody.colorado.edu...
>
> I think the key is, you have to have approved navigation equipment
> (non-VFR GPS) to fly the route you are flying. If you do that, then
> you can use your VFR GPS to assist you.
>
What do you base that on? What "approved navigation equipment" must I have
for a radar vector route segment? What "approved navigation equipment" must
I have for a dead reckoning route segment? What "approved navigation
equipment" must I have for a pilotage route segment?
Norm Melick
> The point is the AIM is not regulatory.
The point is, that although the AIM is not regulatory, the
FAA has consistently introduced the AIM into evidence at
trial, and used it's contents to show a preponderance of
evidence. Generally done when they want to prove a 91.13
violation, although I did attend one hearing where they
introduced the AIM into evidence to show the Judge what the
AIM had to say about what a pilot should and should not do
when flying around thunderstorms.
The pilots estate lost that case, and the FAA/controller who
allegedly vectored this pilot through a thunderstorm walked.
> > You forgot the quotes here. These were cut cut from the
> > AIM, correct?
> No, although I believe it or similar wording does appear in the AIM and
> other FAA publications.
Yea, right.
> > How about these quotes, from the AIM:
> >
> > "This manual is designed to provide the aviation community
> > with basic flight information and ATC procedures for use in
> > the National Airspace System (NAS) of the United States."
> >
> > OR:
> >
> > "This manual contains the fundamentals required in order to
> > fly in the United States NAS."
> >
>
> What about them?
You don't understand them?
> > 1. Is this your opinion, or are you speaking for the FAA?
> No.
No, it's not your opinion, or no, you are not speaking for
the FAA?
> > 2. Is this going to be your defense in an NTSB hearing?
> >
>
> Hearing?
Hearing. A noun. An appearance before a judge,
investigative committee, etc.
> > The fact is, the FAA says that VFR and hand-held GPS systems
> > are not authorized for IFR navigation, instrument
> > approaches, or as a principal instrument flight reference.
> What FAR prohibits the use of a handheld GPS for IFR enroute navigation?
None that I'm aware of. The AIM says that VFR and hand-held
GPS systems are not authorized for IFR navigation,
instrument approaches, or as a principal instrument flight
reference. During IFR operations they may be considered only
an aid to situational awareness.
Pretty obvious how the FAA wants the pilots to operate their
GPS's, and under what conditions.
> > They have stated that during IFR operations they may be
> > considered only an aid to situational awareness. If you
> > want to fly your aircraft in IFR operations, using a hand
> > held GPS for IFR navigation, instrument approaches, or as a
> > principal instrument flight reference, knowing full well
> > that the FAA has published statements that prohibit this
> > type of operation, be my guest.
> So what is legal or illegal is whatever some FAA official says it is,
> not what is codified in the FARs, is that what you're saying?
"Some FAA official"? If an appropriate FAA official says
that something is legal or illegal, it is legal or illegal
until you take the Administrator to court, and prevail, or
you get a letter of interpretation from the Office of Chief
Counsel, which has the effect of law, until you take the
Administrator to court, and prevail.
> > My question is why are you encouraging other pilots to ignore
> > these FAA statements, even after you called FSDO's and were
> > told that such operations were prohibited.
> Recall that most of the FSDOs didn't respond, the five that did respond > did not agree, and none of them were able to clearly cite any FAR that
> was violated.
And you're asking the pilot population to risks their
certificates based upon these responses and your statements
in this NG, as opposed to what the AIM clearly states? As
we say in Texas, that dog don't hunt. By the way, didn't
one FSDO laugh and say that they would start an enforcement
action if a pilot did in fact fly an IFR flight using a VFR
GPS as the sole means of navigation?
> > At the very least, you owe it to these same pilots to describe
> > the consequences of not complying with the AIM, getting caught,
> > and ending up before an Administrative Law Judge in an NTSB hearing.
> Just what are the legal consequences of not complying with a document
> that declares itself to be nonregulatory?
Many pilots have asked the same question during their NTSB
hearing. Most of them got a $10,000 fine and 30 days
certificate suspension as their answer.
> > You do know the consequences, don't you?
> Nope.
Well, looks to me like you need to ask an aviation law
attorney.
> > If you operate a civil aircraft without complying with the
> > operating limitations specified in the approved Airplane or
> > Rotorcraft Flight Manual, markings, and placards, or as
> > otherwise prescribed by the certificating authority of the
> > country of registry, then yes, there could be a violation of
> > 91.9(a). Using a "VFR use" GPS for situational awareness
> > purposes never violated any FAR, during any flight
> > operation.
> How are you complying with the placard if you use something which is
> placarded "For VFR use only" during IFR flight?
It's called "situational awareness", which the AIM says a
pilot may use when operating a "VFR GPS" in IFR operations.
To date, I've never seen a placard that stated "Use of this
device for situational awareness is prohibited during IFR
flight operations".
> > When used as a tool to increase situational awareness, there
> > never is/was any limitations on use, VFR or IFR.
> Is this your opinion, or are you speaking for the FAA?
No.
> > When you install the GPS in accordance with Notice 8110.47 or 8110.48, > >and is then approved in accordance with the requirements specified in > >TSO C-129, FAR 91.21 does not apply.
> Handheld GPS units are generally NOT installed..
No, but antennas could be, the mounts could be. Just
throwing the GPS on the front seat could be dangerous, and
every pilot that I've flown with that had a hand held GPS
had some sort of mounting system. And if the handheld
device could be installed in accordance with Notice 8110.47
or 8110.48, and is then approved in accordance with the
requirements specified in TSO C-129, FAR 91.21 would not
apply.
> > Why would I review these "threads" to assure that I comply
> > with the FAR's, AIM, etc.?
> You would review them if you wanted to learn something about GPS use in
> aviation.
As I stated previously, when I feel the need to "get up to
speed", which obviously I am, it will be by reading the
appropriate FAA publications.
Norm Melick
> So which is the unsafe or illegal part--- navigation via dead reckoning > or flying an ASR appraoch?
That's kind of an abstract question, isn't it?
> If you can't do either of these things safely and legally, then I
> suggest that you give up flying IFR.
OK hot shot. Why don't you go fly a 300 mile IFR x-country
via dead reckoning, in solid IMC with nothing but a two-way
radio. Then tell us how easy it is. If you want to really
impress this NG with your piloting abilities, fly from Van
Nuys, CA to White Plains, NY via dead reckoning, in solid
IMC with nothing but a two-way radio.
For extra credit, can you tell me, right now, what the
acceptable off course distance would be on any one of these
flights? In other words, how close do you think you could
come to hitting your destination?
> Anyone who has read these newsgroups for any length of time has seen all
> of your arguments before. You merely state them with a greater air of
> condescention.
Conviction yes, but certainly not condescension.
> I therefore predict that your next claim will be that IFR in class G
> airspace without a flight plan is illegal.
Then obviously you are not one of those people who has read
these newsgroups for any length of time.
Norm Melick
> In article <8jaoem$koa$1...@peabody.colorado.edu>, ba...@Colorado.EDU (BARR
> DOUG) wrote:
> > (non-VFR GPS) to fly the route you are flying. If you do that, then
> > you can use your VFR GPS to assist you.
> the facilities to be used. If you can fly V666 without reference to the > VOR, you don't need a VOR receiver in your airplane to file for V666
How could you fly V666 without reference to the VOR?
> although it might be a good idea to bring one anyway.
Hmmm. Your saying it might be a good idea to bring a nav
radio that is required to be there if you are using the low
altitude airways that are predicated on using the VOR's?
> > Of course, no one is saying that you will get busted if you DON'T
> > have approved equipment to fly the route. But lets face it, you are
> > flying IFR, wouldn't you WANT two or more independent systems in case
> > one fails??? I sure would. (Actually, not counting pilotage and dead
> > reconing, I have three, IFR GPS, VOR, and battery handheld GPS).
> Sure you would. But there is no required equipment for a "route."
That's not true. In controlled airspace, IFR operations
always requires a "route".
> You can always dead reckon it if you want and are able, with or without > the assistance of some kind of secondary navigation such as GPS.
When was the last time you flew an IFR flight using dead
reckoning only, and did you comply with 91.181(a) and (b)?
> And on the subject of the route to file, you can file a flight plan from
> any point in space to any point in space via any route you like
> regardless of the navigation equipment you are using.
Isn't there something in the FAR's about "navigation
equipment appropriate to the ground facilities to be used?
You just mentioned it in the beginning of your post.
> I know folks who file IFR direct legs to/from the lat/long of their private field pretty regularly.
Using dead reckoning as the sole means of navigation?
> Just be prepared to be able to fly your requested route.
Isn't that kind of understood?
David Kornreich
<hen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> David Kornreich wrote:
>
> > In article <8jaoem$koa$1...@peabody.colorado.edu>, ba...@Colorado.EDU (BARR
> > DOUG) wrote:
>
> > > I think the key is, you have to have approved navigation equipment
> > > (non-VFR GPS) to fly the route you are flying. If you do that, then
> > > you can use your VFR GPS to assist you.
>
> > In most airspace, what you need is navigation equipment appropriate to
> > the facilities to be used. If you can fly V666 without reference to
the > VOR, you don't need a VOR receiver in your airplane to file for V666
>
> How could you fly V666 without reference to the VOR?
Dead Reckoning.
> > although it might be a good idea to bring one anyway.
>
> Hmmm. Your saying it might be a good idea to bring a nav
> radio that is required to be there if you are using the low
> altitude airways that are predicated on using the VOR's?
No, the airways are defined by VORs, but if you're a good dead reckoner,
you don't need to look at your VOR needle to follow them.
> > > Of course, no one is saying that you will get busted if you DON'T
> > > have approved equipment to fly the route. But lets face it, you are
> > > flying IFR, wouldn't you WANT two or more independent systems in case
> > > one fails??? I sure would. (Actually, not counting pilotage and dead
> > > reconing, I have three, IFR GPS, VOR, and battery handheld GPS).
>
> > Sure you would. But there is no required equipment for a "route."
>
> That's not true. In controlled airspace, IFR operations
> always requires a "route".
I guess the folks who file TEC will be out of luck then, huh? How about
procedure turns? Holding patterns? Vectors?
There is nothing I can find in the FARs which indicates that a specific
mode of navigation is required to navigate along a given route, only that
when on a route you have to navigate in a straight line or on the airway
centerline unless otherwise instructed by ATC.
> > You can always dead reckon it if you want and are able, with or
without > the assistance of some kind of secondary navigation such as GPS.
>
> When was the last time you flew an IFR flight using dead
> reckoning only, and did you comply with 91.181(a) and (b)?
I flew an IFR dead reckoning flight from ITH to ELM to BGM back to ITH two
years ago during my IFR training. I complied with 91.181 because I flew
direct courses between those fixes. I am certainly prepared to do it again
in case I ever have a total electrical failure.
> > And on the subject of the route to file, you can file a flight plan from
> > any point in space to any point in space via any route you like
> > regardless of the navigation equipment you are using.
>
> Isn't there something in the FAR's about "navigation
> equipment appropriate to the ground facilities to be used?
> You just mentioned it in the beginning of your post.
What if no ground facilities are to be used? What navigation equipment is
required to fly between arbitrary lat/long fixes, for instance? What if I
would rather use a ham sandwich to navigate V666 instead of the defining
VORs? Does it matter as long as I am on the airway centerline?
> > I know folks who file IFR direct legs to/from the lat/long of their
private field pretty regularly.
>
> Using dead reckoning as the sole means of navigation?
No, but we're off that topic now. The point is that you can file from
anywhere to anywhere via anywhere.
Is it your claim that navigating using DR as the sole means would be illegal?
> > Just be prepared to be able to fly your requested route.
>
> Isn't that kind of understood?
Hopefully.
Bob Gardner
relatives of someone you hurt/killed and there are no pilots on the jury).
The judge asks "Mr. Melick, please read the whole title of the book I am handing you."
Melick: "Aeronautical Information Manual, Basic Flight Information and ATC Procedures."
Judge: "Is there any other source of information readily available to pilots regarding basic flight information and ATC procedures, to the best of your knowledge?"
Melick: "Well, there are the Federal Aviation Regulations...."
Judge: "Do the regulations contain procedures?"
Steven H. Weintraub
> What if no ground facilities are to be used? What navigation equipment is
> required to fly between arbitrary lat/long fixes, for instance? What if I
> would rather use a ham sandwich to navigate V666 instead of the defining
> VORs? Does it matter as long as I am on the airway centerline?
>
>
It is well established on this NG that the appropriate navigational
device is a tuna sandwich (cf dozens of past postings on this subject).
--
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Prof. Steven H. Weintraub | Phone: (225)-388-1569 |
| Dept. of Mathematics | Fax: (225)-388-4276 |
| Louisiana State University | mailto:wei...@math.lsu.edu |
| Baton Rouge, LA 70803-4918 USA | http://www.math.lsu.edu/~weintr |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
Norm Melick
>
> Consider this scenario...you are defending yourself against a certificate action under 91.13. The Administrative Law Judge is not a pilot (or even worse, it is a civil action brought by the
> relatives of someone you hurt/killed and there are no pilots on the jury).
>
> The judge asks "Mr. Melick, please read the whole title of the book I am handing you."
> Melick: "Aeronautical Information Manual, Basic Flight Information and ATC Procedures."
> Judge: "Is there any other source of information readily available to pilots regarding basic flight information and ATC procedures, to the best of your knowledge?"
> Melick: "Well, there are the Federal Aviation Regulations...."
> Judge: "Do the regulations contain procedures?"
Melick: Your honor, you've lost me.
Norm Melick
> > How could you fly V666 without reference to the VOR?
>
> Dead Reckoning.
Why?
> No, the airways are defined by VORs, but if you're a good dead reckoner,
> you don't need to look at your VOR needle to follow them.
But that is exactly what you do to follow the VOR needle.
> > That's not true. In controlled airspace, IFR operations
> > always requires a "route".
>
> I guess the folks who file TEC will be out of luck then, huh?
No, they have a route to follow.
> How about procedure turns? Holding patterns? Vectors?
What about them?
> There is nothing I can find in the FARs which indicates that a specific
> mode of navigation is required to navigate along a given route, only that
> when on a route you have to navigate in a straight line or on the airway
> centerline unless otherwise instructed by ATC.
Does it make sense to you that you would use the ground stations
appropriate that defines the route?
> > When was the last time you flew an IFR flight using dead
> > reckoning only, and did you comply with 91.181(a) and (b)?
>
> I flew an IFR dead reckoning flight from ITH to ELM to BGM back to ITH two
> years ago during my IFR training.
I'm sorry, I just don't believe this. You DR'ed the approaches
too, right?
> I complied with 91.181 because I flew direct courses between those fixes.
Right.
> I am certainly prepared to do it again in case I ever have a total electrical failure.
You would fly from ITH to BGM and BACK to ITH if you had a total
electric failure?
> What if no ground facilities are to be used?
If you have an IFR approved GPS, you wouldn't need any ground
facilities, unless you got a RAIM light.
You would still have to have the ability to switch to a VOR if the
RAIM light remained illuminated.
> What navigation equipment is required to fly between arbitrary lat/long fixes, for instance?
RNAV, an IFR approved GPS.
> What if I would rather use a ham sandwich to navigate V666 instead of the defining
> VORs?
You wouldn't maintain your course centerline, but in any event, why
don't you ask this very question to your local FSDO?
> Does it matter as long as I am on the airway centerline?
Yes.
> No, but we're off that topic now. The point is that you can file from
> anywhere to anywhere via anywhere.
You could file from anywhere from anywhere, via direct. Always
could.
> Is it your claim that navigating using DR as the sole means would be illegal?
Depends.
Newps
>
> There is nothing I can find in the FARs which indicates that a specific
> mode of navigation is required to navigate along a given route, only that
> when on a route you have to navigate in a straight line or on the airway
> centerline unless otherwise instructed by ATC.
No way even the best ded reckoner stays on the airway centerline for
very long, therefore you would be illegal.
>
> What if no ground facilities are to be used? What navigation equipment is
> required to fly between arbitrary lat/long fixes, for instance? What if I
> would rather use a ham sandwich to navigate V666 instead of the defining
> VORs? Does it matter as long as I am on the airway centerline?
You can either fly the airway or ded reckon, but you can't ded reckon an
airway. By definition an airway requires a VOR in the plane.
Bob Noel
> By definition an airway requires a VOR in the plane.
can we agree that flying an airway requires navigation equipment
appropriate to the route? The key word being "appropriate."
Can an INS-equipped aircraft fly an airway such as V16?
--
Bob
(I think people can figure out how to email me...)
(replace ihatessppaamm with my name (rnoel) and hw1 with mediaone)
greg arnold
Warren wrote in message <3955F503...@worldnet.att.net>...
>I carry a duck instead of the ham sandwich, I find it's much better. Sort
of like
>having an ILS instead of NDB approach. In IMC, just toss the duck out and
follow
>him in. <smile>
Hmmm, when I tried that the duck kept flying back to my landing light..and
around and around we went...;P
Newps
Bob Noel wrote:
>
> In article <395C24A1...@home.com>, Newps <scn...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > By definition an airway requires a VOR in the plane.
>
> can we agree that flying an airway requires navigation equipment
> appropriate to the route? The key word being "appropriate."
> Can an INS-equipped aircraft fly an airway such as V16?
I'm not familiar with how INS works. If it receives a VOR signal then
yes, you can fly V16. If it's like GPS then no, you can't fly V16, you
go direct.
FiPe
An INS (they come in pairs, actually) is the ultimate dead reckoning machine.
It measures minute accelerations along all axis(es?) and integrates them into
velocities (speed along a define direction). With a VERY well define departure
point and a very accurate clock, you know where you are at all times with a
very high degree of precision.
I worked with these on B-52H and can positively tell you that save for GPS,
nothing can touch it.
I think that the point of the previous post is that you can track an airway
MUCH accurately with an INS that you could possibly do with a plus or minus 6
degrees VOR needle.
Regards,
Fidel
Newps
As you can with a GPS, but while doing so you are not "on V16".
You're simply going direct.
Tarver Engineering
FiPe <fi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000701160953...@ng-cq1.aol.com...
> >I'm not familiar with how INS works. If
>
> An INS (they come in pairs, actually) is the ultimate dead reckoning
machine.
An INS is a Long Range NAV and is used in pairs, or triplets.
> It measures minute accelerations along all axis(es?) and integrates them
into
> velocities (speed along a define direction). With a VERY well define
departure
> point and a very accurate clock, you know where you are at all times with
a
> very high degree of precision.
No.
> I worked with these on B-52H and can positively tell you that save for
GPS,
> nothing can touch it.
No.
> I think that the point of the previous post is that you can track an
airway
> MUCH accurately with an INS that you could possibly do with a plus or
minus 6
> degrees VOR needle.
No, an INS is updated from DME, VOR, or GPS.
John
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Bob Noel
<jta...@tminet.com> wrote:
> No, an INS is updated from DME, VOR, or GPS.
or a known position, either in the air or on the ground.
Tarver Engineering
Bob Noel <ihates...@hw1nospam.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:ihatessppaamm-0...@192.168.1.150...
> In article <395e7...@corp.newsfeeds.com>, "Tarver Engineering"
> <jta...@tminet.com> wrote:
>
> > No, an INS is updated from DME, VOR, or GPS.
>
> or a known position, either in the air or on the ground.
Only on the ground.
FiPe
>
...Or radar fix, or STV/radar altimeter update, or FLIR/radar altimeter update,
or if nothing else is available, the pilot's mk1 eye balls (overfly INS
update). On a -52 even without radar updates (QUAL 1 update) the position
error rarely exceeded 500 feet after a few hours of low level flight.
I am very interested to find out what you meant by your "no" comments to my
ealier posts.
Regards.
Fidel
Roy Smith, CFI
> And yes...... after a 6-8 hour ocean crossing, they could be as much
> as 10 miles in error.
Which is a bitch if you're trying to get to a specific runway, but
probably good enough if all you're trying to do is find the right
continent, no?
--
Roy Smith, CFI-ASE-IA
Tarver Engineering
Bob Noel <ihates...@hw1nospam.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:ihatessppaamm-0...@192.168.1.150...
> In article <395e7...@corp.newsfeeds.com>, "Tarver Engineering"
> <jta...@tminet.com> wrote:
>
> > >
> >
> > Only on the ground.
>
Really poor, but I doubt they do that anymore.
> If you don't believe me, you go argue with the KC135 navs.
I think you will find that KC-135s have Mil-GPS now.
Tarver Engineering
Bob Moore <bob...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:5Zv75.2054$fg3.1...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net...
> "Tarver Engineering" <jta...@tminet.com> wrote:
> >
> >Bob Noel wrote in message
> >> or a known position, either in the air or on the ground.
> >
> >Only on the ground.
>
> It's OK Bob, John is just demonstrating his VERY limited knowledge
> of the aviation world AGAIN. :-)
Back at ya.
Tarver Engineering
> I have seen dual INSs installed in jet transports that had NO update
Only pre 1980 mechanical systems. A Delco was never that accurate to start
with. (5 miles error across the Pacific) Of course hand inputting each
waypoint into an INS was tedious at best.
Your editing is misleading, was that your intent?
> capability other than manually by pilot input.
> And yes...... after a 6-8 hour ocean crossing, they could be as much
> as 10 miles in error.
Five miles is over ocean seperation, so this is not a good thing. Perhaps
you should have flown in a straight line; INS like that.
> Bob Moore
> ATP B-707 B-727
Antiques, no wonder. :)
Honeywell is putting an EPHIS in a 707 right now.
Tarver Engineering
Roy Smith, CFI <roy....@med.nyu.edu> wrote in message
news:roy.smith-DF9FE...@netnews.nyu.edu...
> bob...@gte.net (Bob Moore) wrote:
> > And yes...... after a 6-8 hour ocean crossing, they could be as much
> > as 10 miles in error.
>
> probably good enough if all you're trying to do is find the right
> continent, no?
When you get to a Continent you reach up to the eyebrow and switch from INS
to RAD.
Tarver Engineering
> "Tarver Engineering" <jta...@tminet.com> wrote:
> >Five miles is over ocean seperation, so this is not a good thing.
Perhaps
> >you should have flown in a straight line; INS like that.
>
> NO WAY!! John strikes again.
Five miles is all you get over the Pacific. Perhaps you are confused?
Bob Noel
<jta...@tminet.com> wrote:
> > > No, an INS is updated from DME, VOR, or GPS.
> >
> > or a known position, either in the air or on the ground.
>
> Only on the ground.
nope, in the air too. It just isn't very accurate.
If you don't believe me, you go argue with the KC135 navs.
--
FiPe
>
Back to the Buff, I guess...The best possible position update available to a
B-52 crew is the so-called INS air align (before GPS, that is). The Radar Nav
positions the radar cross-hairs on a small target (of known coordinates), say
the intersection of a bridge and one of its pillars, and hit the QUAL 1 button.
Voila, the OAS computes the position of the aircraft (including altitude) and
updates the INSs.
Regards,
Fidel
Bob Moore
>No, an INS is updated from DME, VOR, or GPS.
Not in all cases John, as a FAA designated INS/OMEGA check airman,
I have seen dual INSs installed in jet transports that had NO update
capability other than manually by pilot input.
And yes...... after a 6-8 hour ocean crossing, they could be as much
as 10 miles in error.
Bob Moore
ATP B-707 B-727
Chief Pilot, Check Airman, 1980
Arrow Air, Miami, FL
Bob Moore
>
>Only on the ground.
It's OK Bob, John is just demonstrating his VERY limited knowledge
of the aviation world AGAIN. :-)
Bob Moore
Bob Moore
>Five miles is over ocean seperation, so this is not a good thing. Perhaps
>you should have flown in a straight line; INS like that.
Surely you mean 5 minutes. 5 miles is less than 1 minute separation.
NO WAY!! John strikes again.
Bob Moore
Dan Larsen
> Five miles is all you get over the Pacific. Perhaps you are confused?
Is that with or without splaps deployment?
--Dan
Bob Noel
<jta...@tminet.com> wrote:
> Five miles is all you get over the Pacific. Perhaps you are confused?
Pacific oceanic lateral separation minimums are 100 miles, 50 miles
in RNP-10 routes. Longitudinal sep for RNP-10 tracks is down from
50 miles to 15 minutes. NAT (North Atlantic Tracks) longitudinal
sep is, I think, 7 minutes.
For those interested in learning, check out
http://www.faa.gov/ats/ato/130.htm and http://www.faa.gov/ats/ato/rnp.htm
Kyler Laird
>> I think that the point of the previous post is that you can track an airway
>> MUCH accurately with an INS that you could possibly do with a plus or minus 6
>> degrees VOR needle.
>>
> As you can with a GPS, but while doing so you are not "on V16".
>You're simply going direct.
So if I'm "on V16" and my avionics circuit breaker pops
or I tune to another VOR (I only have one nav.), I'm
suddenly "off V16"? How about the intervals when I'm
looking out the window/at the DG and not staring at the
VOR head? (If a needle deviates and there's no one
there to see it, does...)
--kyler
Tarver Engineering
Dan Larsen <bad...@seas.gwu.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.10.100070...@hobbes.seas.gwu.edu...
> On Sat, 1 Jul 2000, Tarver Engineering wrote:
>
>
Deploying spoilers over the Pacific would be pretty stupid.
Tarver Engineering
Bob Noel <ihates...@hw1nospam.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:ihatessppaamm-0...@192.168.1.150...
> <jta...@tminet.com> wrote:
>
> > > >Five miles is over ocean seperation, so this is not a good thing.
> > Perhaps
> > > >you should have flown in a straight line; INS like that.
> > >
> > > Surely you mean 5 minutes. 5 miles is less than 1 minute separation.
> > > NO WAY!! John strikes again.
> >
>
Where do you see the word lateral in my post bobby?
Nice try though.
Mr. Moore has become senile.
Bob Noel
<jta...@tminet.com> wrote:
> > > > >Five miles is over ocean seperation, so this is not a good thing.
> > > Perhaps
> > > > >you should have flown in a straight line; INS like that.
> > > >
> > > > Surely you mean 5 minutes. 5 miles is less than 1 minute separation.
> > > > NO WAY!! John strikes again.
> > >
> > > Five miles is all you get over the Pacific. Perhaps you are confused?
> >
> > Pacific oceanic lateral separation minimums are 100 miles,
>
> Where do you see the word lateral in my post bobby?
johnny, discussing separation minimum without distinquishing between lateral
and longitudinal minimums is incomplete and misleading.
In any case, no oceanic separation minimums of any kind are only 5 miles.
Can you reference any material specifying a 5 mile separation minimum
for oceanic airspace? go ahead johnny, provide evidence that you
have a clue wrt oceanic operations.
Tarver Engineering
Bob Noel <ihates...@hw1nospam.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:ihatessppaamm-0...@192.168.1.150...
> <jta...@tminet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > >Five miles is over ocean seperation, so this is not a good thing.
> > > > Perhaps
> > > > > >you should have flown in a straight line; INS like that.
> > > > >
> > > > > Surely you mean 5 minutes. 5 miles is less than 1 minute
separation.
> > > > > NO WAY!! John strikes again.
> > > >
> > > > Five miles is all you get over the Pacific. Perhaps you are
confused?
> > >
> > > Pacific oceanic lateral separation minimums are 100 miles,
> >
> > Where do you see the word lateral in my post bobby?
>
> johnny, discussing separation minimum without distinquishing between
lateral
> and longitudinal minimums is incomplete and misleading.
When we discuss INS system errors we are discussing Track error, not some
rediculess assertion about time to overtake. It would be a fools game to
expect a 50 mile error to be safe.
> In any case, no oceanic separation minimums of any kind are only 5 miles.
Tracks certainly are and profitability depends on it. Some airlines pay as
much as a 50% penalty for not owning the best Track.
> Can you reference any material specifying a 5 mile separation minimum
> for oceanic airspace? go ahead johnny, provide evidence that you
> have a clue wrt oceanic operations.
Find it yourself bobby.
Hint: oceanic TCAS
Bob Noel
<jta...@tminet.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >Five miles is over ocean seperation, so this is not a good thing.
[snip]
>
> When we discuss INS system errors we are discussing Track error,
you said "five miles is over ocean seperation [sic]"
If you meant INS system error you should have said that.
> not some
> rediculess assertion about time to overtake. It would be a fools game to
> expect a 50 mile error to be safe.
hey johnny, where did I say "time to overtake"...
And it's 50 mile separation, not error.
> In any case, no oceanic separation minimums of any kind are only 5 miles.
>
> Tracks certainly are and profitability depends on it. Some airlines pay as
> much as a 50% penalty for not owning the best Track.
tracks certainly aren't. Tracks have 50 mile lateral separation.
But you don't have to believe me, go look at the FAA docs at
btw - airlines don't own a track.
>
> > Can you reference any material specifying a 5 mile separation minimum
> > for oceanic airspace? go ahead johnny, provide evidence that you
> > have a clue wrt oceanic operations.
>
> Find it yourself bobby.
find evidence that you have a clue? talk about a fools errand!
Take special note of Implementation_Plan.doc
>
> Hint: oceanic TCAS
Hint: I'm still waiting for the reference.
Where is the specification of "oceanic TCAS"?
Tarver Engineering
Bob Noel <ihates...@hw1nospam.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:ihatessppaamm-0...@192.168.1.150...
> <jta...@tminet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > >Five miles is over ocean seperation, so this is not a good
thing.
> [snip]
> >
> > When we discuss INS system errors we are discussing Track error,
>
> you said "five miles is over ocean seperation [sic]"
>
> If you meant INS system error you should have said that.
That is what I responded to Bobby; do you have a reading disability?
Bob Noel
<jta...@tminet.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >Five miles is over ocean seperation, so this is not a good
> thing.
> > [snip]
> > >
> > > When we discuss INS system errors we are discussing Track error,
> >
> > you said "five miles is over ocean seperation [sic]"
> >
> > If you meant INS system error you should have said that.
>
> That is what I responded to Bobby;
Sure, Johnny, you responded to a comment about system error... with
the false claim that "five miles is over ocean separation [sic]"
After a 6-8 hour oceanic flight, 5 or 10 mile INS system error
would not be a problem in non-RNP-10 airspace (e.g., FL290 or
below).
do you have difficulty understanding the different requirements
for operating in different airspace?
When are you going to provide the reference specifying this
mystical "five mile" requirement?
And referring "ocean TCAS" is pretty funny... would that "ocean TCAS"
be specified in DO-185A, or TSO-C119b, or somewhere else?
Bob Moore
>Sure, Johnny, you responded to a comment about system error... with
>the false claim that "five miles is over ocean separation [sic]"
Aircraft separation in the MNPS area is achieved by three methods:
1. Lateral separation by flying one of several different tracks.
2. Longitudinal separation along the same track by maintaining
an assigned mach number.
3. Vertical separation.
>do you have difficulty understanding the different requirements
>for operating in different airspace?
I have a "real" hard time understanding Tarver.
Bob Moore
BARR DOUG
they had NDB airways! With today's RNAV, Loran and GPS, no reason why
you couldn't define an airway anywhere to anywhere. Grand Canyon has
some VFR airways ove the Canyon that have GPS coordinates. Things are
changing! Its not just Dad's VOR anymore!
In article <ihatessppaamm-3...@192.168.1.150>,
Bob Noel <ihates...@hw1nospam.net.invalid> wrote:
>In article <395C24A1...@home.com>, Newps <scn...@home.com> wrote:
>
>> By definition an airway requires a VOR in the plane.
>
>can we agree that flying an airway requires navigation equipment
>appropriate to the route? The key word being "appropriate."
>Can an INS-equipped aircraft fly an airway such as V16?
Tarver Engineering
Bob Noel <ihates...@hw1nospam.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:ihatessppaamm-0...@192.168.1.150...
> <jta...@tminet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > >Five miles is over ocean seperation, so this is not a
good
> > thing.
> > > [snip]
> > > >
> > > > When we discuss INS system errors we are discussing Track error,
> > >
> > > you said "five miles is over ocean seperation [sic]"
> > >
> > > If you meant INS system error you should have said that.
> >
> > That is what I responded to Bobby;
>
> the false claim that "five miles is over ocean separation [sic]"
Five miles of track loon boy.
Did you figure out what VDL for oceanic operations is yet?
You have already made it obvious that all you know about oceanic travel is
zero.
Tarver Engineering
> (Bob Noel) wrote:
>
> >Sure, Johnny, you responded to a comment about system error... with
> >the false claim that "five miles is over ocean separation [sic]"
>
> 1. Lateral separation by flying one of several different tracks.
> 2. Longitudinal separation along the same track by maintaining
> an assigned mach number.
> 3. Vertical separation.
>
> >do you have difficulty understanding the different requirements
> >for operating in different airspace?
>
> I have a "real" hard time understanding Tarver.
That is because you are senile.
Bob Moore
>That is because you are senile.
This from the FAA Oceanic Separation Implementation Plan, June 1999
3.1.2 The results of the NICE studies are summarized in the following
paragraphs. Three scenarios were simulated as described below:
Scenario 1: Current separation scenario (2000 ft. vertical, 60 nm lateral, 10
minute longitudinal)
Scenario 2: The RVSM 1000 ft. scenario (1000 ft. vertical, 60 nm lateral, 10
minute longitudinal)
Scenario 3: The RVSM 1000 ft. / RLSM (Reduced Longitudinal Separation Minima)
7 minute scenario (1000 ft. vertical, 60 nm lateral, 7 min longitudinal)
Give us some documentation, John.
Bob Moore
Steven P. McNicoll
"Norm Melick" <hen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:395ADA3E...@worldnet.att.net...
>
> None that I'm aware of.
>
Now you're catchin' on.
>
> The AIM says that VFR and hand-held
> GPS systems are not authorized for IFR navigation,
> instrument approaches, or as a principal instrument flight
> reference. During IFR operations they may be considered only
> an aid to situational awareness.
>
Rubbish. I can navigate across the country under IFR with a handheld GPS
quite legally.
>
> Pretty obvious how the FAA wants the pilots to operate their
> GPS's, and under what conditions.
>
It's pretty obvious that the FAA's wants are not consistent with the FARs.
>
> "Some FAA official"? If an appropriate FAA official says
> that something is legal or illegal, it is legal or illegal
> until you take the Administrator to court, and prevail, or
> you get a letter of interpretation from the Office of Chief
> Counsel, which has the effect of law, until you take the
> Administrator to court, and prevail.
>
Wrong. What is legal or illegal is what is written in the FARs.
>
> And you're asking the pilot population to risks their
> certificates based upon these responses and your statements
> in this NG, as opposed to what the AIM clearly states?
>
I'm not asking anyone to do anything.
>
> By the way, didn't one FSDO laugh and say that they would start an
> enforcement action if a pilot did in fact fly an IFR flight using a VFR
> GPS as the sole means of navigation?
>
Yes, and that same FSDO also said:
"Everything that is allowed is included in the FAR's and other federal
regulations, guidelines, and publications. If it isn't specifically allowed
then it is automatically disallowed. He says anyone who thinks that if
something isn't disallowed it therefore is allowed is looking at the whole
thing backwards and is looking for trouble."
No further comment required.
>
> It's called "situational awareness", which the AIM says a
> pilot may use when operating a "VFR GPS" in IFR operations.
> To date, I've never seen a placard that stated "Use of this
> device for situational awareness is prohibited during IFR
> flight operations".
>
So the AIM must be adhered to, but not so the FARs?
David B. Schober
awareness.
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
--
*****************************************************************************
David B.Schober, CPE
Instructor, Aviation Maintenance
Fairmont State College
National Aerospace Education Center
1050 East Benedum Industrial Drive
Bridgeport, WV 26330-9503
(304) 842-8300
When once you have tasted flight, you will always walk with your eyes
turned skyward, for there you have been and there you will always be.
--Leonardo da Vinci
Norm Melick
>
> "Norm Melick" <hen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:395ADA3E...@worldnet.att.net...
> >
> > None that I'm aware of.
> Now you're catchin' on.
Been on top of it all the way.
> > The AIM says that VFR and hand-held
> > GPS systems are not authorized for IFR navigation,
> > instrument approaches, or as a principal instrument flight
> > reference. During IFR operations they may be considered only
> > an aid to situational awareness.
> Rubbish. I can navigate across the country under IFR with a handheld GPS
> quite legally.
As long as it is used as an aid to situational awareness, sure.
Not as the principal instrument flight reference, and you still
need to comply with FAR 91.205(d)(2).
I still say that if you want to get the weather ship duty, be my
guest. Call the FAA, tell them you are going to fly from point A
to point B using nothing but a hand held GPS. Fly the flight, call
the FAA back and tell them you just completed said flight, and
report back to the group on the status of any FAA certificates you
hold.
> > Pretty obvious how the FAA wants the pilots to operate their
> > GPS's, and under what conditions.
> >
>
> It's pretty obvious that the FAA's wants are not consistent with the FARs.
Now you're catchin' on.
> > "Some FAA official"? If an appropriate FAA official says
> > that something is legal or illegal, it is legal or illegal
> > until you take the Administrator to court, and prevail, or
> > you get a letter of interpretation from the Office of Chief
> > Counsel, which has the effect of law, until you take the
> > Administrator to court, and prevail.
> >
>
> Wrong. What is legal or illegal is what is written in the FARs.
The statement "What is legal or illegal is what is written in the
FARs", is true. However, it is not a complete statement. The only
persons allowed to speak for the FAA, or interpret the FAR's, is
the Office of Chief Counsel. Although you may go to the FSDO and
ask them to interpret an FAR, they aren't allowed to. Only the
Office of Chief Counsel may do that. Like it or not, the fact is
that a letter of interpretation from the Office of Chief Counsel
has the effect of law. If you don't like the interpretation, you
may challenge it, or any FAR in open court. If you prevail,
great. If you loose, you're done.
> > And you're asking the pilot population to risks their
> > certificates based upon these responses and your statements
> > in this NG, as opposed to what the AIM clearly states?
> >
>
> I'm not asking anyone to do anything.
Sure is the impression I'm getting.
> > By the way, didn't one FSDO laugh and say that they would start an
> > enforcement action if a pilot did in fact fly an IFR flight using a VFR
> > GPS as the sole means of navigation?
> >
>
> Yes, and that same FSDO also said:
>
> "Everything that is allowed is included in the FAR's and other federal
> regulations, guidelines, and publications.
Does the AIM come under the heading of
1. Guidelines?
2. Publications?
> If it isn't specifically allowed then it is automatically disallowed.
OK.
1. Using a hand held GPS as the sole navigational means is not
specifically allowed by the FAR's, therefore it is automatically
disallowed.
2. The AIM (Guidelines or Publications), also states that the use
of hand held GPS as the sole navigational means is not allowed.
> He says anyone who thinks that if something isn't disallowed it therefore is allowed is looking at the whole
> thing backwards and is looking for trouble."
Either way, the use of a hand held GPS under IFR, as the sole means
of navigation is not allowed.
> No further comment required.
Fine by me.
> > It's called "situational awareness", which the AIM says a
> > pilot may use when operating a "VFR GPS" in IFR operations.
> > To date, I've never seen a placard that stated "Use of this
> > device for situational awareness is prohibited during IFR
> > flight operations".
> >
>
> So the AIM must be adhered to, but not so the FARs?
BOTH, must be adhered to. It may not be your cup of tea, nor mine,
but that is pretty much the way things are understood at an NTSB
hearing/Kangaroo court.
Dan Luke
Norm Melick wrote:
> > Rubbish. I can navigate across the country under IFR with a handheld
GPS
> > quite legally.
>
> As long as it is used as an aid to situational awareness, sure.
> Not as the principal instrument flight reference, and you still
> need to comply with FAR 91.205(d)(2).
So what?
It only says I must HAVE "navigational equipment appropriate to the ground
facilities to be used." It doesn't require me to USE the equipment. How I
find my way is entirely up to me.
Dan
N9387D@BFM
Bob Noel
Luke" <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > As long as it is used as an aid to situational awareness, sure.
> > Not as the principal instrument flight reference, and you still
> > need to comply with FAR 91.205(d)(2).
>
> So what?
>
> It only says I must HAVE "navigational equipment appropriate to the ground
> facilities to be used." It doesn't require me to USE the equipment. How I
> find my way is entirely up to me.
In IMC you must have a turn coordinator and AI. Is there a FAR
requiring its use?
Do you really think it's legal, safe, and smart to try to fly
an airway with equipment not approved, authorized, or appropriate
to that route?
Dan Luke
> In IMC you must have a turn coordinator and AI. Is there a FAR
> requiring its use?
No.
> Do you really think it's legal,...
Yes.
>...safe, and smart to try to fly
> an airway with equipment not approved, authorized, or appropriate
> to that route?
One may legally file /G with a GPS that is certified for at least enroute
navigation. Whether one uses *that* GPS to navigate with is not prescribed
in the FARs. "Safe, smart and appropriate" are up to the pilot.
Dan
N9387D@BFM