Up till now I have been using the /G Flight plan equipment suffix. I
have IFR rated GPS Garmin 300XL + Narco 122D VOR/LOC/GS. But with the
cost of Jeppesen $kybound service "skyrocketing" (30% jump in one year)
I plan not to update the card full time and use GPS for VFR only - I am
not wealthy nor IFR rated. What would be the appropriate equipment
suffix?
-----------------------------------------------------
SQ2000 canard http://www.abri.com/sq2000

/U if so equipped.

http://www.faa.gov/ats/ato/rvsm_documentation.htm

"abripl" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Up till now I have been using the /G Flight plan equipment suffix. I
> have IFR rated GPS Garmin 300XL + Narco 122D VOR/LOC/GS. But with the
> cost of Jeppesen $kybound service "skyrocketing" (30% jump in one year)
> I plan not to update the card full time and use GPS for VFR only - I am
> not wealthy nor IFR rated. What would be the appropriate equipment
> suffix?
> -----------------------------------------------------
> SQ2000 canard http://www.abri.com/sq2000
>

Even if your GPS were current, but you do not plan on using it, don't
file /G. Use the next most appropriate one. You probably have a
transponders, so use /U, or /A if you also have a DME.

abripl wrote:
> I plan not to update the card full time and use GPS for VFR only - I am
> not wealthy nor IFR rated. What would be the appropriate equipment
> suffix?

It costs $$$$ just to be able to file /G... I's like to but I can't justify
it. I just don;t fly into that many places in bad weather where there isn't
am ILS. Just file /U

On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 18:52:02 GMT, kontiki >
wrote:

>abripl wrote:
>> I plan not to update the card full time and use GPS for VFR only - I am
>> not wealthy nor IFR rated. What would be the appropriate equipment
>> suffix?
>
>It costs $$$$ just to be able to file /G... I's like to but I can't justify
>it. I just don;t fly into that many places in bad weather where there isn't
>am ILS. Just file /U

Why would it cost anything to file /G on a VFR flight plan filed with
FSS for purposes of S&R? There is no requirement for the GPS to be
current for VFR flight. If it's working, /G should be perfectly
appropriate in a VFR-only environment.

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Even if your GPS were current, but you do not plan on using it, don't
> file /G.
>

Why not?

It doesn't cost anything to file it that way, but for VFR it is meaningless.
It just tells ATC that you have a really good backup for situational
awareness. You cannot be issued clearance for an instrument approach if you
are VFR.

"Peter Clark" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 18:52:02 GMT, kontiki >
> wrote:
>
> >abripl wrote:
> >> I plan not to update the card full time and use GPS for VFR only - I am
> >> not wealthy nor IFR rated. What would be the appropriate equipment
> >> suffix?
> >
> >It costs $$$$ just to be able to file /G... I's like to but I can't
justify
> >it. I just don;t fly into that many places in bad weather where there
isn't
> >am ILS. Just file /U
>
> Why would it cost anything to file /G on a VFR flight plan filed with
> FSS for purposes of S&R? There is no requirement for the GPS to be
> current for VFR flight. If it's working, /G should be perfectly
> appropriate in a VFR-only environment.

The original poster says "I am not wealthy nor IFR rated" and thus
cannot be issued clearance for an instrument approach anyway. Since
they cannot be operating IFR, what other flight plan is there, and why
isn't /G fine since they have a GPS and there is no requirement that
I'm aware of that a database be current for VFR usage?

On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 21:10:54 GMT, "Michael Ware"
> wrote:

>It doesn't cost anything to file it that way, but for VFR it is meaningless.
>It just tells ATC that you have a really good backup for situational
>awareness. You cannot be issued clearance for an instrument approach if you
>are VFR.
>
>"Peter Clark" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 18:52:02 GMT, kontiki >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >abripl wrote:
>> >> I plan not to update the card full time and use GPS for VFR only - I am
>> >> not wealthy nor IFR rated. What would be the appropriate equipment
>> >> suffix?
>> >
>> >It costs $$$$ just to be able to file /G... I's like to but I can't
>justify
>> >it. I just don;t fly into that many places in bad weather where there
>isn't
>> >am ILS. Just file /U
>>
>> Why would it cost anything to file /G on a VFR flight plan filed with
>> FSS for purposes of S&R? There is no requirement for the GPS to be
>> current for VFR flight. If it's working, /G should be perfectly
>> appropriate in a VFR-only environment.
>

Like I said...

"Peter Clark" > wrote in message
...
> The original poster says "I am not wealthy nor IFR rated" and thus
> cannot be issued clearance for an instrument approach anyway. Since
> they cannot be operating IFR, what other flight plan is there, and why
> isn't /G fine since they have a GPS and there is no requirement that
> I'm aware of that a database be current for VFR usage?
>
> On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 21:10:54 GMT, "Michael Ware"
> > wrote:
>
> >It doesn't cost anything to file it that way, but for VFR it is
meaningless.
> >It just tells ATC that you have a really good backup for situational
> >awareness. You cannot be issued clearance for an instrument approach if
you
> >are VFR.
> >

OK. Then I can just continue using the /G for VFR. And it gives ATC
some ideas what I can do in inadvertent IMC. In fact I had one FSS
comment something that way on a flight filing.

On 27 Nov 2005 14:59:17 -0800, abripl wrote:

> OK. Then I can just continue using the /G for VFR. And it gives ATC
> some ideas what I can do in inadvertent IMC. In fact I had one FSS
> comment something that way on a flight filing.

Since you are NOT IFR rated, I doubt that ATC will even care if you are
slant Gulf.

They will be looking to give you vectors out of IMC ASAP.

If you have never been in IMC, you will be in for a very rude awakening AND
the GPS will be the last thing on your mind.

Don't let a simple thing like a GPS give you a false sense of security.

Your focus will be on just staying upright.

Allen

Because if the pilot declares an equipment as available, he should be
prepared to use it. No point in saying you have something if you are
not ready to use it.

Are you suggesting that pilots should file /G even if they don't know
how to operate the GPS?

If I fly in McNicholl's sector I'm going to file /Z !

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Because if the pilot declares an equipment as available, he should be
> prepared to use it. No point in saying you have something if you are
> not ready to use it.
>

Why wouldn't the pilot be unready to use it? The GPS still works, it's just
that the database is not current.


>
> Are you suggesting that pilots should file /G even if they don't know
> how to operate the GPS?
>

Are you suggesting that choosing not to keep the database current removes
the pilot's knowledge of operating the GPS?

I didn't suggest you didn't know how to operate the GPS. What I said
was

"Even if your GPS were current, but you do not plan on using it, don't
file /G."

The reason why you do not want to use the GPS is irrelevant.

Why a pilot may not want to use an equipment for navigation is
irrelevant to the discussion. The point is that if he does not want to
use it, then he should not file it.

Not knowing how to operate a GPS is one example of why a pilot may
elect to not use a GPS. I did not claim that database currency has
anything to do with a pilot's knowledge of using a GPS.

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Why a pilot may not want to use an equipment for navigation is
> irrelevant to the discussion. The point is that if he does not want to
> use it, then he should not file it.
>
> Not knowing how to operate a GPS is one example of why a pilot may
> elect to not use a GPS. I did not claim that database currency has
> anything to do with a pilot's knowledge of using a GPS.
>

But you didn't explain why the pilot should file less than the maximum
navigation capability of their aircraft.

What is relevant here is that the OP has stated that he is VFR only. He
cannot use the GPS for his primary means of navigation, regardless of the
make/model of the GPS, the status of the database, or what equipment suffix
he uses when he files.

/G is reserved for GPS with en route and terminal capability. Without a
current database (for GPS certification) or an instrument rating (terminal
approaches) the choices are narrowed to /X, /T or /U.

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Why a pilot may not want to use an equipment for navigation is
> irrelevant to the discussion. The point is that if he does not want to
> use it, then he should not file it.
>
> Not knowing how to operate a GPS is one example of why a pilot may
> elect to not use a GPS. I did not claim that database currency has
> anything to do with a pilot's knowledge of using a GPS.
>

"Michael Ware" > wrote in message
m...
>
> What is relevant here is that the OP has stated that he is VFR only. He
> cannot use the GPS for his primary means of navigation, regardless of the
> make/model of the GPS, the status of the database, or what equipment
> suffix
> he uses when he files.
>

Why not?

> ...What I said was
> "Even if your GPS were current, but you do not plan on using it,
> don't file /G."
> The reason why you do not want to use the GPS is irrelevant.

I have no reason not to use it.... I use it all the time - just not for
IFR since I am not IFR rated. But from the comments I see that I can
continue indicating /G for my VFR flights even if the GPS data is not
current. So I think my question was essentially answered.

"abripl" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> I have no reason not to use it.... I use it all the time - just not for
> IFR since I am not IFR rated. But from the comments I see that I can
> continue indicating /G for my VFR flights even if the GPS data is not
> current. So I think my question was essentially answered.
>

The AIM doesn't even mention filing an equipment suffix for a VFR flight
plan. For block 3 of the flight plan form it says only, "Enter the
designator for the aircraft, or if unknown, consult an FSS briefer." For
IFR flight plans it says, "It is recommended that pilots file the maximum
transponder or navigation capability of their aircraft in the equipment
suffix. This will provide ATC with the necessary information to utilize all
facets of navigational equipment and transponder capabilities available."

Visual Flight Rules

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Michael Ware" > wrote in message
> m...
> >
> > What is relevant here is that the OP has stated that he is VFR only. He
> > cannot use the GPS for his primary means of navigation, regardless of
the
> > make/model of the GPS, the status of the database, or what equipment
> > suffix
> > he uses when he files.
> >
>
> Why not?
>
>

FAR 91 does not require equipment suffix either for VFR or IFR. In your
above quote (reference?) it says "recommended" (not "required") in
order for ATC to have more info for the IFR flight since ATC is more
likely to deal with IFR than VFR. Nowhere it says that equipment suffix
for VFR is not required or not recommended or forbiden. FAR 91 does
mention use of "full blown IFR GPS" for VFR use. When ATC does deal
with VFR the suffix may be helpful - as was in my one case with a
briefer.

"Michael Ware" > wrote in message
m...
>
> Visual Flight Rules
>

He cannot use the GPS for his primary means of navigation, regardless of the
make/model of the GPS, the status of the database, or what equipment suffix
he uses when he files, because he's operating under Visual Flight Rules?
What are you basing that on?

"abripl" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> FAR 91 does not require equipment suffix either for VFR or IFR. In your
> above quote (reference?) it says "recommended" (not "required") in
> order for ATC to have more info for the IFR flight since ATC is more
> likely to deal with IFR than VFR. Nowhere it says that equipment suffix
> for VFR is not required or not recommended or forbiden.
>

Correct.


>
> FAR 91 does
> mention use of "full blown IFR GPS" for VFR use.
>

Where?


>
> When ATC does deal
> with VFR the suffix may be helpful - as was in my one case with a
> briefer.
>

ATC does not have any briefers.

>> FAR 91 does
>> mention use of "full blown IFR GPS" for VFR use.

> Where?

Its actually in AIM 1-1-19-b-1 "...GPS navigation under VFR are varied,
from a full IFR installation..."

"abripl" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Its actually in AIM 1-1-19-b-1 "...GPS navigation under VFR are varied,
> from a full IFR installation..."
>

I don't see "full blown IFR GPS" anywhere in that subparagraph.

You heard of paraphrase?


Last person making comments wins.

You're right, substitute the word 'sole' for 'primary'.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Michael Ware" > wrote in message
> m...
> >
> > Visual Flight Rules
> >
>
> He cannot use the GPS for his primary means of navigation, regardless of
the
> make/model of the GPS, the status of the database, or what equipment
suffix
> he uses when he files, because he's operating under Visual Flight Rules?
> What are you basing that on?
>
>

"abripl" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> You heard of paraphrase?
>

What is the purpose of quotation marks?

"Michael Ware" > wrote in message
...
>
> You're right, substitute the word 'sole' for 'primary'.
>

He cannot use the GPS for his sole means of navigation, regardless of the
make/model of the GPS, the status of the database, or what equipment suffix
he uses when he files, because he's operating under Visual Flight Rules?
What are you basing that on?

Example 1: pilot may not be thoroughly familiar with the navigation
equipment

Example 2: pilot may be an old timer and may not like 'modern'
technology like GPS

Example 3: pilot may have found the equipment to be flaky in the past,
and is not comfortably using it

Example 4: Just because he doesn't feel like it.

Why does it matter what the reason is? My point was, if he chooses not
to use an equipment, he should not file it. Is there a rule that says
otherwise?

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Example 1: pilot may not be thoroughly familiar with the navigation
> equipment
>
> Example 2: pilot may be an old timer and may not like 'modern'
> technology like GPS
>
> Example 3: pilot may have found the equipment to be flaky in the past,
> and is not comfortably using it
>
> Example 4: Just because he doesn't feel like it.
>

None of those examples answer the question.


>
> Why does it matter what the reason is?
>

Because being unable to explain why you believe what you believe tends to
indicate there's no reason to believe what you believe.


>
> My point was, if he chooses not to use an equipment, he should not file
> it.
>

But you have no idea why he shouldn't file that way.