Just read in aopa weekly mail today that the FAA is considering shutting
down the BDL (Bradley, Hartford CT) and PVD (Providence RI) VORs.

These are not exactly podunk navaids. Both are located at Class C fields
with substantial airline traffic (not just RJs either) and they support a
decent number of airways and approaches. To be fair, VORs are not exactly in
short supply in the Northeast, so this won't have a devastating effect,
though it will make outages more critical.

I fly a 172N and with 2 NAV/COMs, ADF, and an M1 Loran I can get around this
part of the country pretty well. Other than getting DME capability there
hasn't been a pressing reason to add an IFR GPS to a $40,000 plane. But, how
much longer will it be before /G is a de facto requirement? Already when I
fly IFR (filed /U) controllers give me instructions ("proceed direct
foobar") that require GPS, so I suppose us non-golf folks are becoming a
rare species. How long before we're extinct?

Best,
-cwk.

> But, how much longer will it be before /G is a de facto requirement?

IMO, more than 5 years but less than 15.

> Already when I fly IFR (filed /U) controllers give me instructions
> ("proceed direct foobar") that require GPS

Well, they don't really. I bet you can do that with the M1 LORAN. Or
you could if it didn't come with a placard limiting it to VFR use only.
A handheld GPS will not come with such a placard, and there's no rule
that says you can't use it for enroute IFR (anyone who says otherwise
is welcome to quote chapter and verse from the approriate regulation -
NOT an advisory circular or AIM).

Since almost everyone who flies IFR has at least a handheld GPS, why
wouldn't ATC take advantage of this?

The real issue is when will approach GPS become a necessity pracitcal
necessity? I suspect that as VOR's and NDB's are decomissioned, more
and more airports will have nothing but GPS. The big airports will
always have ILS, and those will become our only legal alternates, but
for GA IFR flying, GPS will become a necessity.

Michael

"Michael" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> > But, how much longer will it be before /G is a de facto requirement?
>
> IMO, more than 5 years but less than 15.
>
> > Already when I fly IFR (filed /U) controllers give me instructions
> > ("proceed direct foobar") that require GPS
>
> Well, they don't really. I bet you can do that with the M1 LORAN. Or
> you could if it didn't come with a placard limiting it to VFR use only.
> A handheld GPS will not come with such a placard, and there's no rule
> that says you can't use it for enroute IFR (anyone who says otherwise
> is welcome to quote chapter and verse from the approriate regulation -
> NOT an advisory circular or AIM).
>
> Since almost everyone who flies IFR has at least a handheld GPS, why
> wouldn't ATC take advantage of this?
>
> The real issue is when will approach GPS become a necessity pracitcal
> necessity? I suspect that as VOR's and NDB's are decomissioned, more
> and more airports will have nothing but GPS. The big airports will
> always have ILS, and those will become our only legal alternates, but
> for GA IFR flying, GPS will become a necessity.
>
> Michael
>


Go fly in the plains states most the GA airports have GPS only IFR approach
and not many VOR's or many other nav aid's and the Vor's that are our in
Eastern MT And Western ND well if you have 1,500' cellings good luck picking
them up.

This is an old horse and I almost hate to bring it up again, but are you
aware you can legally accept direct FUBAR as a /U under IFR, and monitor
your progress with a handheld GPS?

Currently the only reason one ever needs an IFR GPS is to fly a GPS
approach. To answer your question, then, /G will be de facto required FOR
YOU when there are airports you want to go to IFR, in weather that requires
an approach, that only have that kind of approach.

"Colin W Kingsbury" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Just read in aopa weekly mail today that the FAA is considering shutting
> down the BDL (Bradley, Hartford CT) and PVD (Providence RI) VORs.
>
> These are not exactly podunk navaids. Both are located at Class C fields
> with substantial airline traffic (not just RJs either) and they support a
> decent number of airways and approaches. To be fair, VORs are not exactly
> in
> short supply in the Northeast, so this won't have a devastating effect,
> though it will make outages more critical.
>
> I fly a 172N and with 2 NAV/COMs, ADF, and an M1 Loran I can get around
> this
> part of the country pretty well. Other than getting DME capability there
> hasn't been a pressing reason to add an IFR GPS to a $40,000 plane. But,
> how
> much longer will it be before /G is a de facto requirement? Already when I
> fly IFR (filed /U) controllers give me instructions ("proceed direct
> foobar") that require GPS, so I suppose us non-golf folks are becoming a
> rare species. How long before we're extinct?
>
> Best,
> -cwk.
>
>

> This is an old horse and I almost hate to bring it up again, but are you
> aware you can legally accept direct FUBAR as a /U under IFR, and monitor
> your progress with a handheld GPS?

AFAIK this only applies in a radar environment, where it's like vectors.

Jose
--
Nothing is more powerful than a commercial interest.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Dan Thompson wrote:
> This is an old horse and I almost hate to bring it up again, but are you
> aware you can legally accept direct FUBAR as a /U under IFR, and monitor
> your progress with a handheld GPS?

You're not cleared direct. You're given a vector that is essentially
direct. /G allows you to accept a clearance "direct FUBAR."


>
> Currently the only reason one ever needs an IFR GPS is to fly a GPS
> approach.

A terminal/enroute only box allows you to eliminate your ADF and DME
which is very handy if you fly a lot of ILS and VOR approaches anyways.

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
> You're not cleared direct. You're given a vector that is essentially
> direct. /G allows you to accept a clearance "direct FUBAR."
>

No, you're cleared direct. There are no restrictions on direct clearances
based on the filed equipment suffix.

"Colin W Kingsbury" wrote:
> ...so I suppose us non-golf folks are becoming a
> rare species. How long before we're extinct?

Depends on what kind of flying you do. If you don't fly IFR to small
airports, the lack of an approach certified GPS is no big deal--a
portable one will serve you just fine for years, probably.

But if you *do* fly IFR to small airports, you're already a flying
fossil.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

In a previous article, Newps > said:
>A terminal/enroute only box allows you to eliminate your ADF and DME
>which is very handy if you fly a lot of ILS and VOR approaches anyways.

Don't get rid of your ADF and DME if you want to fly to Canada some time,
though.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"Harry very carefully read the manual - four times - because Snape would
cut off his breathing privs if he asked him a question that the manual
could answer..." -- Harry Potter and the Book Of The BOFH

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
>
> Don't get rid of your ADF and DME if you want to fly to Canada some time,
> though.
>

Or if you need to fly an NDB approach that has no GPS overlay, or an
approach similar to the VOR/DME RWY 15 at Martin State Airport.

Michael wrote:

> > But, how much longer will it be before /G is a de facto requirement?
>
> IMO, more than 5 years but less than 15.
>
> > Already when I fly IFR (filed /U) controllers give me instructions
> > ("proceed direct foobar") that require GPS
>
> Well, they don't really. I bet you can do that with the M1 LORAN. Or
> you could if it didn't come with a placard limiting it to VFR use only.
> A handheld GPS will not come with such a placard, and there's no rule
> that says you can't use it for enroute IFR (anyone who says otherwise
> is welcome to quote chapter and verse from the approriate regulation -
> NOT an advisory circular or AIM).

Try 91.205 (d) (2) for starters:

d) Instrument flight rules. For IFR flight, the following instruments and
equipment are required:

(2) Two-way radio communications system and navigational equipment
appropriate to the ground facilities to be used.

Think non-radar operations, where the controller isn't going to play "Frick
and Frack" direct-to games with you. Failure to comply with 91.205 can
rapidly lead to 91.3, and the FAA attorneys win every time.

Paul Tomblin wrote:

> In a previous article, Newps > said:
> >A terminal/enroute only box allows you to eliminate your ADF and DME
> >which is very handy if you fly a lot of ILS and VOR approaches anyways.
>
> Don't get rid of your ADF and DME if you want to fly to Canada some time,
> though.

More so for Mexico.

In a previous article, said:
>Where does it say I cannot accept this clearance and dead reckon my
>way to this intersection?

This is something I've never understood. Before I was a pilot, I was an
orienteer (a pretty good one, too - 7th in the North American
Championships one year). And in the sport of orienteering, it's quite
common to take an approximate bearing to one linear feature, aimed off a
bit so you know which way to turn, and then follow the linear feature to
the point feature that you're looking for. And yet if you suggest to
another pilot that you could get to "so-and-so" intersection (which is the
intersection of two airways that you're not currently on) from here by
taking a 200 heading until you hit the airway, then turning down along the
airway until you hit the intersection, and they look at you like you've
grown an extra horn on your head.

Why don't pilots do approximate bearings like that? The only thing I've
seen close to that is when ATC will give you an approximate heading to a
VOR a long way away and say "fly 200 degrees, then direct ETX when able".

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
echo '16i[q]sa[ln0=aln100%Pln100/snlbx]sb20293A2058554E494Csnlbxq'|dc

"Dan Thompson" > wrote in message
. com...
> This is an old horse and I almost hate to bring it up again, but are you
> aware you can legally accept direct FUBAR as a /U under IFR, and monitor
> your progress with a handheld GPS?

It is a sad day that people now assume clearance direct to an intersection
can only be complied with if you have some sort of RNAV. Makes me wonder how
we ever did it in the '70s with only a VOR and a TACAN.

> wrote in message ...
>
> Try 91.205 (d) (2) for starters:
>
> d) Instrument flight rules. For IFR flight, the following instruments and
> equipment are required:
>
> (2) Two-way radio communications system and navigational equipment
> appropriate to the ground facilities to be used.
>

That states what equipment is required to be aboard, it does not restrict
the use of equipment not required to be aboard.


>
> Think non-radar operations, where the controller isn't going to play
> "Frick and Frack" direct-to games with you. Failure to comply with 91.205
> can
> rapidly lead to 91.3, and the FAA attorneys win every time.
>

Nobody suggested IFR operations without the required equipment.

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
>
> This is something I've never understood. Before I was a pilot, I was an
> orienteer (a pretty good one, too - 7th in the North American
> Championships one year). And in the sport of orienteering, it's quite
> common to take an approximate bearing to one linear feature, aimed off a
> bit so you know which way to turn, and then follow the linear feature to
> the point feature that you're looking for. And yet if you suggest to
> another pilot that you could get to "so-and-so" intersection (which is the
> intersection of two airways that you're not currently on) from here by
> taking a 200 heading until you hit the airway, then turning down along the
> airway until you hit the intersection, and they look at you like you've
> grown an extra horn on your head.
>

Well, "direct" is defined as straight line flight between two fixes. But
then a VOR receiver can be off by six degrees and still be used for IFR
operations. Go figure.

> wrote in message
...
>
> You had a VOR and a TACAN? Lucky dog.
>

I believe King made a version of the KNS 80 with full TACAN capability, I
think it was the KNS 80A.

Tim, some of the other guys are playing around with you a little bit, but
I'll spell it out for you since I started it.

That reg says what you have to have onboard, but does not say what you will
or must use for navigation. IFR course tracking is a performance standard.
You must stay on the assigned course. How you do that is not specified or
regulated. What you use to fly that course is not specified or regulated.
Only that you fly that course, somehow.

So, you may use dead reckoning if you want to, radar vectors, celestial nav
(right!), or even (the crowd is on the edge of their seats in anticpation) a
tuna sandwich. The tuna sandwich must not, however, be placarded "VFR
only."

So, it is perfectly acceptable to look at your handheld GPS, see that it
says 237 degrees and 16 minutes to FUBAR, dead reckon by flying a 237
heading, and monitor your progress by reference to the handheld GPS.





> wrote in message ...
>
>
> Michael wrote:
>
>> > But, how much longer will it be before /G is a de facto requirement?
>>
>> IMO, more than 5 years but less than 15.
>>
>> > Already when I fly IFR (filed /U) controllers give me instructions
>> > ("proceed direct foobar") that require GPS
>>
>> Well, they don't really. I bet you can do that with the M1 LORAN. Or
>> you could if it didn't come with a placard limiting it to VFR use only.
>> A handheld GPS will not come with such a placard, and there's no rule
>> that says you can't use it for enroute IFR (anyone who says otherwise
>> is welcome to quote chapter and verse from the approriate regulation -
>> NOT an advisory circular or AIM).
>
> Try 91.205 (d) (2) for starters:
>
> d) Instrument flight rules. For IFR flight, the following instruments and
> equipment are required:
>
> (2) Two-way radio communications system and navigational equipment
> appropriate to the ground facilities to be used.
>
> Think non-radar operations, where the controller isn't going to play
> "Frick
> and Frack" direct-to games with you. Failure to comply with 91.205 can
> rapidly lead to 91.3, and the FAA attorneys win every time.
>
>

"Dan Thompson" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> Tim, some of the other guys are playing around with you a little bit, but
> I'll spell it out for you since I started it.
>
> That reg says what you have to have onboard, but does not say what you
> will or must use for navigation. IFR course tracking is a performance
> standard. You must stay on the assigned course. How you do that is not
> specified or regulated. What you use to fly that course is not specified
> or regulated. Only that you fly that course, somehow.
>
> So, you may use dead reckoning if you want to, radar vectors, celestial
> nav (right!), or even (the crowd is on the edge of their seats in
> anticpation) a tuna sandwich. The tuna sandwich must not, however, be
> placarded "VFR only."
>
> So, it is perfectly acceptable to look at your handheld GPS, see that it
> says 237 degrees and 16 minutes to FUBAR,

There are GPS units that use minutes? I'd have thought them all to be
decimal format.


>
> dead reckon by flying a 237 heading, and monitor your progress by
> reference to the handheld GPS.
>

A good pilot will have an idea of the wind and correct for it.

> wrote in message
...
>
> Two, the placard "VFR only" means not approved for IFR operations. It
> doesn't mean you are only allowed to use it when in VFR conditions.
> Therefore it's as good as your sextant or stopwatch for navigation of
> all kinds. As long as you have the required equipment on board, you
> are all set.
>

The placard specified in AC 20-138 is "GPS limited to VFR use only". Use
of a GPS with such a placard during IFR operations, even on a cloudless day
with no restrictions to visibility, would be a violation of FAR 91.9(a).

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> or an approach similar to the VOR/DME RWY 15 at Martin
> State Airport.

Why this approach? To me it seems an IFR certified GPS and one VOR would
suffice.


--
Peter













----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dan Thompson" > wrote in message
> . com...
> > This is an old horse and I almost hate to bring it up again, but are you
> > aware you can legally accept direct FUBAR as a /U under IFR, and monitor
> > your progress with a handheld GPS?
>
> It is a sad day that people now assume clearance direct to an intersection
> can only be complied with if you have some sort of RNAV. Makes me wonder
how
> we ever did it in the '70s with only a VOR and a TACAN.
>

Pray enlighten me to one thing- let's say I'm on V123 and cleared direct to
FUBAR which is defined by the intersection of V456 and V789. Leaving out the
legal-vs-practical debate, there is no way for me to navigate from my
present position to FUBAR in a straight line sans RNAV. It's always been my
understanding that "direct" means they assume you will in fact go straight
there, not turn left 20 degrees, intercept V456, and then head to FUBAR. Am
I missing something here?

-cwk.

"Dan Thompson" > wrote in message
. com...
> This is an old horse and I almost hate to bring it up again, but are you
> aware you can legally accept direct FUBAR as a /U under IFR, and monitor
> your progress with a handheld GPS?

Yeah, well aware of it, and in my neighborhood (New England) you're usually
operating under radar and on airways anyway. My point was more that it
seemed as though ATC was simply starting to expect everyone to have GPS.

> wrote in message
...
>
> In your opinion.
>

No, it's not a matter of opinion.

Sorry, Mr. Old School. It is tuna now, in sensitivity to diversity of
religious preference and dietary issues.

> wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 18:28:36 GMT, "Dan Thompson" >
> wrote:
>
>>Tim, some of the other guys are playing around with you a little bit, but
>>I'll spell it out for you since I started it.
>>
>>That reg says what you have to have onboard, but does not say what you
>>will
>>or must use for navigation. IFR course tracking is a performance
>>standard.
>>You must stay on the assigned course. How you do that is not specified or
>>regulated. What you use to fly that course is not specified or regulated.
>>Only that you fly that course, somehow.
>>
>>So, you may use dead reckoning if you want to, radar vectors, celestial
>>nav
>>(right!), or even (the crowd is on the edge of their seats in anticpation)
>>a
>>tuna sandwich. The tuna sandwich must not, however, be placarded "VFR
>>only."
>>
>>So, it is perfectly acceptable to look at your handheld GPS, see that it
>>says 237 degrees and 16 minutes to FUBAR, dead reckon by flying a 237
>>heading, and monitor your progress by reference to the handheld GPS.
>
>
> Correct except for two items.
>
> One, it's a ham sandwich, always has been, not tuna.
>
> Two, the placard "VFR only" means not approved for IFR operations. It
> doesn't mean you are only allowed to use it when in VFR conditions.
> Therefore it's as good as your sextant or stopwatch for navigation of
> all kinds. As long as you have the required equipment on board, you
> are all set.

What it is, is ATC expects everyone to be able to navigate direct, one way
or another.

"Colin W Kingsbury" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Dan Thompson" > wrote in message
> . com...
>> This is an old horse and I almost hate to bring it up again, but are you
>> aware you can legally accept direct FUBAR as a /U under IFR, and monitor
>> your progress with a handheld GPS?
>
> Yeah, well aware of it, and in my neighborhood (New England) you're
> usually
> operating under radar and on airways anyway. My point was more that it
> seemed as though ATC was simply starting to expect everyone to have GPS.
>
>

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
>
> Why this approach? To me it seems an IFR certified GPS and one VOR would
> suffice.
>

Because one of the restrictions to use of GPS in lieu of ADF or DME is use
as the principal instrument approach navigation source. In most VOR/DME
approaches track information is provided by a VOR and distance along the
track by DME, in this one it's just the opposite.

"Dan Thompson" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> What it is, is ATC expects everyone to be able to navigate direct, one way
> or another.
>

I don't expect everyone to be able to navigate direct, but I do expect
everyone to be able to navigate what they file. It isn't unusual for
someone to file direct to a distant point, accept their clearance "as filed"
and an instruction to proceed "on course" or "direct" to that distant point,
and then to request vectors to it after departure.

>
> I'm waiting for someone of these guys who tells me I can't use my
> handheld GPS to navigate to explain to me how it is that presumably I
> can look slightly above my yoke-mounted GPS and look at the stars
> (presumably celestial navigation is still an acceptable means to these
> folks) and navigate with my sextant (along with my RadioShack
> timepiece.)

It's not a direct answer to your question, but if you want a cheap sextant,
check out http://www.tecepe.com.br/nav/. I think an aviation sextant needs
some kind of level, but I am sure this design could be modified. :-)

John Bell
www.cockpitgps.com

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> And yet if you suggest to
> another pilot that you could get to "so-and-so" intersection (which is the
> intersection of two airways that you're not currently on) from here by
> taking a 200 heading until you hit the airway, then turning down along the
> airway until you hit the intersection, and they look at you like you've
> grown an extra horn on your head.

> Why don't pilots do approximate bearings like that? The only thing I've
> seen close to that is when ATC will give you an approximate heading to a
> VOR a long way away and say "fly 200 degrees, then direct ETX when able".
>

Because you are required to fly direct, not find your way there by some
indirect route. If you are cleared from present position direct FOOBAR, you
are required to fly along the direct course between those two points.

§ 91.181 Course to be flown.
Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, no person may operate an aircraft within
controlled airspace under IFR except as follows:

(a) On a Federal airway, along the centerline of that airway.

(b) On any other route, along the direct course between the navigational
aids or fixes defining that route. However, this section does not prohibit
maneuvering the aircraft to pass well clear of other air traffic or the
maneuvering of the aircraft in VFR conditions to clear the intended flight
path both before and during climb or descent.

> And in the sport of orienteering, it's quite
> common to take an approximate bearing to one linear feature, aimed off a
> bit so you know which way to turn, and then follow the linear feature to
> the point feature that you're looking for.
>
> Why don't pilots do approximate bearings like that?

They do. VFR. When you are in the clouds, surrounded by moutains,
towers, and other airplanes, it is important to fly directly to where
you are cleared. Flying "approximately and off to one side" would work
fine unless you reach CG or CA first. IFR isn't about "getting there",
it's about "getting there without hitting anything".

And cfeyeeye - if I fly an airplane with no navigation equipment
whatsoever except a compass, clock, and tuna sandwich, and accept an IFR
clearance direct to Fubar expecting to dead reckon my way there, would
you consider this legal according to the the regs (in the US)?

> Try 91.205
>
> d) Instrument flight rules. For IFR flight, the following instruments and
> equipment are required:
>
> (2) Two-way radio communications system and navigational equipment
> appropriate to the ground facilities to be used.

The key word is "appropriate". And the FAA gets to determine whether
what you have is "appropriate". If you can find me =any= case where the
FAA has found that a tuna sandwich, compass, and clock (alone) was
"appropriate" for IFR naviagation, I will personally eat the tuna sandwich.

Part of the issue (of course) is the use of the word "use" to mean "rely
on". But I think you know that.

Jose
--
Nothing is more powerful than a commercial interest.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

wrote:

>
> Where does it say I cannot accept this clearance and dead reckon my
> way to this intersection?

Because direct is not ded reckoning. Direct is the straight line
between two points. Ded reckoning may or may not be.

Jose wrote:


>
> And cfeyeeye - if I fly an airplane with no navigation equipment
> whatsoever except a compass, clock, and tuna sandwich, and accept an IFR
> clearance direct to Fubar expecting to dead reckon my way there, would
> you consider this legal according to the the regs (in the US)?

Not legal. And no controller would clear you direct.

"Stan Prevost" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
> ...
>> And yet if you suggest to
>> another pilot that you could get to "so-and-so" intersection (which is
>> the
>> intersection of two airways that you're not currently on) from here by
>> taking a 200 heading until you hit the airway, then turning down along
>> the
>> airway until you hit the intersection, and they look at you like you've
>> grown an extra horn on your head.
>
>> Why don't pilots do approximate bearings like that? The only thing I've
>> seen close to that is when ATC will give you an approximate heading to a
>> VOR a long way away and say "fly 200 degrees, then direct ETX when able".
>>
>
> Because you are required to fly direct, not find your way there by some
> indirect route. If you are cleared from present position direct FOOBAR,
> you are required to fly along the direct course between those two points.
>
> § 91.181 Course to be flown.
> Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, no person may operate an aircraft
> within controlled airspace under IFR except as follows:
>
> (a) On a Federal airway, along the centerline of that airway.
>

So why are the airways eight miles wide?

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
> Not legal. And no controller would clear you direct.
>

How would the controller know?

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
> Because direct is not ded reckoning. Direct is the straight line between
> two points. Ded reckoning may or may not be.
>

Well, if dead reckoning may be a straight line between two points it cannot
be excluded from IFR operations.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Stan Prevost" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> And yet if you suggest to
>>> another pilot that you could get to "so-and-so" intersection (which is
>>> the
>>> intersection of two airways that you're not currently on) from here by
>>> taking a 200 heading until you hit the airway, then turning down along
>>> the
>>> airway until you hit the intersection, and they look at you like you've
>>> grown an extra horn on your head.
>>
>>> Why don't pilots do approximate bearings like that? The only thing I've
>>> seen close to that is when ATC will give you an approximate heading to a
>>> VOR a long way away and say "fly 200 degrees, then direct ETX when
>>> able".
>>>
>>
>> Because you are required to fly direct, not find your way there by some
>> indirect route. If you are cleared from present position direct FOOBAR,
>> you are required to fly along the direct course between those two points.
>>
>> § 91.181 Course to be flown.
>> Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, no person may operate an aircraft
>> within controlled airspace under IFR except as follows:
>>
>> (a) On a Federal airway, along the centerline of that airway.
>>
>
> So why are the airways eight miles wide?
>

I don't know. Why are they? I would like to know.

But it is irrelevant to the issue at hand. The rule says what it says.

"Stan Prevost" > wrote in message
...
>
> I don't know. Why are they? I would like to know.
>
> But it is irrelevant to the issue at hand. The rule says what it says.
>

Yup. Why isn't the rule enforced?

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 20:14:56 GMT, "Dan Thompson" > wrote:

>Sorry, Mr. Old School. It is tuna now, in sensitivity to diversity of
>religious preference and dietary issues.

But, in view of the mercury levels in tuna, there is going to have to be a
limit on the amount of IFR navigation performed using this method.
Consumer Reports recommends a limitation of 3 oz/week; and the gov't says 6
oz/week. So it seems to me that we need to work up an appropriate FAA
limitation, too.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 19:27:47 GMT, "Colin W Kingsbury"
> wrote:

>there is no way for me to navigate from my
>present position to FUBAR in a straight line sans RNAV

The old (pre 1996) USAF manual AFM 51-37 had a technique which could be
used to do that. And USAF pilots were trained in that technique. However,
I am told the current manual no longer discusses this method, it having
been replaced with INS, RNAV, GPS, etc.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

In article t>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> > (a) On a Federal airway, along the centerline of that airway.
>
> So why are the airways eight miles wide?

To allow for a reasonable error budget from all the error sources,
including ground systems.

--
Bob Noel
looking for a sig the lawyers will like

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Stan Prevost" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> I don't know. Why are they? I would like to know.
>>
>> But it is irrelevant to the issue at hand. The rule says what it says.
>>
>
> Yup. Why isn't the rule enforced?
>

I don't know to what extent it may or may not be enforced. I have never
heard of an enforcement action regarding that rule.

I bet it would be enforced if a pilot headed off his required direct route
over to an airway which he was not cleared onto and it caused a controller a
deal.

If it isn't enforced, why not? I would like to know.

But it doesn't change the rule, which is still there and available for
enforcement, and is still binding on pilots and controllers.

In article >,
wrote:

> One, it's a ham sandwich, always has been, not tuna.

You can tune a radio, but you can tune a fish.

"John Bell" > wrote:
> It's not a direct answer to your question, but if you want a cheap sextant,
> check out http://www.tecepe.com.br/nav/.

If you want a real sextant, got to http://www.celestaire.com/.

> I think an aviation sextant needs
> some kind of level, but I am sure this design could be modified. :-)

The level is built into the unit. For example,
http://www.celestaire.com/catalog/products/1502.html

"Colin W Kingsbury" > wrote:
> Pray enlighten me to one thing- let's say I'm on V123 and cleared direct to
> FUBAR which is defined by the intersection of V456 and V789. Leaving out the
> legal-vs-practical debate, there is no way for me to navigate from my
> present position to FUBAR in a straight line sans RNAV.

Sure there is. Get a position fix (VOR-VOR radial cross, VOR-DME, DME-DME,
NDB-NDB bearing cross, GPS, Loran, Omega, Celestial, whatever). Plot that
fix on a chart, measure the bearing from your current position to your
destination, adjust for estimated wind, and fly the heading indicated.
Take additional fixes along the way to correct your heading as required.

It takes a bit of work (possibly more work that is practical single-pilot
IFR in a typical GA cockpit), but it's certainly possible. Depending on
what equipment you've got, there may well be better methods than what I've
described. Knowing how to do it is the difference between being a
navigator and being a button pusher.

Like Colin, I'm going to bypass the legality question completely, but
there's no doubt that it's possible to do.

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> Why don't pilots do approximate bearings like that? The only thing I've
> seen close to that is when ATC will give you an approximate heading to a
> VOR a long way away and say "fly 200 degrees, then direct ETX when able".

They do.

For nearly a half-century or longer(?) USAF and (probably) USN pilots have
been taught to go direct to intersections and TACAN radial/DME fixes using a
similar method. It's done routinely. I'm suprised some stick acutator
hasn't mentioned that fact yet.

There's also the "Hey Nav, gimmie a heading" method ;-)

For controllers it's all about separation.

If in radar coverage "direct" is no problem.

In non-radar "direct" does not allow the aircraft's position and route to be
easily fixed sufficient to determine the protected airspace necessary for
lateral and longitudinal. So all that's left is vertical and you quickly
run out of altitudes.

"Dan Thompson" > wrote in message
. com...
> What it is, is ATC expects everyone to be able to navigate direct, one way
> or another.

Well, not all of ATC. I expect you to be able to fly your filed route on
own navigation. I don't expect you to be able to proceed direct unless you
file the appropriate equipment suffix, file point to point direct, or you
ask me for direct somewhere en route. I agree that some controllers don't
know what in the hell they are doing these days, but that's because the FAA
dumbed down training after 1992 and let PC run amok. We're in the process
of fixing that right now though.

Chip, ZTL

Chip Jones wrote:
We're in the process
> of fixing that right now though.

Yep, you're getting all the AFSS guys that will be, ah, surplussed.

> wrote in message
...
>
> I'm afraid it is.
>

How so?

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
>
> To allow for a reasonable error budget from all the error sources,
> including ground systems.
>

Not to mention the six degrees a VOR receiver is allowed to be off and still
used for IFR operations.

"Stan Prevost" > wrote in message
...
>
> But it doesn't change the rule, which is still there and available for
> enforcement, and is still binding on pilots and controllers.
>

How is it binding on controllers?

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
> Yep, you're getting all the AFSS guys that will be, ah, surplussed.
>

Not all, just those few that have been controllers.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Stan Prevost" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> But it doesn't change the rule, which is still there and available for
>> enforcement, and is still binding on pilots and controllers.
>>
>
> How is it binding on controllers?
>

Is it true that a controller may not issue an instruction to a pilot that
would require the pilot to violate a rule of the FAR?

> wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 09:56:33 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Dan Thompson" > wrote in message
> . com...
> >> This is an old horse and I almost hate to bring it up again, but are
you
> >> aware you can legally accept direct FUBAR as a /U under IFR, and
monitor
> >> your progress with a handheld GPS?
> >
> >It is a sad day that people now assume clearance direct to an
intersection
> >can only be complied with if you have some sort of RNAV. Makes me wonder
how
> >we ever did it in the '70s with only a VOR and a TACAN.
> >
>
>
> You had a VOR and a TACAN? Lucky dog.

I was a C-130 navigator. We had pretty good equipment, considering.

I was around when Omega was introduced. I flew in the very first C-130 to be
equipped with Omega. Decades later, when I was learning to fly as a pilot
and working on my instrument rating, I was told that Omega was being
decommissioned. Talk about making one feel old!

"Colin W Kingsbury" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Dan Thompson" > wrote in message
> > . com...
> > > This is an old horse and I almost hate to bring it up again, but are
you
> > > aware you can legally accept direct FUBAR as a /U under IFR, and
monitor
> > > your progress with a handheld GPS?
> >
> > It is a sad day that people now assume clearance direct to an
intersection
> > can only be complied with if you have some sort of RNAV. Makes me wonder
> how
> > we ever did it in the '70s with only a VOR and a TACAN.
> >
>
> Pray enlighten me to one thing- let's say I'm on V123 and cleared direct
to
> FUBAR which is defined by the intersection of V456 and V789. Leaving out
the
> legal-vs-practical debate, there is no way for me to navigate from my
> present position to FUBAR in a straight line sans RNAV. It's always been
my
> understanding that "direct" means they assume you will in fact go straight
> there, not turn left 20 degrees, intercept V456, and then head to FUBAR.
Am
> I missing something here?

The Air Force has written all kinds of instrument and navigation manuals
which you can download. They are considerably modernized from my day, but
all the old information is still there. An example may be found here:
http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/pubfiles/af/11/afpam11-216/afpam11-216.pdf.
An MB-4 Computer is the Air Force version of the E6-B. From the Air Force
AFPAM 11-216 "Navigation Procedures:"

5.16. Fix-to-Fix Navigation (Using the MB-4 Computer). A fix-to-fix can also
be computed on the

wind face side of an MB-4 computer. First, give the pilot a general heading
toward the fix. (NOTE: You

can work in bearings; however, all work must be done in either bearings or
radials to compute the

solution.) For the following example, radials will be used. The fix you wish
to navigate to is the 280o

radial at 30 DME. Set up a graphic depiction on the wind face side of your
computer with your present

position (350o radial at 050 DME) and the desired fix (280o/030). Use the
following steps:

5.16.1. Place your present position (350o/050) on the wind face side using
the square grid at the bottom

of the MB-4. Align 350o on the compass rose under the true index. Mark the
point by counting down 50

NM from the true airspeed (TAS) grommet and mark with a +. Use the scale set
up on the square grid or

set up an applicable scale. The scale used must remain constant throughout
the problem (Figure 5.13).

5.16.2. Place the fix radial and DME (280o/030) on the computer the same way
you did in step one

(Figure 5.14). Mark as a fix symbol (?).

5.16.3. Determine the no wind heading by rotating the compass rose so that
the present position (+) is

directly above the fix (?). Use the square grid at the bottom to help with
alignment (Figure 5.15). Turn

the aircraft to MC under the true index (206o for this example) and kill the
drift. (NOTE: You can place

your present position (+) on the 0 NM horizontal baseline then, using your
NM increment scale, count

down to the fix position (?) to determine how far you are from the fix (48
NM in this example; Figure

5.15.)

5.16.4. Repeat the procedure as necessary to keep your progress updated.

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> 5.16.2. Place the fix radial and DME (280o/030) on the computer the same
way
> you did in step one
>
> (Figure 5.14). Mark as a fix symbol (?).
>
> 5.16.3. Determine the no wind heading by rotating the compass rose so that
> the present position (+) is

OK, you can't make the little delta shaped fix symbol on USENET, so it
substituted the question mark. It also converted 280 degrees to 280o. The +
sign worked, at least.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> > wrote in message ...
> >
> > Try 91.205 (d) (2) for starters:
> >
> > d) Instrument flight rules. For IFR flight, the following instruments and
> > equipment are required:
> >
> > (2) Two-way radio communications system and navigational equipment
> > appropriate to the ground facilities to be used.
> >
>
> That states what equipment is required to be aboard, it does not restrict
> the use of equipment not required to be aboard.
>
> >
> > Think non-radar operations, where the controller isn't going to play
> > "Frick and Frack" direct-to games with you. Failure to comply with 91.205
> > can
> > rapidly lead to 91.3, and the FAA attorneys win every time.
> >
>
> Nobody suggested IFR operations without the required equipment.

Are you suggesting Michael is a nobody? He stated:

A handheld GPS will not come with such a placard, and there's no rule
that says you can't use it for enroute IFR (anyone who says otherwise
is welcome to quote chapter and verse from the approriate regulation -
NOT an advisory circular or AIM).

This was stated in the context of a thread asking the somewhat rhetorical
question "Will /G become mandatory because of the movement to begin to shut
down VOR stations. Since Michael proposed using a portable GPS based on a
incorrect presmise that it has no placard that restricts it to VFR (not true in
substance in that the operating material suppied with the units state that), he
was clearing challenging operating in an area without adequate VOR stations for
non-radar IFR operations.

"Stan Prevost" > wrote in message
...
>
> Is it true that a controller may not issue an instruction to a pilot that
> would require the pilot to violate a rule of the FAR?
>

No. Pilots are required to abide by the FARs and controllers are required
to abide by FAA Order 7110.65.

> wrote in message ...
>
> Are you suggesting Michael is a nobody? He stated:
>
> A handheld GPS will not come with such a placard, and there's no rule
> that says you can't use it for enroute IFR (anyone who says otherwise
> is welcome to quote chapter and verse from the approriate regulation -
> NOT an advisory circular or AIM).
>
> This was stated in the context of a thread asking the somewhat rhetorical
> question "Will /G become mandatory because of the movement to begin to
> shut
> down VOR stations. Since Michael proposed using a portable GPS based on a
> incorrect presmise that it has no placard that restricts it to VFR (not
> true in
> substance in that the operating material suppied with the units state
> that), he
> was clearing challenging operating in an area without adequate VOR
> stations for
> non-radar IFR operations.
>

Nobody suggested IFR operations without the required equipment. A handheld
GPS does not require any placard to be affixed to the aircraft or any change
to a flight manual.

> wrote in message
...
>
> It just is.
>

But you cannot explain why?

Dan Thompson wrote:

> Tim, some of the other guys are playing around with you a little bit, but
> I'll spell it out for you since I started it.

Thanks for "helping" me. Have you ever heard of Class I and Class II
navigation? Those are ICAO terms that define what constitutes acceptable IFR
navigation in three different defined areas: domestic, oceanic, and remote land
mass. The United States is a signatory to that convention. The VOR system is
thus considered the primary means of IFR navigation. With limited exceptions,
IFR-certified GPS is not approved as primary means in a non-radar environment in
domestic airspace. That is changing, of course. But, it does not include VFR
GPS units, which do not qualify for IFR navigation.

>
>
> That reg says what you have to have onboard, but does not say what you will
> or must use for navigation. IFR course tracking is a performance standard.
> You must stay on the assigned course. How you do that is not specified or
> regulated. What you use to fly that course is not specified or regulated.
> Only that you fly that course, somehow.
>
> So, you may use dead reckoning if you want to, radar vectors, celestial nav
> (right!), or even (the crowd is on the edge of their seats in anticpation) a
> tuna sandwich. The tuna sandwich must not, however, be placarded "VFR
> only."
>
> So, it is perfectly acceptable to look at your handheld GPS, see that it
> says 237 degrees and 16 minutes to FUBAR, dead reckon by flying a 237
> heading, and monitor your progress by reference to the handheld GPS.
>
> > wrote in message ...
> >
> >
> > Michael wrote:
> >
> >> > But, how much longer will it be before /G is a de facto requirement?
> >>
> >> IMO, more than 5 years but less than 15.
> >>
> >> > Already when I fly IFR (filed /U) controllers give me instructions
> >> > ("proceed direct foobar") that require GPS
> >>
> >> Well, they don't really. I bet you can do that with the M1 LORAN. Or
> >> you could if it didn't come with a placard limiting it to VFR use only.
> >> A handheld GPS will not come with such a placard, and there's no rule
> >> that says you can't use it for enroute IFR (anyone who says otherwise
> >> is welcome to quote chapter and verse from the approriate regulation -
> >> NOT an advisory circular or AIM).
> >
> > Try 91.205 (d) (2) for starters:
> >
> > d) Instrument flight rules. For IFR flight, the following instruments and
> > equipment are required:
> >
> > (2) Two-way radio communications system and navigational equipment
> > appropriate to the ground facilities to be used.
> >
> > Think non-radar operations, where the controller isn't going to play
> > "Frick
> > and Frack" direct-to games with you. Failure to comply with 91.205 can
> > rapidly lead to 91.3, and the FAA attorneys win every time.
> >
> >

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> In most VOR/DME
> approaches track information is provided by a VOR and distance along
> the track by DME, in this one it's just the opposite.

Is this true with all DME arcs? So, am I mistaken to believe that I can
legally fly this approach without a DME?

My understanding was that I use the VOR to provide radial information along
the arc, then use the IFR-certified GPS to provide the DME mileage to
remain within the confines of the arc.

This is how DME arcs were taught to me in an aircraft without DME two years
ago and I took away from this education that I would have been legal to fly
this approach.

--
Peter













----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

>>And cfeyeeye - if I fly an airplane with no navigation equipment
>>whatsoever except a compass, clock, and tuna sandwich, and accept an IFR
>>clearance direct to Fubar expecting to dead reckon my way there, would
>>you consider this legal according to the the regs (in the US)?
>
> Absolutely, as long as the aircraft were equipped for IFR according to
> the regulations, and the pilot did indeed follow the direct route to
> where he was cleared.
>

So, in other words, it's legal if it's legal. Hmmm, I never thought of
it that way.

Let me rephrase.

if I fly an airplane which complies with all IFR requirements except for
those concerning navigation (which means it already has a clock and
compass), and =in=addition= carries =only= a tuna sandwich, would this
aircraft be properly equipped for an IFR flight in the United States in
controlled airspace outside of radar coverage? Would it be legal to
accept a clearance direct Fubar in this aircraft while in the clouds?

Jose
--
Nothing is more powerful than a commercial interest.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

wrote:

>..... I am requied to have a clock "with a sweep second
> hand..." etc, to be legal for IFR flight.
>
> Does not mean I cannot use my Radio Shack timer to navigate.

Actually, the FAR has been changed to read:

"A clock with a sweep-second pointer or digital presentation."

So the RS timer would be legal. as the sole means of timing.

--
Marc J. Zeitlin
http://marc.zeitlin.home.comcast.net/
http://www.cozybuilders.org/
Copyright (c) 2005

> wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 13:28:05 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Stan Prevost" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> Is it true that a controller may not issue an instruction to a pilot
>>> that
>>> would require the pilot to violate a rule of the FAR?
>>>
>>
>>No. Pilots are required to abide by the FARs and controllers are required
>>to abide by FAA Order 7110.65.
>>
>
>
> So the answer to he question is realy "yes"?

No, the answer is really "No"

A controller may have no way of knowing if an instruction would "require" a
pilot to violate an FAR.

There are several specific instances in the .65 where it takes pains to note
that pilots adhere to FARs first and ATC second. Vectors and altitude
assignments to VFR aircraft are some that come to mind. The notes aren't
there to tell controllers not to issue the instructions; it's there to tell
controllers the pilot may not be able to comply.

I follow the .65 when I tell you where to take your airplane. It's up to
you to follow the FARs and tell me if you "can't get there from here."

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
>
> Is this true with all DME arcs? So, am I mistaken to believe that I can
> legally fly this approach without a DME?
>

No, it's not true with all DME arcs. It's true with this one because DME is
the principal instrument approach navigation source. I'm not aware of any
other approach like this one.

> wrote in message
...
>
> Don't have to.
>

You do if you wish to be taken seriously.

> wrote in message
...
>
> As an added note, I am requied to have a clock "with a sweep second
> hand..." etc, to be legal for IFR flight.
>

Where is that required?

> wrote in message
...
>
> So the answer to he question is realy "yes"?
>

No, the answer to the question is really "No".

In a previous article, "Steven P. McNicoll" > said:
> wrote in message
...
>>
>> As an added note, I am requied to have a clock "with a sweep second
>> hand..." etc, to be legal for IFR flight.
>>
>
>Where is that required?

91.205


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
You can lead an idiot to knowledge but you cannot make him think. You can,
however, rectally insert the information, printed on stone tablets, using a
sharpened poker. -- Nicolai

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
>
> 91.205
>

No, FAR 91.205 permits a clock with a digital presentation. Apparently
cfeyeeye is not in the US.

In a previous article, "Steven P. McNicoll" > said:
>"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
>> 91.205
>>
>
>No, FAR 91.205 permits a clock with a digital presentation. Apparently

When did that get ammended? I know when I first got my license it quite
definitely did NOT allow a digital presentation, so while everybody in the
club used digital clocks, we had to keep repairing recalcitrant built-in
analog clocks.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
The magic BOFH-phrase you need to summon at this point is:
"_Your_ lack of planning is not about to become _my_ emergency."
-- Tanuki

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
>
> When did that get ammended?
>

I don't recall.


>
> I know when I first got my license it quite definitely did NOT allow a
> digital
> presentation,
>

I didn't realize the digital clock had been around that long.

Paul Tomblin wrote:


> When did that get ammended?

At least 15 years ago.

"KP" <nospam@please> wrote in message
...
>
> There are several specific instances in the .65 where it takes pains to
> note that pilots adhere to FARs first and ATC second. Vectors and
> altitude assignments to VFR aircraft are some that come to mind. The
> notes aren't there to tell controllers not to issue the instructions; it's
> there to tell controllers the pilot may not be able to comply.
>

There are many .65 rules that specifically instruct the controller to issue
an altitude assignment that is consistent with FAR XX.XX.

"Those are ICAO terms that define what constitutes acceptable IFR
navigation in three different defined areas: domestic, oceanic, and remote
land
mass."

That's nice, but where does it say VOR is the "only" ONLY o.n.l.y acceptable
means of IFR navigation? All this says is that VOR is an acceptable means,
world wide. A sort of lowest common denominator that may be used all over
the planet.

> wrote in message ...
>
>
> Dan Thompson wrote:
>
>> Tim, some of the other guys are playing around with you a little bit, but
>> I'll spell it out for you since I started it.
>
> Thanks for "helping" me. Have you ever heard of Class I and Class II
> navigation? Those are ICAO terms that define what constitutes acceptable
> IFR
> navigation in three different defined areas: domestic, oceanic, and remote
> land
> mass. The United States is a signatory to that convention. The VOR
> system is
> thus considered the primary means of IFR navigation. With limited
> exceptions,
> IFR-certified GPS is not approved as primary means in a non-radar
> environment in
> domestic airspace. That is changing, of course. But, it does not include
> VFR
> GPS units, which do not qualify for IFR navigation.
>
>>
>>
>> That reg says what you have to have onboard, but does not say what you
>> will
>> or must use for navigation. IFR course tracking is a performance
>> standard.
>> You must stay on the assigned course. How you do that is not specified
>> or
>> regulated. What you use to fly that course is not specified or
>> regulated.
>> Only that you fly that course, somehow.
>>
>> So, you may use dead reckoning if you want to, radar vectors, celestial
>> nav
>> (right!), or even (the crowd is on the edge of their seats in
>> anticpation) a
>> tuna sandwich. The tuna sandwich must not, however, be placarded "VFR
>> only."
>>
>> So, it is perfectly acceptable to look at your handheld GPS, see that it
>> says 237 degrees and 16 minutes to FUBAR, dead reckon by flying a 237
>> heading, and monitor your progress by reference to the handheld GPS.
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> >
>> > Michael wrote:
>> >
>> >> > But, how much longer will it be before /G is a de facto requirement?
>> >>
>> >> IMO, more than 5 years but less than 15.
>> >>
>> >> > Already when I fly IFR (filed /U) controllers give me instructions
>> >> > ("proceed direct foobar") that require GPS
>> >>
>> >> Well, they don't really. I bet you can do that with the M1 LORAN. Or
>> >> you could if it didn't come with a placard limiting it to VFR use
>> >> only.
>> >> A handheld GPS will not come with such a placard, and there's no rule
>> >> that says you can't use it for enroute IFR (anyone who says otherwise
>> >> is welcome to quote chapter and verse from the approriate regulation -
>> >> NOT an advisory circular or AIM).
>> >
>> > Try 91.205 (d) (2) for starters:
>> >
>> > d) Instrument flight rules. For IFR flight, the following instruments
>> > and
>> > equipment are required:
>> >
>> > (2) Two-way radio communications system and navigational equipment
>> > appropriate to the ground facilities to be used.
>> >
>> > Think non-radar operations, where the controller isn't going to play
>> > "Frick
>> > and Frack" direct-to games with you. Failure to comply with 91.205 can
>> > rapidly lead to 91.3, and the FAA attorneys win every time.
>> >
>> >
>

Steven,

> I didn't realize the digital clock had been around that long.
>

If you like, rent the James bond movie "Live and Let Die" one of these
days. It has a scene where James (roger Moore) post-coitally (I think)
and very proudly presents his Seiko digital with glowing red LEDs to
the camera. Looks incredibly cheap these days. That movie is from 1972
- over 30 years.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> In a previous article, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
> said:
>>"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
>>> 91.205
>>>
>>
>>No, FAR 91.205 permits a clock with a digital presentation. Apparently
>
> When did that get ammended?

I don't remember. But for anyone wanting to go back through some Federal
Registers, the info at the end of Part 91 points to some specific
amendments:

[Doc. No. 28870, 62 FR 17487, Apr. 9, 1997, as amended by Amdt. 91-261, 65
FR 5942, Feb. 7, 2000; Amdt. 91-271, 66 FR 63895, Dec. 10, 2001; Amdt.
91-274, 68 FR 54584, Sept. 17, 2003; Amdt. 91-276, 68 FR 70133, Dec. 17,
2003]

"Stan Prevost" > wrote in message
...
>
> There are many .65 rules that specifically instruct the controller to
> issue an altitude assignment that is consistent with FAR XX.XX.
>

But no .65 rule that prohibits a controller from issuing an instruction to a
pilot that would require the pilot to violate an FAR. Such a rule would
make it impossible to vector VFR aircraft, for example, as the controller is
not in a position to know if the vector would require the pilot to violate
cloud clearance requirements.

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
>
> If you like, rent the James bond movie "Live and Let Die" one of these
> days. It has a scene where James (roger Moore) post-coitally (I think)
> and very proudly presents his Seiko digital with glowing red LEDs to
> the camera. Looks incredibly cheap these days. That movie is from 1972
> - over 30 years.
>

I didn't say the digital clock hadn't been around a long time, I said I
didn't realize it had been around as long as Paul has had a license.

> wrote in message
...
>
> Apparently you missed the "etc", along with the point being made.
>

The point being made is that a clock with a sweep second hand is not
required for IFR flight in the US.

> wrote in message
...
>
> Try not to confuse me with someone who cares how seriously you take him.
>

Not much chance of that. You're obviously someone with little aviation
knowledge that does not wish to be taken seriously.

In a previous article, "Steven P. McNicoll" > said:
>"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
>> I know when I first got my license it quite definitely did NOT allow a
>> digital presentation,
>
>I didn't realize the digital clock had been around that long.

Huh? Ok, I'm confused. I haven't had my license all that long, only 10
years or so[1]. At that time, digital clocks were quite common, but we
had to keep repairing those stupid analog clocks in the planes rather than
just sticking on a digital timer. I thought that was because of 91.205,
but on second thought it might just be because the analog clock is listed
in the POH as equipment it was certificated with.

[1] I *started* working on my license 30 years ago (by joining the Royal
Canadian Air Cadets when I was 13), but quit the Air Cadets after a year
or two because of the preponderance of little Hitlers[2] and because in
all that time I got one short ride in a glider and 20 minutes in a C-172,
and put my dreams on hold until I could afford to do it out of my own
pocket.

[2] Interestingly enough, the Army Reserve had far fewer of these jerks
who think they're God because they've got one more stripe than you.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"It's 106 light-years to Chicago, we've got a full chamber of anti-matter,
a half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark, and we're wearing visors."
"Engage."

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
>
> Huh? Ok, I'm confused. I haven't had my license all that long, only 10
> years or so[1]. At that time, digital clocks were quite common, but we
> had to keep repairing those stupid analog clocks in the planes rather than
> just sticking on a digital timer. I thought that was because of 91.205,
> but on second thought it might just be because the analog clock is listed
> in the POH as equipment it was certificated with.
>
> [1] I *started* working on my license 30 years ago (by joining the Royal
> Canadian Air Cadets when I was 13), but quit the Air Cadets after a year
> or two because of the preponderance of little Hitlers[2] and because in
> all that time I got one short ride in a glider and 20 minutes in a C-172,
> and put my dreams on hold until I could afford to do it out of my own
> pocket.
>
> [2] Interestingly enough, the Army Reserve had far fewer of these jerks
> who think they're God because they've got one more stripe than you.
>

Sorry. My mistake. I got the impression you were much older.

(Paul Tomblin) wrote:
> Huh? Ok, I'm confused. I haven't had my license all that long, only 10
> years or so[1]. At that time, digital clocks were quite common, but we
> had to keep repairing those stupid analog clocks in the planes rather than
> just sticking on a digital timer. I thought that was because of 91.205,
> but on second thought it might just be because the analog clock is listed
> in the POH as equipment it was certificated with.

Part of the issue is that your Westbend/RadioShack/etc timer isn't
installed in the airplane, so it doesn't count. What made the clock in the
panel magic was not that it had a second hand, but that it was mounted in
the panel.

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> Part of the issue is that your Westbend/RadioShack/etc timer isn't
> installed in the airplane, so it doesn't count. What made the clock in
> the
> panel magic was not that it had a second hand, but that it was mounted in
> the panel.
>

So what? Where is it written that only the clock installed in the airplane
can be used for IFR operations?

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "Peter R." > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Is this true with all DME arcs? So, am I mistaken to believe that I can
>> legally fly this approach without a DME?
>>
>
> No, it's not true with all DME arcs. It's true with this one because DME is
> the principal instrument approach navigation source. I'm not aware of any
> other approach like this one.

This approach would be an excellent trick question on the IFR written,
then... :)

--
Peter













----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

In article et>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> Nobody suggested IFR operations without the required equipment. A handheld
> GPS does not require any placard to be affixed to the aircraft or any change
> to a flight manual.

Note also that a handheld GPS does not enable any IFR operation that a
pilot couldn't do without the handheld GPS.

--
Bob Noel
looking for a sig the lawyers will like

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Chip Jones wrote:
> We're in the process
> > of fixing that right now though.
>
> Yep, you're getting all the AFSS guys that will be, ah, surplussed.

Naw, *you're* getting all of the AFSS guys who have been surplussed. I'm in
a Level-12 ARTCC at the top of the ATC food chain. The AFSS guys that have
a Center background are almost all to a person, if not actually to a person,
enroute training failures. When we used to wash 'em out, they got sent down
to AFSS or some small tower/tracon in the minors somewhere. The vast
majority of employable AFSS people aren't qualified for ARTCC developmental
positions. We don't accept training failure transfers here at the world's
busiest ATC facility.

Far more likely you swivel-heads will get the few AFSS guys who actually are
qualified controllers. Ironic, too, in a twisted FAA way.. After all, the
69 Level 2-3 VFR towers will be the next part of the NAS auctioned off to
the low bidder, followed by Level-Three up-down terminal facilities. Those
few AFSS people who get picked up in air traffic will be job-hunting again
in about five years, along with a whole bunch of terminal 2152's. Serco or
Lockmart is headed your way right around 2010 or so.

Chip, ZTL

In a previous article, Roy Smith > said:
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:
>> just sticking on a digital timer. I thought that was because of 91.205,
>> but on second thought it might just be because the analog clock is listed
>> in the POH as equipment it was certificated with.
>
>Part of the issue is that your Westbend/RadioShack/etc timer isn't
>installed in the airplane, so it doesn't count. What made the clock in the
>panel magic was not that it had a second hand, but that it was mounted in
>the panel.

Hmmm. Does anybody make a digital clock that's TSO'ed to replace a Piper
analog clock?

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
The Write Many, Read Never drive. For those people that don't know
their system has a /dev/null already.
-- Rik Steenwinkel, singing the praises of 8mm Exabytes

> wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 20:58:46 GMT, "Chip Jones"
> > wrote:
> >
> >Far more likely you swivel-heads will get the few AFSS guys who actually
are
> >qualified controllers. Ironic, too, in a twisted FAA way.. After all,
the
> >69 Level 2-3 VFR towers will be the next part of the NAS auctioned off
to
> >the low bidder, followed by Level-Three up-down terminal facilities.
Those
> >few AFSS people who get picked up in air traffic will be job-hunting
again
> >in about five years, along with a whole bunch of terminal 2152's. Serco
or
> >Lockmart is headed your way right around 2010 or so.
> >
> >Chip, ZTL
> >
> >
> Boy, would I love to read this translated into English.

Talkdon't you Newspeak? Doubleplus ungood.

C.f. also the opening of Neal Stephenson's "Snow Crash" set about 50 years
in the future, when there is a completely separate language spoken only by
taxi drivers.

My WAG translation (IANAATC):

Swivelheads = tower controllers (always turning their head to see airplanes
unlike a scope controller)
Level 2-3 VFR towers are low-traffic (non-radar?) federal towers
Level 3 up-down are lower-traffic app/dep control feeders
Terminal 2152s? Lost me there. Lower qualification level maybe?
Lockmart = Lockheed Martin (aka Lockmar)
ZTL = Atlanta Center (iirc)

-cwk.

"Chip Jones" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> Naw, *you're* getting all of the AFSS guys who have been surplussed.
> I'm in a Level-12 ARTCC at the top of the ATC food chain. The AFSS
> guys that have a Center background are almost all to a person, if not
> actually to a person, enroute training failures. When we used to wash 'em
> out, they got sent down to AFSS or some small tower/tracon in the minors
> somewhere. The vast majority of employable AFSS people aren't qualified
> for ARTCC developmental positions. We don't accept training failure
> transfers here at the world's busiest ATC facility.
>

So what possessed you to transfer to ZOB?

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Chip Jones" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> >
> > Naw, *you're* getting all of the AFSS guys who have been surplussed.
> > I'm in a Level-12 ARTCC at the top of the ATC food chain. The AFSS
> > guys that have a Center background are almost all to a person, if not
> > actually to a person, enroute training failures. When we used to wash
'em
> > out, they got sent down to AFSS or some small tower/tracon in the minors
> > somewhere. The vast majority of employable AFSS people aren't qualified
> > for ARTCC developmental positions. We don't accept training failure
> > transfers here at the world's busiest ATC facility.
> >
>
> So what possessed you to transfer to ZOB?
>
>

LOL Stevie, you don't get out much, do ya? ZOB is #2...

Chip, ZTL

wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 20:58:46 GMT, "Chip Jones"
> > wrote:
>
>>Far more likely you swivel-heads will get the few AFSS guys who actually are
>>qualified controllers. Ironic, too, in a twisted FAA way.. After all, the
>>69 Level 2-3 VFR towers will be the next part of the NAS auctioned off to
>>the low bidder, followed by Level-Three up-down terminal facilities. Those
>>few AFSS people who get picked up in air traffic will be job-hunting again
>>in about five years, along with a whole bunch of terminal 2152's. Serco or
>>Lockmart is headed your way right around 2010 or so.
>>
>>Chip, ZTL
>>
>>
>
> Boy, would I love to read this translated into English.

Translation:

Nobody works here so I can't get a day off. Nobody else CAN work here
because it's so godawful difficult. Pity me.

All of which is BS.

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 21:06:42 +0000 (UTC), (Paul
Tomblin) wrote:

>Hmmm. Does anybody make a digital clock that's TSO'ed to replace a Piper
>analog clock?

Dunno about Piper, but I got a replacement digital clock for the yoke mount
in my 1965 M20E to replace the 7-day windup analog original. Can't recall
the brand -- it might have been Davtron.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Ron Rosenfeld > wrote:
> Dunno about Piper, but I got a replacement digital clock for the yoke mount
> in my 1965 M20E to replace the 7-day windup analog original.\

Almost certainly an 8-day windup. That was standard for the genre. The
idea was you picked a set weekly schedule to wind it (i.e. every Monday
morning), and it never got down below 1 day's worth of winding left.

"Chip Jones" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> LOL Stevie, you don't get out much, do ya? ZOB is #2...
>

Is it? What's your source for that? According to the Administrator's Fact
Book, ZOB was numero uno in CYs 1997 through 2003. It's updated quarterly,
the latest is November 2004 so it doesn't have data for CY 2004.

http://www.atctraining.faa.gov/factbook/

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> wrote:
> > On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 20:58:46 GMT, "Chip Jones"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>Far more likely you swivel-heads will get the few AFSS guys who actually
are
> >>qualified controllers. Ironic, too, in a twisted FAA way.. After all,
the
> >>69 Level 2-3 VFR towers will be the next part of the NAS auctioned off
to
> >>the low bidder, followed by Level-Three up-down terminal facilities.
Those
> >>few AFSS people who get picked up in air traffic will be job-hunting
again
> >>in about five years, along with a whole bunch of terminal 2152's. Serco
or
> >>Lockmart is headed your way right around 2010 or so.
> >>
> >>Chip, ZTL
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Boy, would I love to read this translated into English.
>
> Translation:
>
> Nobody works here so I can't get a day off. Nobody else CAN work here
> because it's so godawful difficult. Pity me.
>
> All of which is BS.

Translation- FSS types aren't coming to Centers...

Chip, ZTL

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Chip Jones" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> >
> > LOL Stevie, you don't get out much, do ya? ZOB is #2...
> >
>
> Is it? What's your source for that? According to the Administrator's
Fact
> Book, ZOB was numero uno in CYs 1997 through 2003. It's updated
quarterly,
> the latest is November 2004 so it doesn't have data for CY 2004.
>
> http://www.atctraining.faa.gov/factbook/
>
>

My source for that is the exact source you quote. It does indeed have data
for CY 2004...

Chip, ZT:

"Chip Jones" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> My source for that is the exact source you quote. It does indeed have
> data
> for CY 2004...
>

It does? How can that be? It says the latest edition is November 2004.
How can it have data for all of 2004?

> wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 20:58:46 GMT, "Chip Jones"
> > wrote:
> >
> >Far more likely you swivel-heads will get the few AFSS guys who actually
are
> >qualified controllers.

Swivelheads= Tower controller types, ie- McNicoll and Newps.

>>Ironic, too, in a twisted FAA way.. After all, the
> >69 Level 2-3 VFR towers will be the next part of the NAS auctioned off
to
> >the low bidder, followed by Level-Three up-down terminal facilities.

FAA used to have 5 grades of terminal facilities, from Level 1-5, with 1
being the lowest and 5 being places like New York, Chicago, Atlanta etc.
FAA has since reclassified the ATC personnel system into a series of
paygrades based on workload, complexity, volume etc. AT Facilities are now
Level 5-12. Places like Casper WY and Sioux City IA are ATC 5. Places
like Billings MT and Green Bay WS are ATC 6 and 7. Places like Cinncinnati
and Detroit are ATC-11. Places like New York and Chicago are ATC-12.

The FAA is trying to save money. Personnel costs are eating up a lot of the
budget. Since ATC privatization has been proven safe and cost-effective in
the VFR tower environment, and since the FAA just won a lawsuit defending
the NFCT program against NATCA, it is extremely likely that FAA will revisit
the privatization of 69 non-Alaskan FAA ATC towers this coming year. What
these towers have in common is that they do not have a radar room/tracon
associated with them.

After the remaining VFR towers get contracted out, the smaller tracons (ie-
places like Florence SC, Billings MT etc) will be next. These facilities
are also known as "up-down" facilities because tradtionally they have a
tower cab "up" and a radar room/tracon "down" in the base of the tower. By
marking these facilities for consolidation with a larger facility or for
out-right privatization, the FAA sheds excess personnel overhead and
eliminates payroll waste. Either way, the FAA controllers at the facility
will have to move, retire, or go find another job.



>>Those
> >few AFSS people who get picked up in air traffic will be job-hunting
again
> >in about five years, along with a whole bunch of terminal 2152's.


"2152" is the government job classification for air traffic control
specialists. AFSS "controllers", Terminal "controllers" and En Route Air
Traffic Controllers (who work in Centers) are all "2152's", even though AFSS
is to Swivelhead what Swivelhead is Enroute. AFSS doesn't control air
traffic, yet they are 2152's, and Swivelheads don't generally have a clue
about anything beyond the range of their binoculars or their puny ASR radar
at the local airport, yet they too are 2152's. It's like comparing
buzzards, chickenhawks and eagles, in that order.

>>Serco or
> >Lockmart is headed your way right around 2010 or so.

Serco and Lockmart are the two leading corporate contenders IMO to win the
next round of ATC privatization. Midwest ATC may be in the running too, but
Serco and Lockmart have the clout to win the bigger pieces of the ATC pie
when the Republicans running FAA start paying off their corporate buddies
over the rest of this decade. I give Newps and McNicoll's facilities about
5 to 6 years of belonging to the FAA, and then they will split the radar
facility from the tower, privatize the tower, and move the radar room to a
larger place. By then, so many federal controllers will be retiring it
really wont matter to most of them.

Hope that is clearer...

Chip, ZTL

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Chip Jones" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > My source for that is the exact source you quote. It does indeed have
> > data
> > for CY 2004...
> >
>
> It does? How can that be? It says the latest edition is November 2004.
> How can it have data for all of 2004?
>
>

Who said anything about *all* off 2004??? You wrote:

" Is it? What's your source for that? According to the Administrator's
Fact
Book, ZOB was numero uno in CYs 1997 through 2003. It's updated quarterly,
the latest is November 2004 so it doesn't have data for CY 2004."

The latest official data in your own source plainly states that ZTL handled
1,836,000 aircraft between January and July of 2004. During that same time
period, ZOB handled 1,787,000 aircraft. Pretty simple math...

Chip, ZTL

"Chip Jones" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> Who said anything about *all* off 2004???
>

I did.


>
> You wrote:
>
> " Is it? What's your source for that? According to the Administrator's
> Fact Book, ZOB was numero uno in CYs 1997 through 2003. It's updated
> quarterly,
> the latest is November 2004 so it doesn't have data for CY 2004."
>
> The latest official data in your own source plainly states that ZTL
> handled
> 1,836,000 aircraft between January and July of 2004. During that same
> time
> period, ZOB handled 1,787,000 aircraft. Pretty simple math...
>

So the title of "world's busiest ATC facility" goes to the facility that
handles the most traffic in the early months of the year? Why is that? I
see that ZTL also handled more traffic than ZOB between January and March of
2003, but ZOB handled more during the full calendar year.

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 20:39:12 -0500, Roy Smith > wrote:

>Ron Rosenfeld > wrote:
>> Dunno about Piper, but I got a replacement digital clock for the yoke mount
>> in my 1965 M20E to replace the 7-day windup analog original.\
>
>Almost certainly an 8-day windup. That was standard for the genre. The
>idea was you picked a set weekly schedule to wind it (i.e. every Monday
>morning), and it never got down below 1 day's worth of winding left.

It sure could have been an 8-day windup. But it hasn't been there for
years.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Chip Jones" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > Who said anything about *all* off 2004???
> >
>
> I did.

LOL, you attempted to say that *I* did. I did not...

>
>
> >
> > You wrote:
> >
> > " Is it? What's your source for that? According to the Administrator's
> > Fact Book, ZOB was numero uno in CYs 1997 through 2003. It's updated
> > quarterly,
> > the latest is November 2004 so it doesn't have data for CY 2004."
> >
> > The latest official data in your own source plainly states that ZTL
> > handled
> > 1,836,000 aircraft between January and July of 2004. During that same
> > time
> > period, ZOB handled 1,787,000 aircraft. Pretty simple math...
> >
>
> So the title of "world's busiest ATC facility" goes to the facility that
> handles the most traffic in the early months of the year? Why is that? I
> see that ZTL also handled more traffic than ZOB between January and March
of
> 2003, but ZOB handled more during the full calendar year.
>

I'm not talking about the "title" of world's busiest ATC facility, I'm
talking about the world's busiest ATC facility. In the first quarter of
2003, ZTL was the world's busiest ATC facility. In 2004, all of the
reported *facts* in the Administrator's *Factbook* for 2004 data clearly
show ZTL busier than ZOB in 2004 for the 7 reported months of available
data. January thru July is a period of seven months out of 12 in the
calendar. The period January thru July is not the "early" months of the
year anywhere (except maybe Green Bay WI, where I expect the first thaw
ain't until June). Facts and Factbooks are stubborn things...

Chip, ZTL

> One must have on board the aircraft all the equipment required by the
> regulations.

.... and I contend that the aircraft I described is =not= equipped for
IFR flight according to the regulations, tuna sandwich notwithstanding.
You seem to disagree. I don't understand why. Perhaps it's just a
limitation of my pea brain, but I don't know how to navigate in IMC
using only a tuna sandwich (although I do know how to navigate with
(say) a VOR =and= a tuna sandwich. I must have been asleep during the
tuna portion of my ground school.

> But I am curious. Which regulations refer to the equipment required
> "inside controlled airspace outside of radar coverage"?

The regulation (quoted here many times) that says one must have
navigation equipment appropriate to the navigation system being used.
In a radar environment you could argue that radar vectors are the
navigation system being used, and I won't waste time arguing that. Nor
will I argue about whether certain rules apply outside of controlled
airspace. I would imagine that the requirements are =at least= as
strict inside of controlled airspace in a non-radar environment, and
that's what I'm aiming at.

So, while it is not illegal to fly with a tuna sandwich, it is (AFAIK)
illegal to fly (outside of an emergency) in controlled airspace in a
non-radar environment without navigation equipment, irrespective of the
presence of a tuna sandwich. You =seem= to disagree (probably just for
effect) but won't come out and say it point blank.

So... yes or no... do you believe it is legal to launch and continue IFR
flight in US controlled airspace in a non-radar environment outside of
an emergency in an aircraft that is equipped for IFR flight except for
navigation equipment, and in addition, has a tuna sandwich intended for
for navigation use?

And can you point me to a tuna sandwich approach to any airport in the US?

Jose
--
Nothing is more powerful than a commercial interest.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

> So, while it is not illegal to fly with a tuna sandwich, it is (AFAIK) illegal to fly (outside of an emergency) in controlled airspace in a non-radar environment without navigation equipment, irrespective of the presence of a tuna sandwich.

Of course I meant "...to fly under IFR..."

Jose
--
Nothing is more powerful than a commercial interest.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

wrote:

> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 05:51:43 -0800, wrote:
>
> >But, it does not include VFR
> >GPS units, which do not qualify for IFR navigation.
>
> Simply because they do not "qualify for IFR navigation" does not
> preclude their being used for IFR navigation.

It does in a non-radar environment.

wrote:

> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 05:51:43 -0800, wrote:
>
> >But, it does not include VFR
> >GPS units, which do not qualify for IFR navigation.
>
> As an added note, I am requied to have a clock "with a sweep second
> hand..." etc, to be legal for IFR flight.
>
> Does not mean I cannot use my Radio Shack timer to navigate.

A clock is not an device that receives navigation signals.

VOR facilities are not specified in the regulations, unlike the clock.
"Ground facilities" are, and are supported by ATC policy statements,
which presume VOR to be the primary means of navigation in the NAS.

It's not my argument; it's the FAA's and they win every time with it in
an eforcement proceeding.

wrote:

> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 05:51:43 -0800, wrote:
>
> >But, it does not include VFR
> >GPS units, which do not qualify for IFR navigation.
>
> As an added note, I am requied to have a clock "with a sweep second
> hand..." etc, to be legal for IFR flight.
>
> Does not mean I cannot use my Radio Shack timer to navigate.

> wrote in message ...
>>
>> Simply because they do not "qualify for IFR navigation" does not
>> preclude their being used for IFR navigation.
>>
>
> It does in a non-radar environment.
>

Moot point. An off-airways clearance beyond usable navaid limits is not
available in a nonradar environment.

> It is legal to legal to fly IFR as long as the required equipment is
> on board, and the pilot is appropriately rated, and current, etc.,
> etc., etc.

It is illegal to fly IFR =without= the required equipment on board.

It is illegal to fly IFR with only a tuna sandwich for navigation.

If you =do= have the required navigation equipment on board (which
generally means VOR, GPS, and/or INS), you may consult the tuna sandwich
all you want.

End of problem.

Jose
--
Nothing is more powerful than a commercial interest.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

> but I really wonder why you went to all the trouble.

Because the way you prefer to word it contains an implication that is
not true, and you like to dodge it.

Jose
--
Nothing is more powerful than a commercial interest.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in news:dJIUd.2243
:

> Moot point. An off-airways clearance beyond usable navaid limits is not
> available in a nonradar environment.

Certainly it is. I get it all the time, on almost every flight. Radar, and
in fact radio communications, doesn't extend to most of my destinations. And
there are hundreds, often thousands, of flights daily in the Gulf of Mexico,
many of them IFR. I commonly get 'direct'.

--
Regards,

Stan

"Stan Gosnell" > wrote in message
...
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in news:dJIUd.2243
> :
>
>> Moot point. An off-airways clearance beyond usable navaid limits is not
>> available in a nonradar environment.
>
> Certainly it is. I get it all the time, on almost every flight. Radar,
> and
> in fact radio communications, doesn't extend to most of my destinations.
> And
> there are hundreds, often thousands, of flights daily in the Gulf of
> Mexico,
> many of them IFR. I commonly get 'direct'.

Non-radar routes don't have to be on Airways but "beyond usable navaid
limits" is the operative clause in this case.

Those limits may be the standard ones listed in AIM 1-1-8 or they may be
expanded ones authorized by FAAO 7110.65 4-1-2b.

"Stan Gosnell" > wrote in message
...
>
> Certainly it is. I get it all the time, on almost every flight. Radar,
> and in fact radio communications, doesn't extend to most of my
> destinations. And there are hundreds, often thousands, of flights
> daily in the Gulf of Mexico, many of them IFR. I commonly get
> 'direct'.
>

Your clearance and separation apply only to those portions within controlled
airspace.

http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/Chp4/atc0401.html

wrote:

> I have been cleared, as I said, many times, on departure, "direct
> FUBAR intersection"

It's been a long time since I've flown /A or /U, but I don't happen to
recall being cleared this way.

However, many IFR departures out of CDW get a clearance "180 vectors LANNA
v30...". I myself have received that while /A or /U. Yet, there's no way
to fly that if RADAR happens to go down.

Making it stranger, one of the VORs on which LANNA is based is roughly
between the airport and LANNA. So a clearance "...SBJ v30 LANNA..." would
yield almost the exact same track *and* be flyable w/o GPS or RADAR.

I've never understood why they use LANNA instead of SBJ as the first fix.

- Andrew

Andrew Gideon wrote:
> wrote:
>
>
>>I have been cleared, as I said, many times, on departure, "direct
>>FUBAR intersection"
>
>
> It's been a long time since I've flown /A or /U, but I don't happen to
> recall being cleared this way.

No controller who knows what he's doing clears a /A or /U direct FUBAR
when FUBAR is outside the service volume of the navaid.


>
> However, many IFR departures out of CDW get a clearance "180 vectors LANNA
> v30...". I myself have received that while /A or /U. Yet, there's no way
> to fly that if RADAR happens to go down.

No clearance with vectors is flyable or issuable without radar.

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 21:02:59 -0700, Newps > wrote:

>No controller who knows what he's doing clears a /A or /U direct FUBAR
>when FUBAR is outside the service volume of the navaid.


How could FUBAR be "outside the service volume of the navaid"?

It's an intersection.

> wrote:

> On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 21:02:59 -0700, Newps > wrote:
>
>>No controller who knows what he's doing clears a /A or /U direct FUBAR
>>when FUBAR is outside the service volume of the navaid.
>
> How could FUBAR be "outside the service volume of the navaid"?
>
> It's an intersection.

An intersection defined by the 015 radial off the Phoenix VOR and 22 DME.

--
Peter













----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 09:20:37 -0500, "Peter R." >
wrote:

> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 21:02:59 -0700, Newps > wrote:
>>
>>>No controller who knows what he's doing clears a /A or /U direct FUBAR
>>>when FUBAR is outside the service volume of the navaid.
>>
>> How could FUBAR be "outside the service volume of the navaid"?
>>
>> It's an intersection.
>
>An intersection defined by the 015 radial off the Phoenix VOR and 22 DME.


How can an intersection be "outside the service volume"?

> wrote:

> On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 09:20:37 -0500, "Peter R." >
> wrote:
>
> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 21:02:59 -0700, Newps > wrote:
>>>
>>>>No controller who knows what he's doing clears a /A or /U direct FUBAR
>>>>when FUBAR is outside the service volume of the navaid.
>>>
>>> How could FUBAR be "outside the service volume of the navaid"?
>>>
>>> It's an intersection.
>>
>>An intersection defined by the 015 radial off the Phoenix VOR and 22 DME.
>
> How can an intersection be "outside the service volume"?

I didn't state that it was. I was just pointing out how this particular
intersection was defined.

At 22 DME from the navaid, I don't see how it could be outside the service
volume.

--
Peter













----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Let's all back up for a moment, shall we?

Some of you may not know this, but FUBAR is a fairly commonly used acronym
in the US, standing for F*cked Up Beyond All Repair.

When I originally read this thread, I did not realize that there was
actually an intersection named "FUBAR", I thought it was a generic
reference, such as "Podunk, AR".

I thought the mythical FUBAR could be any waypoint, hence it could be a VOR,
and the aircraft could be outside of it's service volume.

Hope this serves as a clarification...




"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> > wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 09:20:37 -0500, "Peter R." >
> > wrote:
> >
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 21:02:59 -0700, Newps > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>No controller who knows what he's doing clears a /A or /U direct FUBAR
> >>>>when FUBAR is outside the service volume of the navaid.
> >>>
> >>> How could FUBAR be "outside the service volume of the navaid"?
> >>>
> >>> It's an intersection.
> >>
> >>An intersection defined by the 015 radial off the Phoenix VOR and 22
DME.
> >
> > How can an intersection be "outside the service volume"?
>
> I didn't state that it was. I was just pointing out how this particular
> intersection was defined.
>
> At 22 DME from the navaid, I don't see how it could be outside the service
> volume.
>
> --
> Peter
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
Newsgroups
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
=----

"Lakeview Bill" > wrote in message
. com...
> Let's all back up for a moment, shall we?
>
> Some of you may not know this, but FUBAR is a fairly commonly used acronym
> in the US, standing for F*cked Up Beyond All Repair.
>
> When I originally read this thread, I did not realize that there was
> actually an intersection named "FUBAR", I thought it was a generic
> reference, such as "Podunk, AR".
>
> I thought the mythical FUBAR could be any waypoint, hence it could be a
> VOR,
> and the aircraft could be outside of it's service volume.
>
> Hope this serves as a clarification...
>

Living in the Phoenix area, I see FUBAR on the chart all the time but I was
wondering if people were using it as a generic intersection name...guess
not.

;O)

Jay B

"Jay Beckman" > wrote in message
news:dAmVd.87488$Yu.618@fed1read01...
> "Lakeview Bill" > wrote in message
> . com...
> >
>
> Living in the Phoenix area, I see FUBAR on the chart all the time but I
was
> wondering if people were using it as a generic intersection name...guess
> not.

I started this thread , and I was using it as a generic. I'd intended
"foobar" which is widely recgnized as a placeholder by programmers, but I
figured if I wrote FOOBAR people would complain that I couldn't possibly be
cleared to a 6-letter intersection because there is no such thing, which
would invariably devolve into a debate on whether that sort of thing is
permitted by the FARs and a ****ing match between pilots and controllers
saying they only know what it says in the .65. Mission accomplished.

-cwk.

"KP" <nospam@please> wrote in
:

> Non-radar routes don't have to be on Airways but "beyond usable navaid
> limits" is the operative clause in this case.
>
> Those limits may be the standard ones listed in AIM 1-1-8 or they may
> be expanded ones authorized by FAAO 7110.65 4-1-2b.

We're going well beyond any navaid limits, often as much as 200 NM out.
Radar normally reaches 40 NM, if we're lucky, and rarely as much as 60 or
so. We're going not only past radar coverage, but beyond communications
coverage as well. We rely on remoted company radios to close plans and get
clearances, or else we just take off and contact center whenever we can, if
the weather permits. It's a sad situation.

--
Regards,

Stan

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin

Andrew Gideon > wrote in
online.com:

> Making it stranger, one of the VORs on which LANNA is based is roughly
> between the airport and LANNA. So a clearance "...SBJ v30 LANNA..."
> would yield almost the exact same track *and* be flyable w/o GPS or
> RADAR.
>
> I've never understood why they use LANNA instead of SBJ as the first
> fix.

Do you usually get vectored via V30 and over SBJ, or do you often fly
around it, a few miles off?

--
Regards,

Stan

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin

On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 17:57:32 GMT, "Colin W Kingsbury"
> wrote:

>
>"Jay Beckman" > wrote in message
>news:dAmVd.87488$Yu.618@fed1read01...
>> "Lakeview Bill" > wrote in message
>> . com...
>> >
>>
>> Living in the Phoenix area, I see FUBAR on the chart all the time but I
>was
>> wondering if people were using it as a generic intersection name...guess
>> not.
>
>I started this thread , and I was using it as a generic. I'd intended
>"foobar" which is widely recgnized as a placeholder by programmers, but I
>figured if I wrote FOOBAR people would complain that I couldn't possibly be
>cleared to a 6-letter intersection because there is no such thing, which
>would invariably devolve into a debate on whether that sort of thing is
>permitted by the FARs and a ****ing match between pilots and controllers
>saying they only know what it says in the .65. Mission accomplished.
>
>-cwk.
>

nice job.

What chart do you see it on? I couldn't find it on L-4, nor was it
listed in airnav.com database...

Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

"John Clonts" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> What chart do you see it on? I couldn't find it on L-4, nor was it
> listed in airnav.com database...
>
> Cheers,
> John Clonts
> Temple, Texas
> N7NZ

Hmmm, looks like I sit corrected (at least as far as paper charts go...)

Golden Eagle flight planning software shows it as:

015r (027* true) 22nm (approx) from the Phoenix VOR (PXR)

Just about in the center of the NE quadrant of the Phoenix Class B airspace
where there is an almost square chunk of 7000-10000'.

But you're right, it isn't on either the Phoenix Sectional or the Phoenix
TAC.

Jay B

wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 21:02:59 -0700, Newps > wrote:
>
>
>>No controller who knows what he's doing clears a /A or /U direct FUBAR
>>when FUBAR is outside the service volume of the navaid.
>
>
>
> How could FUBAR be "outside the service volume of the navaid"?

I should have specified the navaid you are currently navigating off of.
For example direct FUBAR is not legal for the controller if FUBAR is
300 miles away.

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
>
> An intersection defined by the 015 radial off the Phoenix VOR and 22 DME.
>

That's not an intersection, that's a DME fix. An intersection is a point
defined by any combination of courses, radials, or bearings of two or more
navigational aids.

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
> I should have specified the navaid you are currently navigating off of.
> For example direct FUBAR is not legal for the controller if FUBAR is 300
> miles away.
>

Yes it is. Direct to any point is legal in a radar environment and the only
way to get direct to a non-navaid fix is in a radar environment.

"Jay Beckman" > wrote in message
news:FNqVd.92478$Yu.70103@fed1read01...
>
> Hmmm, looks like I sit corrected (at least as far as paper charts go...)
>
> Golden Eagle flight planning software shows it as:
>
> 015r (027* true) 22nm (approx) from the Phoenix VOR (PXR)
>
> Just about in the center of the NE quadrant of the Phoenix Class B
> airspace where there is an almost square chunk of 7000-10000'.
>
> But you're right, it isn't on either the Phoenix Sectional or the Phoenix
> TAC.
>

I don't think you'll find any DME fix on a sectional or a TAC.

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
> I should have specified the navaid you are currently navigating off of.
> For example direct FUBAR is not legal for the controller if FUBAR is 300
> miles away.
>

Service volume is applicable only to navaids.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
t...
>
> "Jay Beckman" > wrote in message
> news:FNqVd.92478$Yu.70103@fed1read01...
>>
>> Hmmm, looks like I sit corrected (at least as far as paper charts go...)
>>
>> Golden Eagle flight planning software shows it as:
>>
>> 015r (027* true) 22nm (approx) from the Phoenix VOR (PXR)
>>
>> Just about in the center of the NE quadrant of the Phoenix Class B
>> airspace where there is an almost square chunk of 7000-10000'.
>>
>> But you're right, it isn't on either the Phoenix Sectional or the Phoenix
>> TAC.
>>
>
> I don't think you'll find any DME fix on a sectional or a TAC.
>

Thanks for the clarification...

Jay B

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
t...
>
> "Jay Beckman" > wrote in message
> news:FNqVd.92478$Yu.70103@fed1read01...
>>
>> Hmmm, looks like I sit corrected (at least as far as paper charts go...)
>>
>> Golden Eagle flight planning software shows it as:
>>
>> 015r (027* true) 22nm (approx) from the Phoenix VOR (PXR)
>>
>> Just about in the center of the NE quadrant of the Phoenix Class B
>> airspace where there is an almost square chunk of 7000-10000'.
>>
>> But you're right, it isn't on either the Phoenix Sectional or the Phoenix
>> TAC.
>>
>
> I don't think you'll find any DME fix on a sectional or a TAC.
>

So is it on ANY chart? If so, which? I looked at all the STARs, but not all the IAPs nor Departures...

Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

"John Clonts" > wrote in message
...
>
> So is it on ANY chart? If so, which? I looked at all the STARs, but not
> all the IAPs nor Departures...
>

It must be charted somewhere, somebody provided the radial and distance.
It's odd that it's not in the Location Identifiers order.