Re: Use of hand-held GPS on FAA check ride

[Barry]

Mr. Tarver:
You are correct in that it definitely takes a quorum of managers to make a
cogent decision about such things.

Likewise, you are also (probably) correct in that it should not make one
iota of difference whether one wishes to use their hand-held GPS a Robinson
R-22 helicreature or in an Aeronca Champ. So, a rotorcraft should not be
different. However, the Q&A that addresses this issue is in reply to a
question about using a helicopter for certain tasks in training and on the
practical test.

The issue about whether the GPS is "installed" if velcroed to the panel is
much thornier. If one has access to the Summit Aviation Reference Library
on CD and does a global search for "velcro," one will note that many air
carrier aircraft have their MEL-required, installed emergency gear (first
aid kits, etc.) attached by velcro, which, in that case I'd guess, is most
likely considered an attaching means worthy of an STC or 337.

So, if you read the Q&A 170e on the FAA's web site, you will see that the
author of the Q&A still waffles on the "attachment" issue. Likewise, the
FAA has still as of this date, never responded to an official AOPA query
about that issue of yoke clips, velcro, etc. for hand-helds.

Tailwinds.

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Barry" > wrote in message
> ...
> > After decades of national policy prohibiting use of hand-held VOR and
GPS
> on
> > FAA check rides, FAA Flight Standards Headquarters in Washington DC
> > (AFS-800) finally reversed itself and is now allowing the use of
hand-held
> > VOR and GPS on Private, Commercial and Instrument FAA check rides.
>
> I love FAA's new management.
>
> > So, if your Private Pilot applicant wants to use his new Garmin Pilot
III
> > GPS to demonstrate radio navigation on the check ride, he may do so. Of
> > course, if the aircraft is equipped with a VOR receiver and CDI, he
still
> > must demonstrate proficiency with that unit as well. While this
question
> > was put to the FAA regarding use of the hand-held GPS in a helicopter, I
> > don't believe that the policy change is category/class specific.
>
> Why would a rotorcraft be different?
>
> > And yes, the GPS may be velcro taped to the panel.
>
> "not installed"
>
> > It was a difficult process to get the FAA to finally see the light that
if
> a
> > hand-held GPS provides the same useful, unambigious information that a
> > panel-mounted unit gives, it should be allowed on the check ride. After
> > several policy position reversals over the last 10 months, the FAA
finally
> > published their final policy change in the Part 61 FAQ's on the FAA's
web
> > page. Go to http://afs600.faa.gov and download the "Part 61 FAQ's" and
> look
> > at the new, revised Q&A 170e.
>
> You have to expect infighting like that, where empire building is the
> business of the day.
>
> > I was privileged to take part in the promulgation of this change and
have
> > suggested some methods of evaluating the Navigation Task on the
practical
> > test, which is reflected in Q&A 572. Constructive input on this matter
is
> > welcomed.
>
> Regular use of the handheld should also create less emergencies with dead
> batteries.
>
> > It is not easy to get the FAA to change policy on anything, much less
> > something on which they have been so opposed for so may years. To their
> > credit, they listened to reason and actually considered public input to
> > effect this change.
>
> Sometimes you have to displace the entire management staff in DC, as has
> happened since 1997.
>
>

[Tarver Engineering]

"Barry" > wrote in message
...
> Mr. Tarver:
> You are correct in that it definitely takes a quorum of managers to make a
> cogent decision about such things.

Such is not usually the case at FAA however and often there is much
animosity following a new engineering drop. Right now I would hold up Part
145 as an example of how confliciting interests inside and outside of FAA
can be problematic.

> Likewise, you are also (probably) correct in that it should not make one
> iota of difference whether one wishes to use their hand-held GPS a
Robinson
> R-22 helicreature or in an Aeronca Champ. So, a rotorcraft should not be
> different. However, the Q&A that addresses this issue is in reply to a
> question about using a helicopter for certain tasks in training and on the
> practical test.

OK, so I'll giive you that there is more work to be done, but certainly the
position that a rotorcraft is not really different from an aircraft is valid
feedback.

> The issue about whether the GPS is "installed" if velcroed to the panel is
> much thornier.

I find the issue of velcro installations to be settled law, as there is no
hook and loop tape that qualifies under the "fasteners act" Statute and
AFAIK no manufacturer has stepped forward to meet the "fasteners TSO" in the
area of hook and loop tape.

Certainly the abuses in Part 25 airplane modification WRT hook and loop tape
give the stuff a bad reputation.

> If one has access to the Summit Aviation Reference Library
> on CD and does a global search for "velcro," one will note that many air
> carrier aircraft have their MEL-required, installed emergency gear (first
> aid kits, etc.) attached by velcro, which, in that case I'd guess, is most
> likely considered an attaching means worthy of an STC or 337.

That would seem to be speculation as I know of no FAA certification process
for which emergency kits are defined. I suspect that is is reasonable that
the Airlines make such judgements WRT "first aid kits", but certinly hook
and loop installation of avionics and cabin electronics have run into
regulatory problems.

> So, if you read the Q&A 170e on the FAA's web site, you will see that the
> author of the Q&A still waffles on the "attachment" issue. Likewise, the
> FAA has still as of this date, never responded to an official AOPA query
> about that issue of yoke clips, velcro, etc. for hand-helds.

The "not installed" position is one I recommend for those wishing to use
their handheld for those valuable "situational awareness" advantages of the
cheap GPS. Of course, FAA having said that the use of a handheld is now OK
releives me of the obligation I have to certain FAA DER flight test pilots
that wanted me to advocate the position that handhelds work just fine.

I wish you success in moving the process forward, Barry.

John P. Tarver, MS/PE
Electrical Engineer
California E14066
Washington 31553

> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Barry" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > After decades of national policy prohibiting use of hand-held VOR and
GPS on
> > > FAA check rides, FAA Flight Standards Headquarters in Washington DC
> > > (AFS-800) finally reversed itself and is now allowing the use of
hand-held
> > > VOR and GPS on Private, Commercial and Instrument FAA check rides.
> >
> > I love FAA's new management.
> >
> > > So, if your Private Pilot applicant wants to use his new Garmin Pilot
III
> > > GPS to demonstrate radio navigation on the check ride, he may do so.
Of
> > > course, if the aircraft is equipped with a VOR receiver and CDI, he
still
> > > must demonstrate proficiency with that unit as well. While this
question
> > > was put to the FAA regarding use of the hand-held GPS in a helicopter,
I
> > > don't believe that the policy change is category/class specific.
> >
> > Why would a rotorcraft be different?
> >
> > > And yes, the GPS may be velcro taped to the panel.
> >
> > "not installed"
> >
> > > It was a difficult process to get the FAA to finally see the light
that if a
> > > hand-held GPS provides the same useful, unambigious information that a
> > > panel-mounted unit gives, it should be allowed on the check ride.
After
> > > several policy position reversals over the last 10 months, the FAA
finally
> > > published their final policy change in the Part 61 FAQ's on the FAA's
web
> > > page. Go to http://afs600.faa.gov and download the "Part 61 FAQ's" and
look
> > > at the new, revised Q&A 170e.
> >
> > You have to expect infighting like that, where empire building is the
> > business of the day.
> >
> > > I was privileged to take part in the promulgation of this change and
have
> > > suggested some methods of evaluating the Navigation Task on the
practical
> > > test, which is reflected in Q&A 572. Constructive input on this matter
is
> > > welcomed.
> >
> > Regular use of the handheld should also create less emergencies with
dead
> > batteries.
> >
> > > It is not easy to get the FAA to change policy on anything, much less
> > > something on which they have been so opposed for so may years. To
their
> > > credit, they listened to reason and actually considered public input
to
> > > effect this change.
> >
> > Sometimes you have to displace the entire management staff in DC, as has
> > happened since 1997.