Getting the MOCA

[Dan]

What are the odds of getting the MOCA instead of the MEA going from the
Phoenix area to Santa Fe? Anyone know? I like to be IFR for the
services, but the MEAs are a pain....

--Dan

[Sam Spade]

Dan wrote:

> What are the odds of getting the MOCA instead of the MEA going from the
> Phoenix area to Santa Fe? Anyone know? I like to be IFR for the
> services, but the MEAs are a pain....
>
> --Dan
>
The MOCA cannot be assigned except within 22 miles of the VOR station,
nor can you legally request it. It's your responsibility to use a
Victor airway within the rules.

Having said that, if the controller has you on radar and is willing to
assign you his center minimum instrument altitude for the area, that is
fine. The MIA may be lower than the MOCA or it may be higher. And, the
controller has to have the time to do all this.

Someday, there will be "G" altitudes charted for some of those western
area airways, but the FAA is moving very slowly. They just don't have
the manpower. The establishment of "G" (for GPS) altitudes is more than
a paper drill; they have to flight inspect for terrain clearance and
communications capability.

[Jose]

> The MOCA cannot be assigned except within 22 miles of the VOR station, nor can you legally request it.

I have never heard that it would be illegal to request anything. Where
is it written that a pilot violates the law by requesting a MOCA?

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Mitty]

I just file for the altitude I want. If I get it, fine. Usually I get
it. If not I will request it from Departure or Center during climb..
Sometimes I get what I want, sometimes we haggle out a compromise.
Almost always it is below the MEA.

I do this typically when headwinds are strong and I always explain the
reason to the controller. Often a Center controller will even allow me
to be non-radar (below his view) and ask me to report position once in
a while.

On 6/23/2006 1:52 AM, Dan wrote the following:
> What are the odds of getting the MOCA instead of the MEA going from the
> Phoenix area to Santa Fe? Anyone know? I like to be IFR for the
> services, but the MEAs are a pain....
>
> --Dan
>

[Sam Spade]

Jose wrote:
>> The MOCA cannot be assigned except within 22 miles of the VOR station,
>> nor can you legally request it.
>
>
> I have never heard that it would be illegal to request anything. Where
> is it written that a pilot violates the law by requesting a MOCA?
>
> Jose

You have never heard that it would be illegal to request anything?

Okie Dokie.

[Sam Spade]

Mitty wrote:

> I just file for the altitude I want. If I get it, fine. Usually I get
> it. If not I will request it from Departure or Center during climb..
> Sometimes I get what I want, sometimes we haggle out a compromise.
> Almost always it is below the MEA.
>
> I do this typically when headwinds are strong and I always explain the
> reason to the controller. Often a Center controller will even allow me
> to be non-radar (below his view) and ask me to report position once in a
> while.
>
> On 6/23/2006 1:52 AM, Dan wrote the following:
>
>> What are the odds of getting the MOCA instead of the MEA going from the
>> Phoenix area to Santa Fe? Anyone know? I like to be IFR for the
>> services, but the MEAs are a pain....
>>
>> --Dan
>>
But, it is not the MOCA the center assigns you. It's the MIA.

Here is what the ATC handbook says about controllers assigning MOCAs
beyond 22 miles of the VOR:

4-5-6. MINIMUM EN ROUTE ALTITUDES
Except as provided in subparas a and b below, assign altitudes at or
above the MEA for the route segment being flown. When a lower MEA for
subsequent segments of the route is applicable, issue the lower MEA only
after the aircraft is over or past the Fix/NAVAID beyond which the lower
MEA applies unless a crossing restriction at or above the higher MEA is
issued.
a. An aircraft may be cleared below the MEA but not below the MOCA for
the route segment being flown if the altitude assigned is at least 300
feet above the floor of controlled airspace and one of the following
conditions are met:
NOTE-
Controllers must be aware that in the event of radio communications
failure, a pilot will climb to the MEA for the route segment being flown.
1. Nonradar procedures are used only within 22 miles of a VOR, VORTAC,
or TACAN.
2. Radar procedures are used only when an operational advantage is
realized and the following actions are taken:
(a) Radar navigational guidance is provided until the aircraft is
within 22 miles of the NAVAID, and
(b) Lost communications instructions are issued.

[Jose]

> You have never heard that it would be illegal to request anything?

Ok, you take me too literally. Rather than play games, I've never heard
that it's illegal to request an altitude from ATC. It may be illegal
for ATC to grant that altitude, but illegal to request it? That would
be news to me.

But I'm willing to read news. Tell me more.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Sam Spade]

Jose wrote:
>> You have never heard that it would be illegal to request anything?
>
>
> Ok, you take me too literally. Rather than play games, I've never heard
> that it's illegal to request an altitude from ATC. It may be illegal
> for ATC to grant that altitude, but illegal to request it? That would
> be news to me.
>
> But I'm willing to read news. Tell me more.
>
> Jose
The MOCA was never intended to be an operational altitude. Where is a
large difference between MEA and MOCA the TERPs folks who design airways
have the option to include an MOCA for emergency use. You many not have
VOR reception and you may not be able to speak with ATC.

Then, there is the following:

91.177 Minimum altitudes for IFR operations.
(a) Operation of aircraft at minimum altitudes. Except when necessary
for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft under IFR below -
(1) The applicable minimum altitudes prescribed in Parts 95 and 97 of
this chapter; or
(2) If no applicable minimum altitude is prescribed in those parts -
(i) In the case of operations over an area designated as a mountainous
area in part 95, an altitude of 2,000 feet above the highest obstacle
within a horizontal distance of 4 nautical miles from the course to be
flown; or
(ii) In any other case, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest
obstacle within a horizontal distance of 4 nautical miles from the
course to be flown.

However, if both a MEA and a MOCA are prescribed for a particular route
or route segment, a person may operate an aircraft below the MEA down
to, but not below, the MOCA, when within 22 nautical miles of the VOR
concerned (based on the pilot's reasonable estimate of that distance).

The last paragraph is particulary on-point and is regulatory.

Some of this has morphed in practice because IFR-certified GPS
navigators are way ahead of the FAA ability to react.

Thus, the language in the 7110.65, which I included in my response to
Mitty. But, notice that requires a radar monitor and a lost comm
procedure (if, in fact, that is ever followed is another matter).

The controller is hard-pressed to provide that procedure unless he uses
his MIA, which makes it an MIA route, not an MOCA route.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
news:LTNmg.34520$AB3.5290@fed1read02...
>
> The MOCA cannot be assigned except within 22 miles of the VOR station, nor
> can you legally request it. It's your responsibility to use a Victor
> airway within the rules.
>

You're one for three.

No law limits what may be requested.

ATC can assign the MOCA beyond 22 miles of the VOR if radar navigational
guidance is provided until the aircraft is within 22 miles of it and lost
communications instructions are issued.

If a pilot complies with that assignment he will be in violation of FAR
91.177.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
news:F7Umg.34528$AB3.5292@fed1read02...
>
> You have never heard that it would be illegal to request anything?
>

I haven't. What requests are prohibited by law?

[Jose]

> However, if both a MEA and a MOCA are prescribed for a particular route or route segment, a person may operate an aircraft below the MEA down to, but not below, the MOCA, when within 22 nautical miles of the VOR concerned (based on the pilot's reasonable estimate of that distance).
>
> The last paragraph is particulary on-point and is regulatory.

Ok, but that is for actual operation, not for request. It is legal to
request the MOCA, it is just not legal to operate there when further
than 22 miles from the VOR. One may wonder why one would request an
altitued that one does not intend to use, but no violation has been
committed until the operation takes place.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Sam Spade]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
> news:LTNmg.34520$AB3.5290@fed1read02...
>
>>The MOCA cannot be assigned except within 22 miles of the VOR station, nor
>>can you legally request it. It's your responsibility to use a Victor
>>airway within the rules.
>>
>
>
> You're one for three.
>
> No law limits what may be requested.
>
> ATC can assign the MOCA beyond 22 miles of the VOR if radar navigational
> guidance is provided until the aircraft is within 22 miles of it and lost
> communications instructions are issued.

If the MOCA is below the MIA do you believe a center controller would
clear an aircraft at MOCA beyond 22 miles?
>
> If a pilot complies with that assignment he will be in violation of FAR
> 91.177.
>
That often happens with MIAs and MVAs, but FAA headquarters considers it
a "technical" violation.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
news:P%Xmg.34553$AB3.17954@fed1read02...
>
> If the MOCA is below the MIA do you believe a center controller would
> clear an aircraft at MOCA beyond 22 miles?
>

Do you understand that he can? Do you understand that a pilot can legally
request the MOCA at any point on an airway?

[Mitty]

On 6/23/2006 10:56 AM, Sam Spade wrote the following:

> But, it is not the MOCA the center assigns you. It's the MIA.
>

No it's not. I have gotten lower than MIA. Just this Wednesday, in
fact. It was a VFR day but I was on an IFR flight plan.

[Judah]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
k.net:

>
> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
> news:F7Umg.34528$AB3.5292@fed1read02...
>>
>> You have never heard that it would be illegal to request anything?
>>
>
> I haven't. What requests are prohibited by law?

I can't think of any aviation related ones, but I believe there are certain
specific requests that one can make that are indeed illegal.

Most of them are legal in Nevada.

Some of them are illegal even there.

The law is a funny thing.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mitty" > wrote in message
...
>
> No it's not. I have gotten lower than MIA. Just this Wednesday, in fact.
> It was a VFR day but I was on an IFR flight plan.
>

So you were cleared via airways and got the MEA or the MOCA which was lower
than the MIA?

[Mike Adams]

"Dan" > wrote:

> What are the odds of getting the MOCA instead of the MEA going from the
> Phoenix area to Santa Fe? Anyone know? I like to be IFR for the
> services, but the MEAs are a pain....
>
> --Dan
>

Not good, in my limited experience. I tried filing IFR from Phoenix to Show Low last summer just to see
how I would be handled, and requested direct at 11,000. I was given V190 and assigned 13,000. Hardly
worth the effort for such a short trip.

Mike

[Sam Spade]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
> news:P%Xmg.34553$AB3.17954@fed1read02...
>
>>If the MOCA is below the MIA do you believe a center controller would
>>clear an aircraft at MOCA beyond 22 miles?
>>
>
>
> Do you understand that he can? Do you understand that a pilot can legally
> request the MOCA at any point on an airway?
>
>
No, I don't. I keep reading the FARs, unlike you.

[Sam Spade]

Mitty wrote:

>
>
> On 6/23/2006 10:56 AM, Sam Spade wrote the following:
>
>> But, it is not the MOCA the center assigns you. It's the MIA.
>>
>
> No it's not. I have gotten lower than MIA. Just this Wednesday, in
> fact. It was a VFR day but I was on an IFR flight plan.

How do you know you were cleared below the MIA. Do you have an MIA chart?

[Mitty]

On 6/23/2006 8:25 PM, Steven P. McNicoll wrote the following:
> "Mitty" > wrote in message
> ...
>> No it's not. I have gotten lower than MIA. Just this Wednesday, in fact.
>> It was a VFR day but I was on an IFR flight plan.
>>
>
> So you were cleared via airways and got the MEA or the MOCA which was lower
> than the MIA?
>
>
Typing speed ovecame brain speed. I was cleared below the MEA, not
the MIA.

[Sam Spade]

Mitty wrote:
>
>
> On 6/23/2006 8:25 PM, Steven P. McNicoll wrote the following:
>
>> "Mitty" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> No it's not. I have gotten lower than MIA. Just this Wednesday, in
>>> fact. It was a VFR day but I was on an IFR flight plan.
>>>
>>
>> So you were cleared via airways and got the MEA or the MOCA which was
>> lower than the MIA?
>>
> Typing speed ovecame brain speed. I was cleared below the MEA, not the
> MIA.

You probably were not cleared below the MIA.

[Everett M. Greene]

Sam Spade > writes:
[snip]
> However, if both a MEA and a MOCA are prescribed for a particular route
> or route segment, a person may operate an aircraft below the MEA down
> to, but not below, the MOCA, when within 22 nautical miles of the VOR
> concerned (based on the pilot's reasonable estimate of that distance).

Idle curiosity: From whence came the magic 22 nm. number?
The VOR turns into a pumpkin at 22.1 nm?

[Jose]

> Idle curiosity: From whence came the magic 22 nm. number?

"Whence". Not "from whence". "Whence" means "from where". "Whither"
means "to where". "Wither" means "it no longer matters to where". :)

As to your original question, some idle speculation - the VORs are
certified and flight tested out to 22nm, and beyond that they are not
guaranteed to be usable.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Sam Spade]

Everett M. Greene wrote:
> Sam Spade > writes:
> [snip]
>
>>However, if both a MEA and a MOCA are prescribed for a particular route
>>or route segment, a person may operate an aircraft below the MEA down
>>to, but not below, the MOCA, when within 22 nautical miles of the VOR
>>concerned (based on the pilot's reasonable estimate of that distance).
>
>
> Idle curiosity: From whence came the magic 22 nm. number?
> The VOR turns into a pumpkin at 22.1 nm?

It is 25 s.m., which is 22 n.m.

I can only speculate that in the early days of VOR it became quickly
apparent that relief from the MEA when nearing a VOR on an airway with a
lower MOCA would provide better descent transitions onto IAPs, etc.

The feds probably had a meeting and asked the electronic experts to come
up with a distance that would work everywhere.

That's how things like that usually come about.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
news:Nbdng.34735$AB3.24485@fed1read02...
>
> No, I don't. I keep reading the FARs, unlike you.
>

It's a pity you're unable to comprehend what you've read.

[Sam Spade]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
> news:Nbdng.34735$AB3.24485@fed1read02...
>
>>No, I don't. I keep reading the FARs, unlike you.
>>
>
>
> It's a pity you're unable to comprehend what you've read.
>
>

I comprehend the following language of Part 91 a whole lot better than
you do. Then again, I don't argue with regulations, charts, procedures,
safe operating practices, conservative flight operations, etc.

"However, if both a MEA and a MOCA are prescribed for a particular route
or route segment, a person may operate an aircraft below the MEA down
to, but not below, the MOCA, when within 22 nautical miles of the VOR
concerned (based on the pilot's reasonable estimate of that distance)."

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Everett M. Greene" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Idle curiosity: From whence came the magic 22 nm. number?
> The VOR turns into a pumpkin at 22.1 nm?
>

Can't say for sure, but the 22 knot and 44 knot rules for longitudinal
separation were known as the 25 mph and 50 mph rules before knots and
nautical miles replaced mph and statute miles as standard units for speed
and distance in aviation. I'd bet the magic number for MOCA used to be 25
miles.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> As to your original question, some idle speculation - the VORs are
> certified and flight tested out to 22nm, and beyond that they are not
> guaranteed to be usable.
>

Service volume of VORs varies with the class of the VOR and altitude, but
the standard for even Terminal VORs is 25 NM.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
news:mBing.34763$AB3.32586@fed1read02...
>
> I comprehend the following language of Part 91 a whole lot better than you
> do.
>

Actually, you don't, you only think that you do.


>
> Then again, I don't argue with regulations, charts, procedures, safe
> operating practices, conservative flight operations, etc.
>

If what you wrote in these forums was consistent with regulations, charts,
procedures, safe operating practices, conservative flight operations, etc.,
we would never have an argument. There are regular users here that possess
a great deal of valuable information and experience. They present a
valuable educational resource, but you must change your attitude in order to
take advantage of it.

[Sam Spade]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
> news:mBing.34763$AB3.32586@fed1read02...
>
>>I comprehend the following language of Part 91 a whole lot better than you
>>do.
>>
>
>
> Actually, you don't, you only think that you do.
>
>
>
>>Then again, I don't argue with regulations, charts, procedures, safe
>>operating practices, conservative flight operations, etc.
>>
>
>
> If what you wrote in these forums was consistent with regulations, charts,
> procedures, safe operating practices, conservative flight operations, etc.,
> we would never have an argument. There are regular users here that possess
> a great deal of valuable information and experience. They present a
> valuable educational resource, but you must change your attitude in order to
> take advantage of it.
>
>
Right. You are so full of it, Stevie, it is no wonder many regulars
won't even let you suck them in to feed your tiny, bruised ego.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
news:oBvng.35395$AB3.7625@fed1read02...
>
> Right. You are so full of it, Stevie, it is no wonder many regulars won't
> even let you suck them in to feed your tiny, bruised ego.
>

There are no bruises on my ego. I can and do support my positions with
logic and verifiable documentation. You cannot and do not. The regulars
here know that, I doubt it is me that they consider "full of it".

[Robert M. Gary]

Sam Spade wrote:
> Dan wrote:
>
> > What are the odds of getting the MOCA instead of the MEA going from the
> > Phoenix area to Santa Fe? Anyone know? I like to be IFR for the
> > services, but the MEAs are a pain....
> >
> > --Dan
> >
> The MOCA cannot be assigned except within 22 miles of the VOR station,
> nor can you legally request it. It's your responsibility to use a
> Victor airway within the rules.

That's actually not true. It is legal to fly any altitude you are
assigned. The controller's minimum altitude in that area may be lower
than your MEA.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

Sam Spade wrote:
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "However, if both a MEA and a MOCA are prescribed for a particular route
> or route segment, a person may operate an aircraft below the MEA down
> to, but not below, the MOCA, when within 22 nautical miles of the VOR
> concerned (based on the pilot's reasonable estimate of that distance)."

Sam, in controlled airspace you may request any altitude from ATC. Its
not uncommon to receive an altitude below the MEA on your chart. Often
the actual altitude the controller can assign to you depends on the
time of day (what agency is controlling the airspace at that time).
Typically in the day you have larger approach area that centers take
over at night. The centers often don't have the coverage to assign you
as low as approach. In the central valley in California is makes a
difference between 2,000 min altitude (when Lemoore is open) and 8,000
min altitude (when Oakland center takes over) in some areas.

Here is your FAR reference...
"Section 91.123: Compliance with ATC clearances and instructions.
(a) When an ATC clearance has been obtained, no pilot in command may
deviate from that clearance unless an amended clearance is obtained, an
emergency exists, or the deviation is in response to a traffic alert
and collision avoidance system resolution advisory. However, except in
Class A airspace, a pilot may cancel an IFR flight plan if the
operation is being conducted in VFR weather conditions. When a pilot is
uncertain of an ATC clearance, that pilot shall immediately request
clarification from ATC."

-Robert, CFII

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> That's actually not true. It is legal to fly any altitude you are
> assigned. The controller's minimum altitude in that area may be lower
> than your MEA.
>

What are you basing that on? FAR 91.177 does not contain the phrase "unless
otherwise authorized by ATC".

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Sam, in controlled airspace you may request any altitude from ATC. Its
> not uncommon to receive an altitude below the MEA on your chart.
>

The lowest altitude ATC can assign on an airway is the MOCA.


>
> Here is your FAR reference...
> "Section 91.123: Compliance with ATC clearances and instructions.
> (a) When an ATC clearance has been obtained, no pilot in command may
> deviate from that clearance unless an amended clearance is obtained, an
> emergency exists, or the deviation is in response to a traffic alert
> and collision avoidance system resolution advisory. However, except in
> Class A airspace, a pilot may cancel an IFR flight plan if the
> operation is being conducted in VFR weather conditions. When a pilot is
> uncertain of an ATC clearance, that pilot shall immediately request
> clarification from ATC."
>

That doesn't absolve you of adherence to other applicable FARs.

[Newps]

> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>
>>That's actually not true. It is legal to fly any altitude you are
>>assigned. The controller's minimum altitude in that area may be lower
>>than your MEA.

That's correct. The controllers MVA/MIA may be lower than the MEA. If
that is the case then an altitude below the MEA can be assigned if
you're trying to get into VMC for example. And approach control does
not always have lower MVA's than Center has MIA's. When we work with
Salt Lake their radar antenna for our area is on the top of a mountain
in the Bighorn Mountains about 60 miles south of us here in Billings.
Their MIA is much lower than my MVA from about 30 miles south of me out
to the end of my coverage. Often times an aircraft will want lower than
I can give so I just work it out with the center and have ZLC work him
so he can stay low. Another example is the route between BIL and Cody,
WY. There is an airway with an 8400 MEA between our two VOR's. However
the centers MIA is down around 7000, mine however is 9300 on the
southern end. ZLC will often send guys this way at 7000 between the two
mountain ranges on the airway. We just coordinate and I don't work them
until about 25 miles out where my MVA allows it.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
> That's correct. The controllers MVA/MIA may be lower than the MEA. If
> that is the case then an altitude below the MEA can be assigned if you're
> trying to get into VMC for example.

That's not correct. The MIA/MVA is the lowest altitude that can be assigned
where MEAs have not been established. Where MEAs have been established,
which is on airways, the minimum altitude is the MEA unless a MOCA applies.
Of course, the way around that is to simply clear the aircraft direct to a
fix up ahead.

http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/Chp4/atc0405.html#4-5-6

[Robert M. Gary]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Sam, in controlled airspace you may request any altitude from ATC. Its
> > not uncommon to receive an altitude below the MEA on your chart.
> >
>
> The lowest altitude ATC can assign on an airway is the MOCA.

You're speaking in technicalities. All the controll has to do is clear
you direct to the VOR via the airway radial. I fly out West around the
Sierras and often don't have to fly at the MOCA.

-Robert

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> You're speaking in technicalities. All the controll has to do is clear
> you direct to the VOR via the airway radial.
>

Yes, I already pointed that out.

[Sam Spade]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> Sam Spade wrote:
>
>>Dan wrote:
>>
>>
>>>What are the odds of getting the MOCA instead of the MEA going from the
>>>Phoenix area to Santa Fe? Anyone know? I like to be IFR for the
>>>services, but the MEAs are a pain....
>>>
>>> --Dan
>>>
>>
>>The MOCA cannot be assigned except within 22 miles of the VOR station,
>>nor can you legally request it. It's your responsibility to use a
>>Victor airway within the rules.
>
>
> That's actually not true. It is legal to fly any altitude you are
> assigned. The controller's minimum altitude in that area may be lower
> than your MEA.
>
> -Robert
>

A center MIA in some cases is, indeed, lower than a particular Victor
Airways MEA and, in some cases, the MIA may be higher.

And, if ATC is willing to provide the service, which includes radar
monitoring of your progress when assigned a Victor Airway below the MEA,
that is, of course legal.

But, it isn't assignment of the Victor Airway because the Victor Airway
simply doesn't exist below its MEA (or MOCA beyond 22 miles) as a matter
of regulation.

That is why the careful controller states, in such circumstances, "via
the radials of Victor such-and-such."

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
news:fWapg.77$_M.1@fed1read04...
>
> And, if ATC is willing to provide the service, which includes radar
> monitoring of your progress when assigned a Victor Airway below the MEA,
> that is, of course legal.
>

Only if a MOCA applies and then only within 22 miles of a VOR. Radar
monitoring is not required.


§ 91.177 Minimum altitudes for IFR operations.
(a) Operation of aircraft at minimum altitudes. Except when necessary for
takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft under IFR below-

(1) The applicable minimum altitudes prescribed in parts 95 and 97 of this
chapter; or

(2) If no applicable minimum altitude is prescribed in those parts-

(i) In the case of operations over an area designated as a mountainous area
in part 95, an altitude of 2,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a
horizontal distance of 4 nautical miles from the course to be flown; or

(ii) In any other case, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle
within a horizontal distance of 4 nautical miles from the course to be
flown.

However, if both a MEA and a MOCA are prescribed for a particular route or
route segment, a person may operate an aircraft below the MEA down to, but
not below, the MOCA, when within 22 nautical miles of the VOR concerned
(based on the pilot's reasonable estimate of that distance).

(b) Climb. Climb to a higher minimum IFR altitude shall begin immediately
after passing the point beyond which that minimum altitude applies, except
that when ground obstructions intervene, the point beyond which that higher
minimum altitude applies shall be crossed at or above the applicable MCA.



>
> But, it isn't assignment of the Victor Airway because the Victor Airway
> simply doesn't exist below its MEA (or MOCA beyond 22 miles) as a matter
> of regulation.
>


That's not correct. Victor airways, unless otherwise specified, extend
upward from 1,200 feet to, but not including, 18,000 feet MSL.

[Sam Spade]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
> news:fWapg.77$_M.1@fed1read04...
>
>>And, if ATC is willing to provide the service, which includes radar
>>monitoring of your progress when assigned a Victor Airway below the MEA,
>>that is, of course legal.
>>
>
>
> Only if a MOCA applies and then only within 22 miles of a VOR. Radar
> monitoring is not required.

Asked and answered previously.
>
>
> § 91.177 Minimum altitudes for IFR operations.
> (a) Operation of aircraft at minimum altitudes. Except when necessary for
> takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft under IFR below-
>
> (1) The applicable minimum altitudes prescribed in parts 95 and 97 of this
> chapter; or
>
> (2) If no applicable minimum altitude is prescribed in those parts-
>
> (i) In the case of operations over an area designated as a mountainous area
> in part 95, an altitude of 2,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a
> horizontal distance of 4 nautical miles from the course to be flown; or
>
> (ii) In any other case, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle
> within a horizontal distance of 4 nautical miles from the course to be
> flown.
>
> However, if both a MEA and a MOCA are prescribed for a particular route or
> route segment, a person may operate an aircraft below the MEA down to, but
> not below, the MOCA, when within 22 nautical miles of the VOR concerned
> (based on the pilot's reasonable estimate of that distance).
>
> (b) Climb. Climb to a higher minimum IFR altitude shall begin immediately
> after passing the point beyond which that minimum altitude applies, except
> that when ground obstructions intervene, the point beyond which that higher
> minimum altitude applies shall be crossed at or above the applicable MCA.
>
>
>
>
>>But, it isn't assignment of the Victor Airway because the Victor Airway
>>simply doesn't exist below its MEA (or MOCA beyond 22 miles) as a matter
>>of regulation.
>>
>
>
>
> That's not correct. Victor airways, unless otherwise specified, extend
> upward from 1,200 feet to, but not including, 18,000 feet MSL.
>
>
That is not correct. Your confusing Part 71 with Part 95. Part 71
provides the Class E airspace for a Victor Airway. Part 95 provides the
minimum altitudes for a Victor Airway. They are not the same.

[Sam Spade]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
> news:oBvng.35395$AB3.7625@fed1read02...
>
>>Right. You are so full of it, Stevie, it is no wonder many regulars won't
>>even let you suck them in to feed your tiny, bruised ego.
>>
>
>
> There are no bruises on my ego. I can and do support my positions with
> logic and verifiable documentation. You cannot and do not. The regulars
> here know that, I doubt it is me that they consider "full of it".
>
>
How many FSDO inspectors rebuffed your handheld GPS campaign a while back?

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
news:sYrpg.101$_M.9@fed1read04...
>
> Asked and answered previously.
>

Your answer was wrong.


>
> That is not correct. Your confusing Part 71 with Part 95. Part 71
> provides the Class E airspace for a Victor Airway. Part 95 provides the
> minimum altitudes for a Victor Airway. They are not the same.
>

I'm confused? Then please enlighten me. Cite the regulation that supports
your assertion that Victor airways do not exist below the MEA or MOCA beyond
22 miles from the VOR.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
news:r5vpg.115$_M.89@fed1read04...
>
> How many FSDO inspectors rebuffed your handheld GPS campaign a while back?
>

I assume you're referring to what appears below. I sent an email message to
eleven of fourteen FSDOs in the Great Lakes Region in December 1999. Four
responded by email and one by phone. I didn't include the telephone
response in my report because I couldn't provide a verbatim record of it.



"I have a question regarding the use of a handheld GPS receiver
during IFR enroute flight.


Let's say I file from MBS direct to SEA in my BE36/A. My Bonanza
has two nav/coms, ADF, GS receiver, DME, marker beacon receiver,
transponder, encoder, and an autopilot. But I intend to use my
handheld GPS receiver for enroute navigation, which I have previously
determined will not cause interference with the navigation or communication
system on my airplane. ATC clears me as filed and I proceed on my merry way
direct to Seattle.


Does this operation violate any FAR?"


I received E-mail responses from four FSDOs, I have changed only
identification of offices and individuals.


From FSDO "A":


Dear Steven,


Thank you for your question concerning GPS Navigation.


You must comply with the limitations of your GPS. There isn't
a handheld alive that is approved for IFR enroute or terminal
navigation, so to answer your question, no, you cannot use the
GPS for anything during your IFR Flight. I recommend that you
review your GPS Manual provided by the factory.


I hope this answers your question, Steven.


Sincerely,


John Doe
FSDO "A"


Dear Mr. Doe,


Thank you for your prompt response.


My question and scenario are completely hypothetical, I don't own a
GPS (or a Bonanza, unfortunately), so I have no GPS manual to
review. But I'm afraid you didn't answer my question; I wanted to
know what regulation, if any, was being violated in the scenario.
What FAR prohibits the use of a handheld GPS during enroute IFR
flight? What regulation requires me to comply with the limitations
of my GPS? What regulation requires the GPS, or any other nav
system for that matter, to be approved for IFR enroute flight?


Sincerely,
Steven P. McNicoll


No further messages were received from FSDO "A".


From FSDO "B":


Dear Steven,


Does this operation violate any FAR?


FAR - "singular" NO, "pural" YES


or only if the FAA accident investigation team has to pry it out of
your cold hands at the site of the crash, otherwise no one will know.


Sorry, but I just can't pass up to opportunity to put a little humor into
my work. Seriously here is the"spin" that most FAA types put on
the answer to this question.


Hand held GPS units are not approved for flight into IFR conditions. Panel
mount GPS units may be certified for enroute portions only,
or the high dollar units that meet all the FAA's certification
requirements can be used for enroute and approaches, these units
are also panel mounted units.


Further, the panel mounted units are to be installed by properly
certificated technicians and the equipment list, weight and balance
of the aircraft should reflect the additional equipment. (No the FAA
doesn't make it easy.)


So in the case of a handheld GPS for IFR flight, the unit is not
certified for that use and is not authorized by FARs.


Richard Roe
FSDO "B"


Dear Mr. Roe,


Thank you for your response.


I appreciate humor as much as anyone, but I don't see how we
arrived "at the site of the crash". This operation presents no
undue hazard.


I'm aware that hand held GPS units are not approved for flight
into IFR conditions, and that GPS installations CAN be approved
for IFR flight. But after an extensive search, I cannot find any
regulation REQUIRING that GPS have that approval in order to
be used during IFR enroute flight.


You say that this operation would violate several FARs, could
you cite them please?


Sincerely,
Steven P. McNicoll


No further messages were received from FSDO "B".


From FSDO "C":


Dear Steve,


I am forwarding your question to our Avionics Inspector;
Apollo Garmin. This is in his area of expertise.


Thank you for using our website.


Guy Fawkes
FSDO "C"


Steve,


I got together with our Avionics Inspector and have an
answer for you.


"A PORTABLE GPS CANNOT BE APPROVED IN THE
AIRCRAFT FOR INSTRUMENT FLIGHT RULES (IFR) OR
VISUAL FLIGHT RULES UNLESS THE COMPLETE SYSTEM
IS INSTALLED AND EVALUATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE INTERIM POLICY GUIDANCE DATED MARCH 20, 1992,
AS AMENDED, PERTAINING TO THE APPROVAL OF GPS
EQUIPMENT."


VFR only not IFR.


Let me know if we can be of any further assistance.


Guy Fawkes
FSDO "C"


Dear Mr. Fawkes,


Thank you for your response. I understand that a portable
GPS receiver cannot be approved for IFR flight, but what
regulation prohibits a non-approved GPS receiver from
being used during IFR flight?


Steven P. McNicoll


Steven,


Per my Avionics Inspector the following 14CFR Paragraph
answers your question (specifically para (b)(5):
----------------------------------
 91.21 _ Portable Electronic Devices.


(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no
person may operate, nor may any operator or pilot in command
of an aircraft allow the operation of, any portable electronic device
on any of the following U.S.-registered civil aircraft:


(1) Aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier operating
certificate or an operating certificate; or


(2) Any other aircraft while it is operated under IFR.


(b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to-


(1) Portable voice recorders;


(2) Hearing aids;


(3) Heart pacemakers;


(4) Electric shavers; or


(5) Any other portable electronic device that the operator of
the aircraft has determined will not cause interference with the
navigation or communication system of the aircraft on which it
is to be used.


(c) In the case of an aircraft operated by a holder of an air
carrier operating certificate or an operating certificate, the
determination required by paragraph (b)(5) of this section shall
be made by that operator of the aircraft on which the particular
device is to be used. In the case of other aircraft, the
determination may be made by the pilot in command or other
operator of the aircraft.
------------------------


Guy Fawkes
FSDO "C"


Dear Mr. Fawkes,


FAR 91.21(b)(5) permits the operation of any portable electronic
device, other than a portable voice recorder, hearing aid, heart pacemaker,
or electric shaver, that the operator of the aircraft has determined will
not cause interference with the navigation or communication system of the
aircraft on which it is to be used.
Recall that in my scenario I stated that I had previously determined
that my handheld GPS receiver does not cause interference with
the navigation or communication system on my airplane. It seems
to me that I have complied with FAR 91.21 to the letter.


Steven P. McNicoll


No further messages were received from FSDO "C"


From FSDO "D":


Dear Mr. Steven P. McNicoll,


In response to your question, does this operation violate
any FAR?


Yes, it does.


You may file IFR as a (slant) /A.


The handheld GPS is not acceptable as RNAV and is contrary to:


14 Code of Federal Regulations(CFR), Part 21 sub part K and O.


14 CFR 23.1307


14 CFR 23.1309(b)


14 CFR 91.21


14 CFR 91.205


These are referenced in FAA pamphlet FAA-P-8000-3.


Thank you for your interest in aviation safety. Please call if you have any
questions, (987) 654-3210.


Inspector John Smith
FSDO "D"


Dear Mr. Smith,


Thank you for your response. Please see below for additional
questions and comments.


Steven P. McNicoll



> Dear Mr. Steven P. McNicoll
> In response to your question, does this operation violate
> any FAR?
> Yes, it does.
> You may file IFR as a (slant) /A.
> The handheld GPS is not acceptable as RNAV


What regulation specifies what is acceptable and what is not
acceptable as RNAV?


> and is contrary to:
> 14 Code of Federal Regulations(CFR), Part 21 sub part K and O.


How can that be? A handheld GPS is not a part or an appliance,
it is not installed in or attached to the aircraft. To my knowledge
there is no regulation that requires a GPS receiver to comply with
a TSO.


> 14 CFR 23.1307


I don't see how Part 23 is applicable at all, this does not involve
any change to a type certificate.

A handheld GPS receiver is not equipment necessary for the
airplane to operate at the maximum operating altitude or in the
kinds of operations and meteorological conditions for which it
is certified. Why would it need to be included in the type design?
Given that it is a portable device, how could it be included in the
type design?



> 14 CFR 23.1309(b)


14 CFR 23.1309(b) refers to installed equipment, but a
handheld GPS is not installed equipment.


> 14 CFR 91.21


Recall that I had previously determined my handheld GPS does
not cause interference with the navigation or communication
system on my airplane.


> 14 CFR 91.205


How is this regulation being violated? My aircraft contains all
of the instruments and equipment specified 14 CFR 91.205 for
IFR operations, and those instruments and items of equipment
are in operable condition.


> These are referenced in FAA pamphlet FAA-P-8000-3.


How may I obtain this pamphlet?


> Thank you for your interest in aviation safety.
> Please call if you have any questions, (987) 654-3210.
> Inspector John Smith
> FSDO "D"


Dear Mr. Steven P. McNicoll,

Your Bonanza was probably built in accordance with 14 CFR 23
(FAR 23), and if you intend to use the aircraft for IFR flight, it
should have the equipment specified in 14 CFR 91.205. The
hand-held GPS is not included in 91.205 because it is not
approved for IFR flight. In fact no GPS systems are mentioned
in 91.205, any GPS system that is approved for IFR use and is
going to be permanently installed in an aircraft needs to be
approved for that specific make and model of aircraft. The FAA
will not approve a GPS installation for IFR use if the GPS unit
wasn't manufactured to the minimum specifications of Technical
Standard Order-129A (TSO-C129A). At this point in time, no
hand-held GPS unit meets the minimum specifications spelled
out in TSO-C129A. TSO-C129A specifies the criteria by which
an installed GPS system, intended for certification in IFR
operations, will be built. A hand-held, portable GPS is not built
to these specifications.


The pamphlet(FAA-P-8000-3) we previously mentioned is available
at "http://gps.faa.gov/Library/gps1.pdf" on the Internet. In
FAA-P-8000-3, chapter 1, page 1-7, the first paragraph under
section 1.3. Hand-held or portable GPS receivers may be used
as a supplement to Visual Flight Rules only.


If you have any further questions you should contact your local F. A.
A. FSDO for more information. We are an Air Carrier Office and
deal with the airlines. Your local FSDO will have Inspectors who
deal with Part 91 operators. From the address on your e-mail it
appears that you are in the Milwaukee FSDO area. There phone
number is (414) 486-2920. They also have an Internet web-site.
The address is: "http://www.faa.gov/fsdo/mke".


Thank You,
Inspector John Smith
FSDO "D"


Dear Mr. Smith,


Thank you for your response. Please see additional comments
and questions below.


Sincerely,


Steven P. McNicoll



> Dear Mr. Steven P. McNicoll,
> Your Bonanza was probably built in accordance with
> 14 CFR 23 (FAR 23), and if you intend to use the aircraft
> for IFR flight, it should have the equipment specified in
> 14 CFR 91.205.


Please understand that this is a completely hypothetical scenario,
I do not own a Bonanza. My hypothetical Bonanza contains all of
the instruments and equipment specified in 14 CFR 91.205.


> The hand-held GPS is not included in 91.205 because it is
> not approved for IFR flight.


If my aircraft contains all of the instruments and equipment
specified in 14 CFR 91.205, then I am in compliance with that
regulation. What regulation prevents me from using a device
that is not mentioned in 91.205?


> In fact no GPS systems are mentioned in 91.205, any GPS
> system that is approved for IFR use and is going to be
> permanently installed in an aircraft needs to be approved for
> that specific make and model of aircraft. The FAA will not
> approve a GPS installation for IFR use if the GPS unit wasn't
> manufactured to the minimum specifications of Technical
> Standard Order-129A (TSO-C129A). At this point in time,
> no hand-held GPS unit meets the minimum specifications
> spelled out in TSO-C129A. TSO-C129A specifies the
> criteria by which an installed GPS system, intended for
> certification in IFR operations, will be built.
> A hand-held, portable GPS is not built to these specifications.


I understand that, but I can find no regulation that requires a GPS
receiver that is used for IFR enroute flight to be permanently
installed in the aircraft or to meet the specifications of TSO C-129a.


> The pamphlet(FAA-P-8000-3) we previously mentioned is
> available at "http://gps.faa.gov/Library/gps1.pdf" on the
> Internet.
> In FAA-P-8000-3, chapter 1, page 1-7, the first paragraph
> under section 1.3. Hand-held or portable GPS receivers
> may be used as a supplement to Visual Flight Rules only.


I don't believe that pamphlet has the force of law. The FAA
publishes the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) to make
readily available to the aviation community the regulatory
requirements placed upon them. If a GPS receiver that did
not meet the standards of TSO C-129a was not to be used
during IFR flight, then there would be an FAR that required
any GPS receiver used during IFR flight to meet that standard.


> If you have any further questions you should contact your local F. A.
> A. FSDO for more information. We are an Air Carrier Office and
> deal with the airlines. Your local FSDO will have Inspectors who
> deal with Part 91 operators. From the address on your e-mail it
> appears that you are in the Milwaukee FSDO area. There phone
> number is (414) 486-2920. They also have an Internet web-site.
> The address is: "http://www.faa.gov/fsdo/mke".
> Thank You,
> Inspector John Smith
> FSDO "D"


I have contacted eleven of the fourteen FSDOs in the Great Lakes Region. I
gave them all this same scenario and asked them all the
same question. Seven of them responded, all stating that
navigation by handheld GPS receiver during enroute flight under
IFR is illegal, but none of them could cite any law that would be
violated by such use! It seems to me that if it is illegal, then there
must be a regulation that is being violated; if there is no regulation
being violated, then it is not illegal.

Sincerely,
Steven P. McNicoll


No further messages were received from FSDO "D".

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

Steven,
Have things changed? I see a lot of yoke mounted GPSs that are
most assuredly being used for IFR enroute. I realize your discussions
with the FSDOs took place in late '99, so I'm wondering what if anything
has changed -- or are there just a lot of folks stretching the rules?


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steven P. McNicoll ]
> Posted At: Saturday, July 01, 2006 09:22
> Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
> Conversation: Getting the MOCA
> Subject: Re: Getting the MOCA
>
>
> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
> news:r5vpg.115$_M.89@fed1read04...
> >
> > How many FSDO inspectors rebuffed your handheld GPS campaign a while
> back?
> >
>
> I assume you're referring to what appears below. I sent an email
message
> to
> eleven of fourteen FSDOs in the Great Lakes Region in December 1999.
Four
> responded by email and one by phone. I didn't include the telephone
> response in my report because I couldn't provide a verbatim record of
it.
>
>
>
> "I have a question regarding the use of a handheld GPS receiver
> during IFR enroute flight.
>
>
> Let's say I file from MBS direct to SEA in my BE36/A. My Bonanza
> has two nav/coms, ADF, GS receiver, DME, marker beacon receiver,
> transponder, encoder, and an autopilot. But I intend to use my
> handheld GPS receiver for enroute navigation, which I have previously
> determined will not cause interference with the navigation or
> communication
> system on my airplane. ATC clears me as filed and I proceed on my
merry
> way
> direct to Seattle.
>
>
> Does this operation violate any FAR?"
>
>
> I received E-mail responses from four FSDOs, I have changed only
> identification of offices and individuals.
>
>
> From FSDO "A":
>
>
> Dear Steven,
>
>
> Thank you for your question concerning GPS Navigation.
>
>
> You must comply with the limitations of your GPS. There isn't
> a handheld alive that is approved for IFR enroute or terminal
> navigation, so to answer your question, no, you cannot use the
> GPS for anything during your IFR Flight. I recommend that you
> review your GPS Manual provided by the factory.
>
>
> I hope this answers your question, Steven.
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
> John Doe
> FSDO "A"
>
>
> Dear Mr. Doe,
>
>
> Thank you for your prompt response.
>
>
> My question and scenario are completely hypothetical, I don't own a
> GPS (or a Bonanza, unfortunately), so I have no GPS manual to
> review. But I'm afraid you didn't answer my question; I wanted to
> know what regulation, if any, was being violated in the scenario.
> What FAR prohibits the use of a handheld GPS during enroute IFR
> flight? What regulation requires me to comply with the limitations
> of my GPS? What regulation requires the GPS, or any other nav
> system for that matter, to be approved for IFR enroute flight?
>
>
> Sincerely,
> Steven P. McNicoll
>
>
> No further messages were received from FSDO "A".
>
>
> From FSDO "B":
>
>
> Dear Steven,
>
>
> Does this operation violate any FAR?
>
>
> FAR - "singular" NO, "pural" YES
>
>
> or only if the FAA accident investigation team has to pry it out of
> your cold hands at the site of the crash, otherwise no one will know.
>
>
> Sorry, but I just can't pass up to opportunity to put a little humor
into
> my work. Seriously here is the"spin" that most FAA types put on
> the answer to this question.
>
>
> Hand held GPS units are not approved for flight into IFR conditions.
> Panel
> mount GPS units may be certified for enroute portions only,
> or the high dollar units that meet all the FAA's certification
> requirements can be used for enroute and approaches, these units
> are also panel mounted units.
>
>
> Further, the panel mounted units are to be installed by properly
> certificated technicians and the equipment list, weight and balance
> of the aircraft should reflect the additional equipment. (No the FAA
> doesn't make it easy.)
>
>
> So in the case of a handheld GPS for IFR flight, the unit is not
> certified for that use and is not authorized by FARs.
>
>
> Richard Roe
> FSDO "B"
>
>
> Dear Mr. Roe,
>
>
> Thank you for your response.
>
>
> I appreciate humor as much as anyone, but I don't see how we
> arrived "at the site of the crash". This operation presents no
> undue hazard.
>
>
> I'm aware that hand held GPS units are not approved for flight
> into IFR conditions, and that GPS installations CAN be approved
> for IFR flight. But after an extensive search, I cannot find any
> regulation REQUIRING that GPS have that approval in order to
> be used during IFR enroute flight.
>
>
> You say that this operation would violate several FARs, could
> you cite them please?
>
>
> Sincerely,
> Steven P. McNicoll
>
>
> No further messages were received from FSDO "B".
>
>
> From FSDO "C":
>
>
> Dear Steve,
>
>
> I am forwarding your question to our Avionics Inspector;
> Apollo Garmin. This is in his area of expertise.
>
>
> Thank you for using our website.
>
>
> Guy Fawkes
> FSDO "C"
>
>
> Steve,
>
>
> I got together with our Avionics Inspector and have an
> answer for you.
>
>
> "A PORTABLE GPS CANNOT BE APPROVED IN THE
> AIRCRAFT FOR INSTRUMENT FLIGHT RULES (IFR) OR
> VISUAL FLIGHT RULES UNLESS THE COMPLETE SYSTEM
> IS INSTALLED AND EVALUATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
> THE INTERIM POLICY GUIDANCE DATED MARCH 20, 1992,
> AS AMENDED, PERTAINING TO THE APPROVAL OF GPS
> EQUIPMENT."
>
>
> VFR only not IFR.
>
>
> Let me know if we can be of any further assistance.
>
>
> Guy Fawkes
> FSDO "C"
>
>
> Dear Mr. Fawkes,
>
>
> Thank you for your response. I understand that a portable
> GPS receiver cannot be approved for IFR flight, but what
> regulation prohibits a non-approved GPS receiver from
> being used during IFR flight?
>
>
> Steven P. McNicoll
>
>
> Steven,
>
>
> Per my Avionics Inspector the following 14CFR Paragraph
> answers your question (specifically para (b)(5):
> ----------------------------------
>  91.21 _ Portable Electronic Devices.
>
>
> (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no
> person may operate, nor may any operator or pilot in command
> of an aircraft allow the operation of, any portable electronic device
> on any of the following U.S.-registered civil aircraft:
>
>
> (1) Aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier operating
> certificate or an operating certificate; or
>
>
> (2) Any other aircraft while it is operated under IFR.
>
>
> (b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to-
>
>
> (1) Portable voice recorders;
>
>
> (2) Hearing aids;
>
>
> (3) Heart pacemakers;
>
>
> (4) Electric shavers; or
>
>
> (5) Any other portable electronic device that the operator of
> the aircraft has determined will not cause interference with the
> navigation or communication system of the aircraft on which it
> is to be used.
>
>
> (c) In the case of an aircraft operated by a holder of an air
> carrier operating certificate or an operating certificate, the
> determination required by paragraph (b)(5) of this section shall
> be made by that operator of the aircraft on which the particular
> device is to be used. In the case of other aircraft, the
> determination may be made by the pilot in command or other
> operator of the aircraft.
> ------------------------
>
>
> Guy Fawkes
> FSDO "C"
>
>
> Dear Mr. Fawkes,
>
>
> FAR 91.21(b)(5) permits the operation of any portable electronic
> device, other than a portable voice recorder, hearing aid, heart
> pacemaker,
> or electric shaver, that the operator of the aircraft has determined
will
> not cause interference with the navigation or communication system of
the
> aircraft on which it is to be used.
> Recall that in my scenario I stated that I had previously determined
> that my handheld GPS receiver does not cause interference with
> the navigation or communication system on my airplane. It seems
> to me that I have complied with FAR 91.21 to the letter.
>
>
> Steven P. McNicoll
>
>
> No further messages were received from FSDO "C"
>
>
> From FSDO "D":
>
>
> Dear Mr. Steven P. McNicoll,
>
>
> In response to your question, does this operation violate
> any FAR?
>
>
> Yes, it does.
>
>
> You may file IFR as a (slant) /A.
>
>
> The handheld GPS is not acceptable as RNAV and is contrary to:
>
>
> 14 Code of Federal Regulations(CFR), Part 21 sub part K and O.
>
>
> 14 CFR 23.1307
>
>
> 14 CFR 23.1309(b)
>
>
> 14 CFR 91.21
>
>
> 14 CFR 91.205
>
>
> These are referenced in FAA pamphlet FAA-P-8000-3.
>
>
> Thank you for your interest in aviation safety. Please call if you
have
> any
> questions, (987) 654-3210.
>
>
> Inspector John Smith
> FSDO "D"
>
>
> Dear Mr. Smith,
>
>
> Thank you for your response. Please see below for additional
> questions and comments.
>
>
> Steven P. McNicoll
>
>
>
> > Dear Mr. Steven P. McNicoll
> > In response to your question, does this operation violate
> > any FAR?
> > Yes, it does.
> > You may file IFR as a (slant) /A.
> > The handheld GPS is not acceptable as RNAV
>
>
> What regulation specifies what is acceptable and what is not
> acceptable as RNAV?
>
>
> > and is contrary to:
> > 14 Code of Federal Regulations(CFR), Part 21 sub part K and O.
>
>
> How can that be? A handheld GPS is not a part or an appliance,
> it is not installed in or attached to the aircraft. To my knowledge
> there is no regulation that requires a GPS receiver to comply with
> a TSO.
>
>
> > 14 CFR 23.1307
>
>
> I don't see how Part 23 is applicable at all, this does not involve
> any change to a type certificate.
>
> A handheld GPS receiver is not equipment necessary for the
> airplane to operate at the maximum operating altitude or in the
> kinds of operations and meteorological conditions for which it
> is certified. Why would it need to be included in the type design?
> Given that it is a portable device, how could it be included in the
> type design?
>
>
>
> > 14 CFR 23.1309(b)
>
>
> 14 CFR 23.1309(b) refers to installed equipment, but a
> handheld GPS is not installed equipment.
>
>
> > 14 CFR 91.21
>
>
> Recall that I had previously determined my handheld GPS does
> not cause interference with the navigation or communication
> system on my airplane.
>
>
> > 14 CFR 91.205
>
>
> How is this regulation being violated? My aircraft contains all
> of the instruments and equipment specified 14 CFR 91.205 for
> IFR operations, and those instruments and items of equipment
> are in operable condition.
>
>
> > These are referenced in FAA pamphlet FAA-P-8000-3.
>
>
> How may I obtain this pamphlet?
>
>
> > Thank you for your interest in aviation safety.
> > Please call if you have any questions, (987) 654-3210.
> > Inspector John Smith
> > FSDO "D"
>
>
> Dear Mr. Steven P. McNicoll,
>
> Your Bonanza was probably built in accordance with 14 CFR 23
> (FAR 23), and if you intend to use the aircraft for IFR flight, it
> should have the equipment specified in 14 CFR 91.205. The
> hand-held GPS is not included in 91.205 because it is not
> approved for IFR flight. In fact no GPS systems are mentioned
> in 91.205, any GPS system that is approved for IFR use and is
> going to be permanently installed in an aircraft needs to be
> approved for that specific make and model of aircraft. The FAA
> will not approve a GPS installation for IFR use if the GPS unit
> wasn't manufactured to the minimum specifications of Technical
> Standard Order-129A (TSO-C129A). At this point in time, no
> hand-held GPS unit meets the minimum specifications spelled
> out in TSO-C129A. TSO-C129A specifies the criteria by which
> an installed GPS system, intended for certification in IFR
> operations, will be built. A hand-held, portable GPS is not built
> to these specifications.
>
>
> The pamphlet(FAA-P-8000-3) we previously mentioned is available
> at "http://gps.faa.gov/Library/gps1.pdf" on the Internet. In
> FAA-P-8000-3, chapter 1, page 1-7, the first paragraph under
> section 1.3. Hand-held or portable GPS receivers may be used
> as a supplement to Visual Flight Rules only.
>
>
> If you have any further questions you should contact your local F. A.
> A. FSDO for more information. We are an Air Carrier Office and
> deal with the airlines. Your local FSDO will have Inspectors who
> deal with Part 91 operators. From the address on your e-mail it
> appears that you are in the Milwaukee FSDO area. There phone
> number is (414) 486-2920. They also have an Internet web-site.
> The address is: "http://www.faa.gov/fsdo/mke".
>
>
> Thank You,
> Inspector John Smith
> FSDO "D"
>
>
> Dear Mr. Smith,
>
>
> Thank you for your response. Please see additional comments
> and questions below.
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
> Steven P. McNicoll
>
>
>
> > Dear Mr. Steven P. McNicoll,
> > Your Bonanza was probably built in accordance with
> > 14 CFR 23 (FAR 23), and if you intend to use the aircraft
> > for IFR flight, it should have the equipment specified in
> > 14 CFR 91.205.
>
>
> Please understand that this is a completely hypothetical scenario,
> I do not own a Bonanza. My hypothetical Bonanza contains all of
> the instruments and equipment specified in 14 CFR 91.205.
>
>
> > The hand-held GPS is not included in 91.205 because it is
> > not approved for IFR flight.
>
>
> If my aircraft contains all of the instruments and equipment
> specified in 14 CFR 91.205, then I am in compliance with that
> regulation. What regulation prevents me from using a device
> that is not mentioned in 91.205?
>
>
> > In fact no GPS systems are mentioned in 91.205, any GPS
> > system that is approved for IFR use and is going to be
> > permanently installed in an aircraft needs to be approved for
> > that specific make and model of aircraft. The FAA will not
> > approve a GPS installation for IFR use if the GPS unit wasn't
> > manufactured to the minimum specifications of Technical
> > Standard Order-129A (TSO-C129A). At this point in time,
> > no hand-held GPS unit meets the minimum specifications
> > spelled out in TSO-C129A. TSO-C129A specifies the
> > criteria by which an installed GPS system, intended for
> > certification in IFR operations, will be built.
> > A hand-held, portable GPS is not built to these specifications.
>
>
> I understand that, but I can find no regulation that requires a GPS
> receiver that is used for IFR enroute flight to be permanently
> installed in the aircraft or to meet the specifications of TSO C-129a.
>
>
> > The pamphlet(FAA-P-8000-3) we previously mentioned is
> > available at "http://gps.faa.gov/Library/gps1.pdf" on the
> > Internet.
> > In FAA-P-8000-3, chapter 1, page 1-7, the first paragraph
> > under section 1.3. Hand-held or portable GPS receivers
> > may be used as a supplement to Visual Flight Rules only.
>
>
> I don't believe that pamphlet has the force of law. The FAA
> publishes the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) to make
> readily available to the aviation community the regulatory
> requirements placed upon them. If a GPS receiver that did
> not meet the standards of TSO C-129a was not to be used
> during IFR flight, then there would be an FAR that required
> any GPS receiver used during IFR flight to meet that standard.
>
>
> > If you have any further questions you should contact your local F.
A.
> > A. FSDO for more information. We are an Air Carrier Office and
> > deal with the airlines. Your local FSDO will have Inspectors who
> > deal with Part 91 operators. From the address on your e-mail it
> > appears that you are in the Milwaukee FSDO area. There phone
> > number is (414) 486-2920. They also have an Internet web-site.
> > The address is: "http://www.faa.gov/fsdo/mke".
> > Thank You,
> > Inspector John Smith
> > FSDO "D"
>
>
> I have contacted eleven of the fourteen FSDOs in the Great Lakes
Region.
> I
> gave them all this same scenario and asked them all the
> same question. Seven of them responded, all stating that
> navigation by handheld GPS receiver during enroute flight under
> IFR is illegal, but none of them could cite any law that would be
> violated by such use! It seems to me that if it is illegal, then
there
> must be a regulation that is being violated; if there is no regulation
> being violated, then it is not illegal.
>
> Sincerely,
> Steven P. McNicoll
>
>
> No further messages were received from FSDO "D".
>
>
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Jim Carter" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> Steven,
> Have things changed? I see a lot of yoke mounted GPSs that are
> most assuredly being used for IFR enroute. I realize your discussions
> with the FSDOs took place in late '99, so I'm wondering what if anything
> has changed -- or are there just a lot of folks stretching the rules?
>

I don't believe anything has changed. Any fixture meant to hold a handheld
unit that is permanently mounted to the aircraft would be considered
installed equipment and be subject to Part 23, but the GPS itself would not
be.

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

So by installing a yoke mounting clamp permanently in the a/c (and
making the appropriate paper work entries), the handheld GPS becomes
usable (if certified) for IFR enroute and maybe approach?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steven P. McNicoll ]
> Posted At: Saturday, July 01, 2006 10:08
> Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
> Conversation: Getting the MOCA
> Subject: Re: Getting the MOCA
>
>
> "Jim Carter" > wrote in message
> . com...
> >
> > Steven,
> > Have things changed? I see a lot of yoke mounted GPSs that are
> > most assuredly being used for IFR enroute. I realize your
discussions
> > with the FSDOs took place in late '99, so I'm wondering what if
anything
> > has changed -- or are there just a lot of folks stretching the
rules?
> >
>
> I don't believe anything has changed. Any fixture meant to hold a
> handheld
> unit that is permanently mounted to the aircraft would be considered
> installed equipment and be subject to Part 23, but the GPS itself
would
> not
> be.

[Jose[_1_]]

> Seven of them responded, all stating that
> navigation by handheld GPS receiver during enroute flight under
> IFR is illegal, but none of them could cite any law that would be
> violated by such use! It seems to me that if it is illegal, then there
> must be a regulation that is being violated; if there is no regulation
> being violated, then it is not illegal.
>
> Sincerely,
> Steven P. McNicoll
>
>
> No further messages were received from FSDO "D".

tee hee

There are two problems I see here, one is that the laws are not written
in the FARs (or CFR). They are written ad hoc case by case after each
crash, loosely modeled on the FARs. This is just one example of how
what is written is not what is followed.

But the other issue is the definition of the word "use". You can =use=
a ham sandwich. You just can't rely on it (i.e. turn off all the other
equipment and divine your way in IMC using the holes of the swiss chesse
to guide you). And if the ham sandwich (or portable GPS) differs in its
readings from the approved devices, you are required to use the approved
devices' readings.

The rule that covers this is the same rule that covers the requirment to
have the IFR equipment on in the first place. (or, let me ask you - do
you think it is legal to fly an airplane in IMC under IFR with the full
complement of approved instrumentation, with all of it in the OFF position?

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Sam Spade]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
> news:sYrpg.101$_M.9@fed1read04...
>
>>Asked and answered previously.
>>
>
>
> Your answer was wrong.
>
>
>
>>That is not correct. Your confusing Part 71 with Part 95. Part 71
>>provides the Class E airspace for a Victor Airway. Part 95 provides the
>>minimum altitudes for a Victor Airway. They are not the same.
>>
>
>
> I'm confused? Then please enlighten me. Cite the regulation that supports
> your assertion that Victor airways do not exist below the MEA or MOCA beyond
> 22 miles from the VOR.
>
>
I cited it previously. You either cannot or will not read the references.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
news:fLwpg.117$_M.101@fed1read04...
>
> I cited it previously. You either cannot or will not read the references.
>

You provided no reference.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Jim Carter" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> So by installing a yoke mounting clamp permanently in the a/c (and
> making the appropriate paper work entries), the handheld GPS becomes
> usable (if certified) for IFR enroute and maybe approach?
>

No, by doing the appropriate paperwork for the permanently installed yoke
mounting clamp that installation is legal. The handheld GPS was already
usable for IFR enroute use in US controlled airspace.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> tee hee
>
> There are two problems I see here, one is that the laws are not written in
> the FARs (or CFR). They are written ad hoc case by case after each crash,
> loosely modeled on the FARs. This is just one example of how what is
> written is not what is followed.
>
> But the other issue is the definition of the word "use". You can =use= a
> ham sandwich. You just can't rely on it (i.e. turn off all the other
> equipment and divine your way in IMC using the holes of the swiss chesse
> to guide you). And if the ham sandwich (or portable GPS) differs in its
> readings from the approved devices, you are required to use the approved
> devices' readings.
>
> The rule that covers this is the same rule that covers the requirment to
> have the IFR equipment on in the first place. (or, let me ask you - do
> you think it is legal to fly an airplane in IMC under IFR with the full
> complement of approved instrumentation, with all of it in the OFF
> position?
>

No. But nobody is advocating that.

[Jose[_1_]]

> No. But nobody is advocating that [(flying IMC with all equipment OFF)].

In that case I maintain that we (FSVO "we") and they (FSVO "they") are
getting hung up on the word "use", referring to "rely on".

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Jose" > wrote in message
.com...
>
> In that case I maintain that we (FSVO "we") and they (FSVO "they") are
> getting hung up on the word "use", referring to "rely on".
>

What's FSVO?

[Jose[_1_]]

> What's FSVO?

"for some value of". I am slightly nonspecificating the words "we" and
"they".

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Jose" > wrote in message
.com...
>> What's FSVO?
>
> "for some value of". I am slightly nonspecificating the words "we" and
> "they".
>

What's nonspecificating?

[Jose[_1_]]

>>>What's FSVO?
>> "for some value of". I am slightly nonspecificating the words "we" and
>> "they".
> What's nonspecificating?

Making less specific, or more nonspecific.

"We are getting thrown by the usage of the word 'use'." is an example -
the word "we" could mean you and I, it could mean everyone on this
newsgroup, it could mean all the posters that responded, it could mean
all the turkeys that disagree with me... and no doubt somebody will
interpret the word to include himself and disagree that "we" is
appropriate. But there is "some value of 'we'" for which (I claim) the
statement is true.

Similarly "they" could refer to the other turkeys that disagree with me
<g>, the FAA, aliens, whatever. There is some value of "they" for which
the statement is true.

By making the statement, I am implying (but will now explicitly state)
that the values of "we" and "they" are reasonable values in the context
of the discussion, but it is not important exactly what those values are
to the point I'm trying to make.

The term comes from math and science - as in "for some value of x, the
derivative of the function is zero". Geeks have expanded the usage of
"value" so that it includes common usages of other words.

Jose
--
2+2=5 for extremely small values of 5.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Newps]

Jim Carter wrote:

> So by installing a yoke mounting clamp permanently in the a/c (and
> making the appropriate paper work entries), the handheld GPS becomes
> usable (if certified) for IFR enroute and maybe approach?

A yoke mount with a clamp is not permanently installed, no matter what
you say in your logbook. The handheld GPS is never legal for enroute IFR.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> The handheld GPS is never legal for enroute IFR.
>

What law is violated by such use?