currency

[Rick McPherson]

Hello All, I've been lurking in the shadows of this group for the
duration of my ifr training and subsequent passage of my ride. Thanks
to all of you for the great info. Now, my question is about
maintaining currency, the Regs state:"No person may act as pilot in
command under IFR or in weather conditions less than the minimums
prescribed for VFR, unless within the preceding six calendar months
that person has performed: (i) at least six instrument approaches;
(ii) holding procedures; and (iii) intercepting and tracking courses
through the use of navigation systems."
1. Can I file ifr in vfr or marginal weather, fly 3 or however many
approaches, and use them to remain current, or do I need to be "solely
by reference to the instruments" i.e., actual or simulated with a
safety pilot in order for them (approaches) to count?
2. How many of you use "handheld gps onboard" in the remarks field and
ask for "direct" enroute. Thanks in advance.

Rick


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Hankal]

>2. How many of you use "handheld gps onboard" in the remarks field and
>ask for "direct" enroute

I put VFR GPS in my remarks field. However I never file direct, always airways.
Once on the airway I may ask direct or get it without asking?
I keep current, but seldom get to fly approaches in IMC, I use my goggles too.
Hank

[Peter Clark]

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 07:50:06 -0400, Rick McPherson
> wrote:

>Hello All, I've been lurking in the shadows of this group for the
>duration of my ifr training and subsequent passage of my ride. Thanks
>to all of you for the great info. Now, my question is about
>maintaining currency, the Regs state:"No person may act as pilot in
>command under IFR or in weather conditions less than the minimums
>prescribed for VFR, unless within the preceding six calendar months
>that person has performed: (i) at least six instrument approaches;
>(ii) holding procedures; and (iii) intercepting and tracking courses
>through the use of navigation systems."
>1. Can I file ifr in vfr or marginal weather, fly 3 or however many
>approaches, and use them to remain current, or do I need to be "solely
>by reference to the instruments" i.e., actual or simulated with a
>safety pilot in order for them (approaches) to count?

If you were not current it would be a violation to file IFR, since you
weren't current and thus didn't meet the parts of 61.57(c) you quoted.
To file IFR you have to be current, regardless of whether it's IMC or
not. Combined with that, is the part of 61.57(c)(1) you omitted (but
alluded to) above, which starts "(1) For the purpose of obtaining
instrument experience in an aircraft (other than a glider), performed
and logged under actual or simulated instrument conditions, either in
flight in the appropriate category of aircraft for the instrument
privileges sought or in a flight simulator or flight training device
that is representative of the aircraft category for the instrument
privileges sought" - meaning safety pilot, or instructor if VMC, or
done while still current in actual IMC.

>2. How many of you use "handheld gps onboard" in the remarks field and
>ask for "direct" enroute. Thanks in advance.

I believe this would be considered a violation if you're caught. I
know it's only advisory, but the AIM in section 1-1-19, section
(d)(1)(a) "General Requirements - 1 Authorization to conduct any GPS
operation under IFR requires that (a) GPS navigation equipment used
must be approved in accordance with the requirements specified in
Technical Standard Order (TSO) C-129, or equivalent, and the
installation must be done in accordance with Advisory Circular AC
20-138 or 20-130A." It also has a table which shows which classes of
GPS units are approved for what, based on their TSO-C129 approvals,
and handheld and VFR panel-mount are not checked off in the approved
"IFR enroute" column, and has a footnote which re-iterates a previous
"VFR and hand-held GPS systems are not authorized for IFR navigation,
instrument approaches, or as a primary instrument flight reference.
During IFR operations they may be considered only an aid to
situational awareness" statement.

Good luck!

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Peter Clark > said:
>On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 07:50:06 -0400, Rick McPherson
> wrote:
>>2. How many of you use "handheld gps onboard" in the remarks field and
>>ask for "direct" enroute. Thanks in advance.
>
>I believe this would be considered a violation if you're caught. I

A violation? Not if he didn't ask for or recieve a GPS routing. What do
you is you ask for a radar vector direct and follow it using your GPS. In
some situations, you can even prompt them for it by saying "can you give
me a radar vector 332 degrees direct to ALB". You're not using the GPS
as primary nav, you're using the radar vector as primary nav, and
monitoring it using the GPS. If the GPS died, you'd still be able to fly
the heading bug on your DG.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
<<<You've got to love a newsreader with a menu option named "Kill this Author".
<<Does it work? And if so, is the death traceable?
<Nah, but Dave the Resurrector will just bring 'em back again.

[Roy Smith]

Rick McPherson > wrote:

> Hello All, I've been lurking in the shadows of this group for the
> duration of my ifr training and subsequent passage of my ride. Thanks
> to all of you for the great info. Now, my question is about
> maintaining currency, the Regs state:"No person may act as pilot in
> command under IFR or in weather conditions less than the minimums
> prescribed for VFR, unless within the preceding six calendar months
> that person has performed: (i) at least six instrument approaches;
> (ii) holding procedures; and (iii) intercepting and tracking courses
> through the use of navigation systems."

The above quote comes from 61.57(c), but you left out almost a whole
paragrpah. The full quote is:

61.57 Recent flight experience: Pilot in command.
[...]
(c) Instrument experience. Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this
section, no person may act as pilot in command under IFR or in weather
conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR, unless within the
preceding 6 calendar months, that person has:

(1) For the purpose of obtaining instrument experience in an aircraft
(other than a glider), performed and logged under actual or simulated
instrument conditions, either in flight in the appropriate category of
aircraft for the instrument privileges sought or in a flight simulator
or flight training device that is representative of the aircraft
category for the instrument privileges sought

(i) At least six instrument approaches;

(ii) Holding procedures; and

(iii) Intercepting and tracking courses through the use of navigation
systems.

> 1. Can I file ifr in vfr or marginal weather, fly 3 or however many
> approaches, and use them to remain current, or do I need to be "solely
> by reference to the instruments" i.e., actual or simulated with a
> safety pilot in order for them (approaches) to count?

The paragraph you omitted gives you the answer; they must be "performed
and logged under actual or simulated instrument conditions".

[Peter Clark]

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 14:24:01 +0000 (UTC),
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

>In a previous article, Peter Clark > said:
>>On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 07:50:06 -0400, Rick McPherson
> wrote:
>>>2. How many of you use "handheld gps onboard" in the remarks field and
>>>ask for "direct" enroute. Thanks in advance.
>>
>>I believe this would be considered a violation if you're caught. I
>
>A violation? Not if he didn't ask for or recieve a GPS routing. What do
>you is you ask for a radar vector direct and follow it using your GPS. In
>some situations, you can even prompt them for it by saying "can you give
>me a radar vector 332 degrees direct to ALB". You're not using the GPS
>as primary nav, you're using the radar vector as primary nav, and
>monitoring it using the GPS. If the GPS died, you'd still be able to fly
>the heading bug on your DG.

Your use would be covered under the "situational awareness" clause. I
bet you don't file /G or say "handheld GPS onboard" in your flight
plans with only a handheld, right? His intent clearly appears to be
using the handheld GPS for direct routing (otherwise why would there
be a comment in the flight plan and the request for direct enroute?)
and that's clearly against the objective of the rule. Basically, if
you only have a handheld, rule says you can't use it for anything
other than a backup to what's in the aircraft, why mention it in the
first place? It doesn't appear to buy anything in the IFR enroute
environment.

[Newps]

Peter Clark wrote:
I
> bet you don't say "handheld GPS onboard" in your flight
> plans with only a handheld, right?

Why wouldn't you say "handheld on board" if you didn't actually have a
handheld?


His intent clearly appears to be
> using the handheld GPS for direct routing (otherwise why would there
> be a comment in the flight plan and the request for direct enroute?)

Because you get the vector and then use your handheld. That is legal.


>

[C Kingsbury]

Is there any benefit to noting "handheld" or "VFR GPS" in the remarks? Or do
you just file /U or whatever and ask for a radar vector once you're up
there?

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Peter Clark wrote:
> I
> > bet you don't say "handheld GPS onboard" in your flight
> > plans with only a handheld, right?
>
> Why wouldn't you say "handheld on board" if you didn't actually have a
> handheld?
>
>
> His intent clearly appears to be
> > using the handheld GPS for direct routing (otherwise why would there
> > be a comment in the flight plan and the request for direct enroute?)
>
> Because you get the vector and then use your handheld. That is legal.
>
>
> >

[Peter Clark]

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 12:16:32 -0600, Newps > wrote:

>
>
>Peter Clark wrote:

> His intent clearly appears to be
>> using the handheld GPS for direct routing (otherwise why would there
>> be a comment in the flight plan and the request for direct enroute?)
>
>Because you get the vector and then use your handheld. That is legal.

OK, but the original post didn't say anything about vectors. It said
"put a comment in the flight plan 'handheld gps onboard'" - to me that
implys the poster is attempting to tell ATC "I can do RNAV /G, I don't
really have that equipment so I can't file /G, but hey it's cool, you
can give me that direct routing anyway because I have this neat
handheld GPS". Is that legal? If not, why bother with the "handheld
gps onboard" comment? It doesn't make any difference to ATC - vectors
are vectors, whatever you're using to turn to them, and if it's not
legal for RNAV it still doesn't matter whether you have it, right?

[Rick McPherson]

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 15:01:22 -0400, Peter Clark
> wrote:

>On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 12:16:32 -0600, Newps > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Peter Clark wrote:
>
>> His intent clearly appears to be
>>> using the handheld GPS for direct routing (otherwise why would there
>>> be a comment in the flight plan and the request for direct enroute?)
>>
>>Because you get the vector and then use your handheld. That is legal.
>
>OK, but the original post didn't say anything about vectors. It said
>"put a comment in the flight plan 'handheld gps onboard'" - to me that
>implys the poster is attempting to tell ATC "I can do RNAV /G, I don't
>really have that equipment so I can't file /G, but hey it's cool, you
>can give me that direct routing anyway because I have this neat
>handheld GPS". Is that legal? If not, why bother with the "handheld
>gps onboard" comment? It doesn't make any difference to ATC - vectors
>are vectors, whatever you're using to turn to them, and if it's not
>legal for RNAV it still doesn't matter whether you have it, right?
Peter,

Your right. I have no intention of flying strictly via garmin 195,
that would be illegal. I file /U. However, through some interesting
discussion here, I do see how atc can accommodate me legally. I fly in
Western PA and am rarely out of radar coverage. thanks for your help.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Rick McPherson]

Thanks RoyOn Sat, 30 Oct 2004 11:08:21 -0400, Roy Smith
> wrote:

>Rick McPherson > wrote:
>
>> Hello All, I've been lurking in the shadows of this group for the
>> duration of my ifr training and subsequent passage of my ride. Thanks
>> to all of you for the great info. Now, my question is about
>> maintaining currency, the Regs state:"No person may act as pilot in
>> command under IFR or in weather conditions less than the minimums
>> prescribed for VFR, unless within the preceding six calendar months
>> that person has performed: (i) at least six instrument approaches;
>> (ii) holding procedures; and (iii) intercepting and tracking courses
>> through the use of navigation systems."
>
>The above quote comes from 61.57(c), but you left out almost a whole
>paragrpah. The full quote is:
>
>61.57 Recent flight experience: Pilot in command.
>[...]
> (c) Instrument experience. Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this
>section, no person may act as pilot in command under IFR or in weather
>conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR, unless within the
>preceding 6 calendar months, that person has:
>
> (1) For the purpose of obtaining instrument experience in an aircraft
>(other than a glider), performed and logged under actual or simulated
>instrument conditions, either in flight in the appropriate category of
>aircraft for the instrument privileges sought or in a flight simulator
>or flight training device that is representative of the aircraft
>category for the instrument privileges sought
>
> (i) At least six instrument approaches;
>
> (ii) Holding procedures; and
>
> (iii) Intercepting and tracking courses through the use of navigation
>systems.
>
>> 1. Can I file ifr in vfr or marginal weather, fly 3 or however many
>> approaches, and use them to remain current, or do I need to be "solely
>> by reference to the instruments" i.e., actual or simulated with a
>> safety pilot in order for them (approaches) to count?
>
>The paragraph you omitted gives you the answer; they must be "performed
>and logged under actual or simulated instrument conditions".



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Peter Clark]

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 16:02:36 -0400, Rick McPherson
> wrote:


>Your right. I have no intention of flying strictly via garmin 195,
>that would be illegal. I file /U. However, through some interesting
>discussion here, I do see how atc can accommodate me legally. I fly in
>Western PA and am rarely out of radar coverage. thanks for your help.

We both learned something today. Seems like the presence of radar is
they key - vector monitoring via handheld GPS should be OK, just have
the good 'ol standbys ready incase the radar craps out :)

Take care,
P

[Newps]

C Kingsbury wrote:
> Is there any benefit to noting "handheld" or "VFR GPS" in the remarks? Or do
> you just file /U or whatever and ask for a radar vector once you're up
> there?
>

You ask for a vector and also, in the same breath, tell him what heading
will be good.

[Newps]

Peter Clark wrote:

> On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 12:16:32 -0600, Newps > wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Peter Clark wrote:
>
>
>> His intent clearly appears to be
>>
>>>using the handheld GPS for direct routing (otherwise why would there
>>>be a comment in the flight plan and the request for direct enroute?)
>>
>>Because you get the vector and then use your handheld. That is legal.
>
>
> OK, but the original post didn't say anything about vectors. It said
> "put a comment in the flight plan 'handheld gps onboard'" - to me that
> implys the poster is attempting to tell ATC "I can do RNAV /G,

No, putting /G in your flightplan implies your /G. Handheld GPS will
get you the vector which is essentially a direct clearance.


I don't
> really have that equipment so I can't file /G, but hey it's cool, you
> can give me that direct routing anyway because I have this neat
> handheld GPS". Is that legal?

Yes, because legally it's a vector, not a direct clearance.


If not, why bother with the "handheld
> gps onboard" comment? It doesn't make any difference to ATC - vectors
> are vectors, whatever you're using to turn to them, and if it's not
> legal for RNAV it still doesn't matter whether you have it, right?
>

The pilot is not using GPS for the vector. He's telling ATC that a
particular heading will take him to where he wants to go. So ATC gives
him that heading, then the pilot promptly ignores it and flies the GPS
course line. That is the legal way to go direct with any GPS that is
not IFR certified.

[Matt Whiting]

Rick McPherson wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 15:01:22 -0400, Peter Clark
> > wrote:
>
>
>>On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 12:16:32 -0600, Newps > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Peter Clark wrote:
>>
>>> His intent clearly appears to be
>>>
>>>>using the handheld GPS for direct routing (otherwise why would there
>>>>be a comment in the flight plan and the request for direct enroute?)
>>>
>>>Because you get the vector and then use your handheld. That is legal.
>>
>>OK, but the original post didn't say anything about vectors. It said
>>"put a comment in the flight plan 'handheld gps onboard'" - to me that
>>implys the poster is attempting to tell ATC "I can do RNAV /G, I don't
>>really have that equipment so I can't file /G, but hey it's cool, you
>>can give me that direct routing anyway because I have this neat
>>handheld GPS". Is that legal? If not, why bother with the "handheld
>>gps onboard" comment? It doesn't make any difference to ATC - vectors
>>are vectors, whatever you're using to turn to them, and if it's not
>>legal for RNAV it still doesn't matter whether you have it, right?
>
> Peter,
>
> Your right. I have no intention of flying strictly via garmin 195,
> that would be illegal. I file /U. However, through some interesting
> discussion here, I do see how atc can accommodate me legally. I fly in
> Western PA and am rarely out of radar coverage. thanks for your help.

Unless you fly over Tidioute VOR. Every time I fly over that, I am out
of radar contact for 10-15 miles.


Matt

[Rick McPherson]

Thanks Newps, your input in this thread has been most helpful
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 14:58:51 -0600, Newps > wrote:

>
>
>Peter Clark wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 12:16:32 -0600, Newps > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Peter Clark wrote:
>>
>>
>>> His intent clearly appears to be
>>>
>>>>using the handheld GPS for direct routing (otherwise why would there
>>>>be a comment in the flight plan and the request for direct enroute?)
>>>
>>>Because you get the vector and then use your handheld. That is legal.
>>
>>
>> OK, but the original post didn't say anything about vectors. It said
>> "put a comment in the flight plan 'handheld gps onboard'" - to me that
>> implys the poster is attempting to tell ATC "I can do RNAV /G,
>
>No, putting /G in your flightplan implies your /G. Handheld GPS will
>get you the vector which is essentially a direct clearance.
>
>
> I don't
>> really have that equipment so I can't file /G, but hey it's cool, you
>> can give me that direct routing anyway because I have this neat
>> handheld GPS". Is that legal?
>
>Yes, because legally it's a vector, not a direct clearance.
>
>
> If not, why bother with the "handheld
>> gps onboard" comment? It doesn't make any difference to ATC - vectors
>> are vectors, whatever you're using to turn to them, and if it's not
>> legal for RNAV it still doesn't matter whether you have it, right?
>>
>
>The pilot is not using GPS for the vector. He's telling ATC that a
>particular heading will take him to where he wants to go. So ATC gives
>him that heading, then the pilot promptly ignores it and flies the GPS
>course line. That is the legal way to go direct with any GPS that is
>not IFR certified.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Rick McPherson]

Hi Matt, I'm familiar with Tidioute. Losing contact also occurs going
into Bedford also. As we get into the mountains coverage can sometimes
be sketchy, but, for the most part we have it pretty nice here.
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 20:05:20 -0400, Matt Whiting
> wrote:

>Rick McPherson wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 15:01:22 -0400, Peter Clark
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 12:16:32 -0600, Newps > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Peter Clark wrote:
>>>
>>>> His intent clearly appears to be
>>>>
>>>>>using the handheld GPS for direct routing (otherwise why would there
>>>>>be a comment in the flight plan and the request for direct enroute?)
>>>>
>>>>Because you get the vector and then use your handheld. That is legal.
>>>
>>>OK, but the original post didn't say anything about vectors. It said
>>>"put a comment in the flight plan 'handheld gps onboard'" - to me that
>>>implys the poster is attempting to tell ATC "I can do RNAV /G, I don't
>>>really have that equipment so I can't file /G, but hey it's cool, you
>>>can give me that direct routing anyway because I have this neat
>>>handheld GPS". Is that legal? If not, why bother with the "handheld
>>>gps onboard" comment? It doesn't make any difference to ATC - vectors
>>>are vectors, whatever you're using to turn to them, and if it's not
>>>legal for RNAV it still doesn't matter whether you have it, right?
>>
>> Peter,
>>
>> Your right. I have no intention of flying strictly via garmin 195,
>> that would be illegal. I file /U. However, through some interesting
>> discussion here, I do see how atc can accommodate me legally. I fly in
>> Western PA and am rarely out of radar coverage. thanks for your help.
>
>Unless you fly over Tidioute VOR. Every time I fly over that, I am out
>of radar contact for 10-15 miles.
>
>
>Matt



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[[email protected]]

Flying direct is not a "GPS operation", even if you are using a GPS to
do it.




On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 09:54:29 -0400, Peter Clark
> wrote:

>On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 07:50:06 -0400, Rick McPherson
> wrote:
>
>>Hello All, I've been lurking in the shadows of this group for the
>>duration of my ifr training and subsequent passage of my ride. Thanks
>>to all of you for the great info. Now, my question is about
>>maintaining currency, the Regs state:"No person may act as pilot in
>>command under IFR or in weather conditions less than the minimums
>>prescribed for VFR, unless within the preceding six calendar months
>>that person has performed: (i) at least six instrument approaches;
>>(ii) holding procedures; and (iii) intercepting and tracking courses
>>through the use of navigation systems."
>>1. Can I file ifr in vfr or marginal weather, fly 3 or however many
>>approaches, and use them to remain current, or do I need to be "solely
>>by reference to the instruments" i.e., actual or simulated with a
>>safety pilot in order for them (approaches) to count?
>
>If you were not current it would be a violation to file IFR, since you
>weren't current and thus didn't meet the parts of 61.57(c) you quoted.
>To file IFR you have to be current, regardless of whether it's IMC or
>not. Combined with that, is the part of 61.57(c)(1) you omitted (but
>alluded to) above, which starts "(1) For the purpose of obtaining
>instrument experience in an aircraft (other than a glider), performed
>and logged under actual or simulated instrument conditions, either in
>flight in the appropriate category of aircraft for the instrument
>privileges sought or in a flight simulator or flight training device
>that is representative of the aircraft category for the instrument
>privileges sought" - meaning safety pilot, or instructor if VMC, or
>done while still current in actual IMC.
>
>>2. How many of you use "handheld gps onboard" in the remarks field and
>>ask for "direct" enroute. Thanks in advance.
>
>I believe this would be considered a violation if you're caught. I
>know it's only advisory, but the AIM in section 1-1-19, section
>(d)(1)(a) "General Requirements - 1 Authorization to conduct any GPS
>operation under IFR requires that (a) GPS navigation equipment used
>must be approved in accordance with the requirements specified in
>Technical Standard Order (TSO) C-129, or equivalent, and the
>installation must be done in accordance with Advisory Circular AC
>20-138 or 20-130A." It also has a table which shows which classes of
>GPS units are approved for what, based on their TSO-C129 approvals,
>and handheld and VFR panel-mount are not checked off in the approved
>"IFR enroute" column, and has a footnote which re-iterates a previous
>"VFR and hand-held GPS systems are not authorized for IFR navigation,
>instrument approaches, or as a primary instrument flight reference.
>During IFR operations they may be considered only an aid to
>situational awareness" statement.
>
>Good luck!

[[email protected]]

I think you need to define just what a "GPS operation" is.


On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 09:54:29 -0400, Peter Clark
> wrote:

>On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 07:50:06 -0400, Rick McPherson
> wrote:
>
>>Hello All, I've been lurking in the shadows of this group for the
>>duration of my ifr training and subsequent passage of my ride. Thanks
>>to all of you for the great info. Now, my question is about
>>maintaining currency, the Regs state:"No person may act as pilot in
>>command under IFR or in weather conditions less than the minimums
>>prescribed for VFR, unless within the preceding six calendar months
>>that person has performed: (i) at least six instrument approaches;
>>(ii) holding procedures; and (iii) intercepting and tracking courses
>>through the use of navigation systems."
>>1. Can I file ifr in vfr or marginal weather, fly 3 or however many
>>approaches, and use them to remain current, or do I need to be "solely
>>by reference to the instruments" i.e., actual or simulated with a
>>safety pilot in order for them (approaches) to count?
>
>If you were not current it would be a violation to file IFR, since you
>weren't current and thus didn't meet the parts of 61.57(c) you quoted.
>To file IFR you have to be current, regardless of whether it's IMC or
>not. Combined with that, is the part of 61.57(c)(1) you omitted (but
>alluded to) above, which starts "(1) For the purpose of obtaining
>instrument experience in an aircraft (other than a glider), performed
>and logged under actual or simulated instrument conditions, either in
>flight in the appropriate category of aircraft for the instrument
>privileges sought or in a flight simulator or flight training device
>that is representative of the aircraft category for the instrument
>privileges sought" - meaning safety pilot, or instructor if VMC, or
>done while still current in actual IMC.
>
>>2. How many of you use "handheld gps onboard" in the remarks field and
>>ask for "direct" enroute. Thanks in advance.
>
>I believe this would be considered a violation if you're caught. I
>know it's only advisory, but the AIM in section 1-1-19, section
>(d)(1)(a) "General Requirements - 1 Authorization to conduct any GPS
>operation under IFR requires that (a) GPS navigation equipment used
>must be approved in accordance with the requirements specified in
>Technical Standard Order (TSO) C-129, or equivalent, and the
>installation must be done in accordance with Advisory Circular AC
>20-138 or 20-130A." It also has a table which shows which classes of
>GPS units are approved for what, based on their TSO-C129 approvals,
>and handheld and VFR panel-mount are not checked off in the approved
>"IFR enroute" column, and has a footnote which re-iterates a previous
>"VFR and hand-held GPS systems are not authorized for IFR navigation,
>instrument approaches, or as a primary instrument flight reference.
>During IFR operations they may be considered only an aid to
>situational awareness" statement.
>
>Good luck!