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 =---