"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news:VQt9g.176318$bm6.1157@fed1read04...
There is no regulation that defines tracking. That is a competency
standard issue. You demonstrate you can track an airway to at least PTS,
and you get an instrument rating (under an FAR, right?)

Ah. Now I get it. That was the statement I needed to hear. Sorry for all the
unnecessary debate. It's a compentency issue. As long as I can track the
airway or direct within PTS, it doesn't matter how. Could be by physic
vision. Could be by IFR-certified GPS. Could be by a handheld GPS. Thanks
for clarifying.


Part 95, in the case of Victor airways, tells you the VOR stations that
are required to navigate that airway.

Any subtitution for those VOR *ground* facilities are not your's to
decide; that discretion belongs to the FAA.

Actually, Part 95 does nothing of the sort. It defines the airways in
reference to the VORs and defines them in a way such that someone tracking
them using a VOR is guaranteed radio reception.

The definition of the airway by reference to VORs has nothing to do with
tracking. I think that you agree that I can track an airway with an
IFR-certified GPS.

I agree that the FAA has defined most airways by reference to VORs. They
haven't stipulated that I must use a VOR receiver to track that airway. I
believe that there are now GPS fixes and airways defined by reference to
those fixes. I doubt that the FAA requires me to use a VOR receiver to track
those airways.

The debate is about tracking them or going direct (which has nothing to do
with airways at all) with a handheld.
--
-------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
PWK