Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news:TXm7g.175504$bm6.642@fed1read04...

The rule:

"Subpart C - Enroute IFR Altitudes Over Particular Routes and
Intersections

Editorial Note: The prescribed IFR altitudes for flights over particular
routes and intersections in this subpart were formerly carried as sections
610.11 through 610.6887 of this title and were transferred to Part 95 as
§§ 95.41 through 95.6887, respectively, but are not carried in the Code of
Federal Regulations. For Federal Register citations affecting these
routes, see the List of CFR Sections Affected in the Finding Aids section
of this volume.
§ 95.31 General.
This subpart prescribes IFR altitudes for flights along particular routes
or route segments and over additional intersections not listed as a part
of a route or route segment."

[Doc. No. 1580, Amdt. 1-1, 28 FR 6719, June 29, 1963]"



I see nothing there that addresses use of an IFR-certified GPS for en route
(domestic
airspace) in a non-radar environment nor anything about any special Alaska
provisions. FAR 95.1 says part 95 "prescribes altitudes governing the
operation of aircraft under IFR on ATS routes, or other direct routes for
which an MEA is designated in this part." We're atlking about direct
routes, those are routes for which an MEA is not designated.



And, from the AIM:

"a) Except in Alaska and coastal North Carolina, the VOR airways are
predicated solely on VOR or VORTAC navigation aids; are depicted in blue
on aeronautical charts; and are identified by a “V” (Victor) followed by
the airway number (e.g., V12)."



The AIM is not regulatory.


You are either stupid or stubborn, or perhaps both. The AIM reference
is explanatory. The 8260-16, when describing Federal Airwaty V-XXX,
which is formed by VOR facilities, is regulatory.

It's all there, for the non-selective reader.