IFR use of handheld GPS

"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

Travis Marlatte wrote:
"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.

Not so. You are fixated on a fiction. If you tracked a Victor airway
on an instument rating ride with anything other than the *appropriate*
VOR it would be (or should be) a bust. Additionally, if you have an IFR
certified GPS installed, during the rating ride the examiner or
inspector could elect (in addition to tracking with VOR equipment) have
you demonstrate competency at loading into the database and tracking a
VOR airway using that IFR-certified GPS.


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.

Part 95 has everything to do with definition of the airway. Reception
is only part of the mix.

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.

Use of an IFR certified GPS for tracking of a Victor airway is
authorized by the FAA as a supplemental means of IFR navigation. You
must have the underlying VOR equipment installed and operable.

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.

Those are Q Routes, which are also issued under Part 95, thus the GPS
(or other approved RNAV) is the only method of tracking those routes.
But, because GPS is still not primary for non-radar navigation in this
country (with the limited Alaska exception) Q routes are thus far
developed only where centers have radar coverage for surveillance of the
Q routes.

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

It has everything to do with airways if your clearance is via an airway.

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news:rpI9g.176355$bm6.115303@fed1read04...

Not so. You are fixated on a fiction. If you tracked a Victor airway on
an instument rating ride with anything other than the *appropriate* VOR it
would be (or should be) a bust.


What do you base that statement on? Airways can be assigned even when the
VORs defining them are out of service as long as the aircraft is /E, /F, /G,
or /R.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news:rpI9g.176355$bm6.115303@fed1read04...

Not so. You are fixated on a fiction. If you tracked a Victor airway on
an instument rating ride with anything other than the *appropriate* VOR it
would be (or should be) a bust.



What do you base that statement on? Airways can be assigned even when the
VORs defining them are out of service as long as the aircraft is /E, /F, /G,
or /R.


Sure they can with an IFR certifed GPS. But, on a instrument rating
ride the examiner or inspector doing a proper check ride would avoid an
airway that cannot be flown with VOR equipment for the portion of the
check ride that involves testing the applicant's competency in flying a
VOR airway with VOR equipment.

Also, the rating ride can still be conducted in an aircraft without IFR
GPS equipment but it cannot be conducted in an aircraft without VOR
equipment.

I think you are confusing normal operations with a GPS equipped aircraft
with an instrument rating ride.

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news:%pCag.177125$bm6.142153@fed1read04...
Sure they can with an IFR certifed GPS. But, on a instrument rating ride
the examiner or inspector doing a proper check ride would avoid an airway
that cannot be flown with VOR equipment for the portion of the check ride
that involves testing the applicant's competency in flying a VOR airway
with VOR equipment.


Just because an examiner might want to see a VOR used to track an airway
doesn't imply that that is the only legal way to do so.

Just because an airway might be defined in reference to VORs to ensure that
they are trackable by using a VOR doesn't imply that that is the only way to
do so.

Just because there are official FAA documents that describe how to certify a
GPS receiver for IFR flight doesn't imply that that is required for IFR
flight.

You've gone off on several lines of reasoning that have led to nowhere.

Sam, it might very well be an oversight that there is no regulation
requiring IFR-certified GPS. It might very well be the intent of the FAA
that such a thing is required. They may change that in the future.

All this debate and all of your non-regulatory examples has convinced me
even more that no such regulation exists.
--
-------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
PWK

Travis Marlatte wrote:


You've gone off on several lines of reasoning that have led to nowhere.

Sam, it might very well be an oversight that there is no regulation
requiring IFR-certified GPS. It might very well be the intent of the FAA
that such a thing is required. They may change that in the future.

All this debate and all of your non-regulatory examples has convinced me
even more that no such regulation exists.

No such regulation is required. The FAA has made it clear through
policy, directives, and avionics specifications. There are also ICAO
international navigation policies.

You may poo poo all that, but in an enforcement proceeding the FAA would
win, hands down with what they have today.

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news:zdjbg.177236$bm6.114258@fed1read04...

No such regulation is required.


Wrong. That is exactly what is required.



The FAA has made it clear through policy, directives, and avionics
specifications. There are also ICAO international navigation policies.


All of which are nonregulatory.



You may poo poo all that, but in an enforcement proceeding the FAA would
win, hands down with what they have today.


Nonsense. Without a regulation there is nothing to be enforced. You simply
do not know what you're talking about.