How long before /G required for IFR?

It is legal to legal to fly IFR as long as the required equipment is
on board, and the pilot is appropriately rated, and current, etc.,
etc., etc.

It is illegal to fly IFR =without= the required equipment on board.

It is illegal to fly IFR with only a tuna sandwich for navigation.

If you =do= have the required navigation equipment on board (which
generally means VOR, GPS, and/or INS), you may consult the tuna sandwich
all you want.

End of problem.

Jose
--
Nothing is more powerful than a commercial interest.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

but I really wonder why you went to all the trouble.

Because the way you prefer to word it contains an implication that is
not true, and you like to dodge it.

Jose
--
Nothing is more powerful than a commercial interest.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in news:dJIUd.2243
:

Moot point. An off-airways clearance beyond usable navaid limits is not
available in a nonradar environment.

Certainly it is. I get it all the time, on almost every flight. Radar, and
in fact radio communications, doesn't extend to most of my destinations. And
there are hundreds, often thousands, of flights daily in the Gulf of Mexico,
many of them IFR. I commonly get 'direct'.

--
Regards,

Stan

"Stan Gosnell" wrote in message
...
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in news:dJIUd.2243
:

Moot point. An off-airways clearance beyond usable navaid limits is not
available in a nonradar environment.

Certainly it is. I get it all the time, on almost every flight. Radar,
and
in fact radio communications, doesn't extend to most of my destinations.
And
there are hundreds, often thousands, of flights daily in the Gulf of
Mexico,
many of them IFR. I commonly get 'direct'.

Non-radar routes don't have to be on Airways but "beyond usable navaid
limits" is the operative clause in this case.

Those limits may be the standard ones listed in AIM 1-1-8 or they may be
expanded ones authorized by FAAO 7110.65 4-1-2b.

"Stan Gosnell" wrote in message
...

Certainly it is. I get it all the time, on almost every flight. Radar,
and in fact radio communications, doesn't extend to most of my
destinations. And there are hundreds, often thousands, of flights
daily in the Gulf of Mexico, many of them IFR. I commonly get
'direct'.


Your clearance and separation apply only to those portions within controlled
airspace.

http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/Chp4/atc0401.html

wrote:

I have been cleared, as I said, many times, on departure, "direct
FUBAR intersection"

It's been a long time since I've flown /A or /U, but I don't happen to
recall being cleared this way.

However, many IFR departures out of CDW get a clearance "180 vectors LANNA
v30...". I myself have received that while /A or /U. Yet, there's no way
to fly that if RADAR happens to go down.

Making it stranger, one of the VORs on which LANNA is based is roughly
between the airport and LANNA. So a clearance "...SBJ v30 LANNA..." would
yield almost the exact same track *and* be flyable w/o GPS or RADAR.

I've never understood why they use LANNA instead of SBJ as the first fix.

- Andrew

Andrew Gideon wrote:
wrote:


I have been cleared, as I said, many times, on departure, "direct
FUBAR intersection"


It's been a long time since I've flown /A or /U, but I don't happen to
recall being cleared this way.

No controller who knows what he's doing clears a /A or /U direct FUBAR
when FUBAR is outside the service volume of the navaid.



However, many IFR departures out of CDW get a clearance "180 vectors LANNA
v30...". I myself have received that while /A or /U. Yet, there's no way
to fly that if RADAR happens to go down.

No clearance with vectors is flyable or issuable without radar.

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 21:02:59 -0700, Newps wrote:

No controller who knows what he's doing clears a /A or /U direct FUBAR
when FUBAR is outside the service volume of the navaid.


How could FUBAR be "outside the service volume of the navaid"?

It's an intersection.

wrote:

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 21:02:59 -0700, Newps wrote:

No controller who knows what he's doing clears a /A or /U direct FUBAR
when FUBAR is outside the service volume of the navaid.

How could FUBAR be "outside the service volume of the navaid"?

It's an intersection.

An intersection defined by the 015 radial off the Phoenix VOR and 22 DME.

--
Peter













----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 09:20:37 -0500, "Peter R."
wrote:

wrote:

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 21:02:59 -0700, Newps wrote:

No controller who knows what he's doing clears a /A or /U direct FUBAR
when FUBAR is outside the service volume of the navaid.

How could FUBAR be "outside the service volume of the navaid"?

It's an intersection.

An intersection defined by the 015 radial off the Phoenix VOR and 22 DME.


How can an intersection be "outside the service volume"?