How long before /G required for IFR?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

or an approach similar to the VOR/DME RWY 15 at Martin
State Airport.

Why this approach? To me it seems an IFR certified GPS and one VOR would
suffice.


--
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 =----

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
news

"Dan Thompson" wrote in message
. com...
This is an old horse and I almost hate to bring it up again, but are you
aware you can legally accept direct FUBAR as a /U under IFR, and monitor
your progress with a handheld GPS?

It is a sad day that people now assume clearance direct to an intersection
can only be complied with if you have some sort of RNAV. Makes me wonder
how
we ever did it in the '70s with only a VOR and a TACAN.


Pray enlighten me to one thing- let's say I'm on V123 and cleared direct to
FUBAR which is defined by the intersection of V456 and V789. Leaving out the
legal-vs-practical debate, there is no way for me to navigate from my
present position to FUBAR in a straight line sans RNAV. It's always been my
understanding that "direct" means they assume you will in fact go straight
there, not turn left 20 degrees, intercept V456, and then head to FUBAR. Am
I missing something here?

-cwk.

"Dan Thompson" wrote in message
. com...
This is an old horse and I almost hate to bring it up again, but are you
aware you can legally accept direct FUBAR as a /U under IFR, and monitor
your progress with a handheld GPS?

Yeah, well aware of it, and in my neighborhood (New England) you're usually
operating under radar and on airways anyway. My point was more that it
seemed as though ATC was simply starting to expect everyone to have GPS.

wrote in message
...

In your opinion.


No, it's not a matter of opinion.

Sorry, Mr. Old School. It is tuna now, in sensitivity to diversity of
religious preference and dietary issues.

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 18:28:36 GMT, "Dan Thompson"
wrote:

Tim, some of the other guys are playing around with you a little bit, but
I'll spell it out for you since I started it.

That reg says what you have to have onboard, but does not say what you
will
or must use for navigation. IFR course tracking is a performance
standard.
You must stay on the assigned course. How you do that is not specified or
regulated. What you use to fly that course is not specified or regulated.
Only that you fly that course, somehow.

So, you may use dead reckoning if you want to, radar vectors, celestial
nav
(right!), or even (the crowd is on the edge of their seats in anticpation)
a
tuna sandwich. The tuna sandwich must not, however, be placarded "VFR
only."

So, it is perfectly acceptable to look at your handheld GPS, see that it
says 237 degrees and 16 minutes to FUBAR, dead reckon by flying a 237
heading, and monitor your progress by reference to the handheld GPS.


Correct except for two items.

One, it's a ham sandwich, always has been, not tuna.

Two, the placard "VFR only" means not approved for IFR operations. It
doesn't mean you are only allowed to use it when in VFR conditions.
Therefore it's as good as your sextant or stopwatch for navigation of
all kinds. As long as you have the required equipment on board, you
are all set.

What it is, is ATC expects everyone to be able to navigate direct, one way
or another.

"Colin W Kingsbury" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Dan Thompson" wrote in message
. com...
This is an old horse and I almost hate to bring it up again, but are you
aware you can legally accept direct FUBAR as a /U under IFR, and monitor
your progress with a handheld GPS?

Yeah, well aware of it, and in my neighborhood (New England) you're
usually
operating under radar and on airways anyway. My point was more that it
seemed as though ATC was simply starting to expect everyone to have GPS.

"Peter R." wrote in message
...

Why this approach? To me it seems an IFR certified GPS and one VOR would
suffice.


Because one of the restrictions to use of GPS in lieu of ADF or DME is use
as the principal instrument approach navigation source. In most VOR/DME
approaches track information is provided by a VOR and distance along the
track by DME, in this one it's just the opposite.

"Dan Thompson" wrote in message
. com...

What it is, is ATC expects everyone to be able to navigate direct, one way
or another.


I don't expect everyone to be able to navigate direct, but I do expect
everyone to be able to navigate what they file. It isn't unusual for
someone to file direct to a distant point, accept their clearance "as filed"
and an instruction to proceed "on course" or "direct" to that distant point,
and then to request vectors to it after departure.

I'm waiting for someone of these guys who tells me I can't use my
handheld GPS to navigate to explain to me how it is that presumably I
can look slightly above my yoke-mounted GPS and look at the stars
(presumably celestial navigation is still an acceptable means to these
folks) and navigate with my sextant (along with my RadioShack
timepiece.)

It's not a direct answer to your question, but if you want a cheap sextant,
check out http://www.tecepe.com.br/nav/. I think an aviation sextant needs
some kind of level, but I am sure this design could be modified. :-)

John Bell
www.cockpitgps.com

"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...
And yet if you suggest to
another pilot that you could get to "so-and-so" intersection (which is the
intersection of two airways that you're not currently on) from here by
taking a 200 heading until you hit the airway, then turning down along the
airway until you hit the intersection, and they look at you like you've
grown an extra horn on your head.

Why don't pilots do approximate bearings like that? The only thing I've
seen close to that is when ATC will give you an approximate heading to a
VOR a long way away and say "fly 200 degrees, then direct ETX when able".


Because you are required to fly direct, not find your way there by some
indirect route. If you are cleared from present position direct FOOBAR, you
are required to fly along the direct course between those two points.

§ 91.181 Course to be flown.
Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, no person may operate an aircraft within
controlled airspace under IFR except as follows:

(a) On a Federal airway, along the centerline of that airway.

(b) On any other route, along the direct course between the navigational
aids or fixes defining that route. However, this section does not prohibit
maneuvering the aircraft to pass well clear of other air traffic or the
maneuvering of the aircraft in VFR conditions to clear the intended flight
path both before and during climb or descent.