How long before /G required for IFR?

In article et,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

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

So why are the airways eight miles wide?

To allow for a reasonable error budget from all the error sources,
including ground systems.

--
Bob Noel
looking for a sig the lawyers will like

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Stan Prevost" wrote in message
...

I don't know. Why are they? I would like to know.

But it is irrelevant to the issue at hand. The rule says what it says.


Yup. Why isn't the rule enforced?


I don't know to what extent it may or may not be enforced. I have never
heard of an enforcement action regarding that rule.

I bet it would be enforced if a pilot headed off his required direct route
over to an airway which he was not cleared onto and it caused a controller a
deal.

If it isn't enforced, why not? I would like to know.

But it doesn't change the rule, which is still there and available for
enforcement, and is still binding on pilots and controllers.

In article ,
wrote:

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

You can tune a radio, but you can tune a fish.

"John Bell" wrote:
It's not a direct answer to your question, but if you want a cheap sextant,
check out http://www.tecepe.com.br/nav/.

If you want a real sextant, got to http://www.celestaire.com/.

I think an aviation sextant needs
some kind of level, but I am sure this design could be modified. :-)

The level is built into the unit. For example,
http://www.celestaire.com/catalog/products/1502.html

"Colin W Kingsbury" wrote:
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.

Sure there is. Get a position fix (VOR-VOR radial cross, VOR-DME, DME-DME,
NDB-NDB bearing cross, GPS, Loran, Omega, Celestial, whatever). Plot that
fix on a chart, measure the bearing from your current position to your
destination, adjust for estimated wind, and fly the heading indicated.
Take additional fixes along the way to correct your heading as required.

It takes a bit of work (possibly more work that is practical single-pilot
IFR in a typical GA cockpit), but it's certainly possible. Depending on
what equipment you've got, there may well be better methods than what I've
described. Knowing how to do it is the difference between being a
navigator and being a button pusher.

Like Colin, I'm going to bypass the legality question completely, but
there's no doubt that it's possible to do.

"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...
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".

They do.

For nearly a half-century or longer(?) USAF and (probably) USN pilots have
been taught to go direct to intersections and TACAN radial/DME fixes using a
similar method. It's done routinely. I'm suprised some stick acutator
hasn't mentioned that fact yet.

There's also the "Hey Nav, gimmie a heading" method ;-)

For controllers it's all about separation.

If in radar coverage "direct" is no problem.

In non-radar "direct" does not allow the aircraft's position and route to be
easily fixed sufficient to determine the protected airspace necessary for
lateral and longitudinal. So all that's left is vertical and you quickly
run out of altitudes.

"Dan Thompson" wrote in message
. com...
What it is, is ATC expects everyone to be able to navigate direct, one way
or another.

Well, not all of ATC. I expect you to be able to fly your filed route on
own navigation. I don't expect you to be able to proceed direct unless you
file the appropriate equipment suffix, file point to point direct, or you
ask me for direct somewhere en route. I agree that some controllers don't
know what in the hell they are doing these days, but that's because the FAA
dumbed down training after 1992 and let PC run amok. We're in the process
of fixing that right now though.

Chip, ZTL

Chip Jones wrote:
We're in the process
of fixing that right now though.

Yep, you're getting all the AFSS guys that will be, ah, surplussed.

wrote in message
...

I'm afraid it is.


How so?

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...

To allow for a reasonable error budget from all the error sources,
including ground systems.


Not to mention the six degrees a VOR receiver is allowed to be off and still
used for IFR operations.