If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS
Dane Spearing wrote: Authorization to conduct any GPS operation under IFR requires that: a) GPS navigation equipment used must be FAA-approved and the installation must be done in accordance with FAA requirements i) Approval for the use of the GPS for IFR operations, and any limitations, will be found in the airplane's POH (also called the FAA-approved Airplane Flight Manual) and the airplane's logbook ii) VFR and hand-held GPS systems are not authorized for IFR navigation, for instrument approaches, or as a principle instrument flight references. During IFR operations, they may be considered only an aid to situational awareness. This seems fairly clear to me..... Shh...don't let the facts get in the way of ones mindset. |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS
Sam Spade wrote: No, I need more help to understand how VOR or NDB direct-route assignments by ATC are based on AGL altitudes. They're not, that's a ridiculous assertion. |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS
"Sam Spade" wrote in message news:a4n7g.175506$bm6.24571@fed1read04... No, it is not. Then you'll have to explain why it's a giant load of crap. You're right about aviation issues that are not addressed by a body of TSOs, ACs, and ARINC documents. That absense is the not the case with IFR equipment and operations. It's not the case with IFR equipment and operations that are required to conform with a TSO or an AC by an FAR. It is the case with IFR equipment and operations that are not. |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS
"Newps" wrote in message ... Sam Spade wrote: No, I need more help to understand how VOR or NDB direct-route assignments by ATC are based on AGL altitudes. They're not, that's a ridiculous assertion. Yes it is, but it was his assertion. Even if he didn't know he was asserting it at the time. |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS
"Sam Spade" wrote in message news:TXm7g.175504$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. |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Sam Spade" wrote in message news:aMm7g.175503$bm6.161637@fed1read04... Apparently you have never read any FAA letters of legal interpretation. I've read a few. Some of them were even logical and correct. I suggest you schedule a meeting about it with your friendly local FSDO. Obviously, your aviation education is lacking. I've found FSDOs to be a poor source of information. As they probably find you to be a bit closed-mind. |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Sam Spade" wrote in message news:TXm7g.175504$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. |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Sam Spade" wrote in message news:Y1n7g.175505$bm6.111217@fed1read04... Irrelevant. Table 4-1-1 in 7110.65 is predicated on MSL altitudes, and that is what ATC uses. Yes, but you said ATC used service volumes, which are predicated on AGL altitudes. Do you understand the difference between AGL and MSL? Do you have any aviation experience at all? Route procedure design (read AVN, not ATO) indeed uses service volumne predicated on the elevation of a VOR or NDB where necessary. Controllers do not. The context of the thread was ATC procedures for direct routing. Yes, that's why your statement was wrong. I'm glad you managed to learn something in this exchange. Not so. You just can't read with any objectivity. |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Newps" wrote in message ... Sam Spade wrote: No, I need more help to understand how VOR or NDB direct-route assignments by ATC are based on AGL altitudes. They're not, that's a ridiculous assertion. Yes it is, but it was his assertion. Even if he didn't know he was asserting it at the time. That is pure bull****. You brought up AGL, not me. I was referring to 7110.65, not the AIM. |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS
Newps wrote:
Sam Spade wrote: No, I need more help to understand how VOR or NDB direct-route assignments by ATC are based on AGL altitudes. They're not, that's a ridiculous assertion. And, it's Stevie's assertion. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
HANDHELD RADIO | [email protected] | Soaring | 22 | March 17th 16 03:16 PM |
Navcom - handheld VS panel ? | [email protected] | Home Built | 10 | October 31st 05 08:08 PM |
GPS Handheld | Kai Glaesner | Instrument Flight Rules | 2 | November 16th 04 04:01 PM |
Upgrade handheld GPS, or save for panel mount? | [email protected] | Owning | 7 | March 8th 04 03:33 PM |
Ext antenna connection for handheld radio | Ray Andraka | Owning | 7 | March 5th 04 01:10 PM |