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 |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS
"Newps" wrote in message ... It's already there, the controller simply needs to read the book. There is nothing at all like that in FAAO 7110.65. Nor should there be. |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS
wrote in message oups.com... The ATC folks like to quote FAA Order 7110.65R http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/Chp5/atc0505.html#5-5-1 which says, among other stuff that I don't understand, that "Radar separation shall be applied to all RNAV aircraft operating on a random (impromptu) route at or below FL 450..." You're in the wrong chapter. See paragraphs 4-1-1 and 4-1-2 at the link below: http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/Chp4/atc0401.html |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS
"Sam Spade" wrote in message news:2Xx6g.175203$bm6.65816@fed1read04... You are not allowed to use an IFR-certified GPS for en route (domestic airspace) in a non-radar environment except with the special Alaska provisions. Nonsense. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS
"Sam Spade" wrote in message news:iZx6g.175204$bm6.170325@fed1read04... A legal interp has the full force and effect of regulation. It does not. |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS
"Tim Auckland" wrote in message ... If using a hand-held GPS as a significant IFR navigation tool is against the spirit of the FARs, surely the FAA could put an end to the practice very simply by strongly discouraging controllers from issuing Direct-To clearances to /A and /U aircraft (unless of course it's Direct-To a ground-based navaid and the plane is within the service volume of the navaid). It doesn't appear to have done so, even though the debate has been going on since at least 1998. Why make it the controller's responsibility? If the FAA wanted to make IFR use of handheld GPS illegal all they'd have to do is create an FAR prohibiting it. Something like: No person may operate a civil aircraft under IFR using an Area Navigation System unless the equipment of that aircraft meets the requirements of TSO-C60b, TSO-C115b, or TSO-C129A and is installed in accordance with AC 20-121, AC 20-130, or AC 20-138. |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS
In article ,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote: No person may operate a civil aircraft under IFR using an Area Navigation System unless the equipment of that aircraft meets the requirements of TSO-C60b, TSO-C115b, or TSO-C129A and is installed in accordance with AC 20-121, AC 20-130, or AC 20-138. wait for RNP. And how many AC's are referenced in the FARs? -- Bob Noel Looking for a sig the lawyers will hate |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS
"Tim Auckland" wrote in message ... By "the book" do you mean 7110.65R? http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/index.htm I was browsing this online last night and couldn't find the reference, but that's hardly surprising given that it's the first time I've ever looked at this tome. Any chance you could provide a link or reference? No, he can't, as there is no such rule. |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS
"Roger" wrote in message ... Why? I regularly file, 3BS direct LDM (94 miles), Direct MTW(55 miles), Direct OSH (39 miles). Coming home I file the reverse but still direct Each is in a different sector. 3BS (Cleveland Center) is an airport, LMD(Minneapolis Center) is an NDB, MTW (Green Bay?) is a VOR, and OSH is both an airport and VOR (Chicago) Altitudes vary between 5,000 and 8,000 although I have been sent higher on occasion. It appears all of that route is within radar coverage at those altitudes. I don't see your point. |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS
"150flivver" wrote in message oups.com... In navigator training back when we actually used a sextant, whenever our mission called for legs using celestial navigation ATC would give us a celnav clearance. This allowed us much more airspace than a "direct" clearance as celestial nav was less precise than other methods of navigation. Yes, but probably not as less precise as you think! |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS
"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message ... It's already been said that you can only go direct when ATC can monitor you on radar, so how can you go direct in a lost comm situation? If you're lost comm, how can they vector you around traffic or warn you if you're off track? It's no different than losing comm while on a long range vector. Nobody claims that's illegal, few claim it's hazardous, and many insist that's what you're really doing while navigating by handheld GPS. |
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 |