IFR use of handheld GPS

wrote in message
ps.com...

I've seen other discussions get off topic and go on about handheld GPS
use under IFR. And people get all worked up about it. I know there is
a lot of history on this newsgroup, but I haven't followed most of it
(so don't lynch me, please).

It seems that a lot of pilots believe a handheld GPS shouldn't be used
while IFR. And a lot more believe that it can't be the "primary"
navigation method. Sometimes that makes sense, but other times it
doesn't (to me). So here are a few questions I have that work up to
GPS:

1) Can you use celestial navigation while IFR?


Sure. The USAF has for ages.



And does your sextant have to be "approved" in some way?


There is no such requirement in the FARs.



2) Can you use dead reckoning for IFR navigation? If so, can you use
your wrist watch as your "primary" timer? Or does it have to be an
"installed" clock? And to do dead reckoning calculations, can you use
a drugstore-bought calculator? An abacus? Or how about a handy "dead
reckoning computer" that calculates ground speed and track?


There is nothing in the FARs that prohibits any of that.



I can understand that a handheld GPS is not supposed to be used as a
substitute for VOR or DME or ADF (say for navigating along airways or
for shooting instrument approaches). But can you not use one for
flying off-airway routes without playing tricks (like pretending to
double-check position with VOR/DME or asking ATC for a vector and then
ignoring the heading they issue)?


Yes, you can. Many people insist it is illegal but none of them has been
able to find an FAR that supports that assertion. Many also insist it's a
dangerous practice, but none of them has been able to identify any hazard
induced by using a handheld GPS for enroute IFR navigation in US controlled
airspace.

Many people insist it is illegal but none of them has been
able to find an FAR that supports that assertion.

Many people also insist that as a private pilot, "holding out" is
illegal, but none of them have been able to find an FAR that supports
their assertion.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Way off topic, Jose, but take a look at this from FAA Legal Opinions:

"Dear Mr. Brock:

Letter, May 12, 1987

This letter is in reply to your letter dated May 12, 1987, You describe a
proposed flight as a raffle prize for a charitable endeavor. The aircraft is
a Beechcraft Bonanza owned by a partnership. The partnership consists of
your wife and yourself. The aircraft is properly maintained. You are the
exclusive pilot of the aircraft, but your class 2 medical certificate
privileges have lapsed. The certificate, class 3 medical privileges, remain
current.
Your company raises money by various raffles, bake sales and donations
for a needy family at Christmas time. The company is not itself a charitable
organization. The fundraising is entirely voluntary and the activity is not
officially sponsored by the company.
The flight is to be a prize from a raffle. It will consist of a day or
half a day's outing, probably including lunch at Big Bear Airport or Santa
Barbara and return to Torrance Airport. There will be no compensation for
the flight except that the fuel and the luncheons will be paid from the
collected funds. You will donate all other expenses of operating the
airplane and your time. All other raffle costs in excess of fuel and
luncheon costs will be donated to the needy family.
The raffle organization will, of course, represent to the prospective
ticket purchasers that the flight is the prize, or one of the prizes for the
winner.
Section 61.118(a) of the Federal Aviation Regulations provides:
(a) A private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in
command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if the
flight is only incidental to that business or employment and the aircraft
does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire.

{p1}

As outlined above, it is our opinion that compensation for the flight
exists in two forms: (1) the direct reimbursement for fuel, and (2) the
acquisition of pilot in command time, which can be used to demonstrate
aeronautical experience eligibility for an airman certificate. With respect
to the latter form of compensation, the agency has consistently held that a
private pilot does not share the expenses of a flight with his passengers by
"donating" his pilot services, so as to fall within FAR 61.118(b). Also, the
charitable cause is not incidental to the business of the pilot, that is,
yourself, as directly related to the business enterprise, as required by FAR
61.118(a).
Additionally, the flight, as the direct inducement for the raffle
solicitation, is a charter type flight. The length of the flight removes it
from the exception provided in the applicability statement at FAR
135.1(b)(2). Even if the solicitation is conceded to be of such limited
scope as to not constitute a holding out to the public so as to constitute a
flight in air transportation, that is, common carriage, a promise is made to
the buyers of the raffle tickets to provide a service to the winners. The
service has value. In short, the flight is a flight in air commerce of
persons for compensation or hire as a commercial operator (not an air
carrier) in a small aircraft. FAR 135.1(a)(3) applies. A Part 135
certificate is required.

Sincerely,

DeWITTE T. LAWSON, JR.
Regional Counsel"

"Jose" wrote in message
t...
Many people insist it is illegal but none of them has been able to find
an FAR that supports that assertion.

Many people also insist that as a private pilot, "holding out" is illegal,
but none of them have been able to find an FAR that supports their
assertion.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Way off topic, Jose, but take a look at this from FAA Legal Opinions[...]

As outlined above, it is our opinion that compensation for the flight
exists in two forms: [...] and (2) the acquisition of pilot in
command time, which can be used to demonstrate aeronautical
experience eligibility for an airman certificate.

I'm aware that the FAA has decided, without making rules, what
constitutes "compensation". In my mind they are making this law up out
of whole cloth, without going through a proper rulemaking procedure.
Nonetheless, they will hang you on it.

In like manner, I am convinced the FAA will hang you on reliance (not
"use") on a handheld GPS in IMC under IFR. The FAA doesn't appear to
need to make official rules.

Thus my proposing the parallel.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:

Way off topic, Jose, but take a look at this from FAA Legal Opinions[...]


As outlined above, it is our opinion that compensation for the flight
exists in two forms: [...] and (2) the acquisition of pilot in
command time, which can be used to demonstrate aeronautical
experience eligibility for an airman certificate.


I'm aware that the FAA has decided, without making rules, what
constitutes "compensation". In my mind they are making this law up out
of whole cloth, without going through a proper rulemaking procedure.
Nonetheless, they will hang you on it.

In like manner, I am convinced the FAA will hang you on reliance (not
"use") on a handheld GPS in IMC under IFR. The FAA doesn't appear to
need to make official rules.

Thus my proposing the parallel.

Jose

A legal interp has the full force and effect of regulation. Keep in
mind, FARs are federal civil law, so the FAA, like the IRS (in
non-criminal tax cases) holds more cards than the "taxpayer."

On Thu, 04 May 2006 18:58:22 GMT, Jose
wrote:

Way off topic, Jose, but take a look at this from FAA Legal Opinions[...]

As outlined above, it is our opinion that compensation for the flight
exists in two forms: [...] and (2) the acquisition of pilot in
command time, which can be used to demonstrate aeronautical
experience eligibility for an airman certificate.

I wonder what they'd say in my case as more hours wouldn't qualify me
for anything including ratings.

I'm aware that the FAA has decided, without making rules, what
constitutes "compensation". In my mind they are making this law up out
of whole cloth, without going through a proper rulemaking procedure.
Nonetheless, they will hang you on it.

In like manner, I am convinced the FAA will hang you on reliance (not

They can "hang" you for relying on anything to the exclusion of
something else. IE ... fixation. He was neglecting his scan and
fixating on the AI, or altimeter, or making sure his passenger had
their head in the "lunch bag", or he was watching the left wing as it
broke off instead of flying the airplane, or maybe someone heard the
pilot wasn't feeling good so he/she must have been flying when they
shouldn't.

I'm firmly of the opinion that any time something important breaks I
should be some where else.


Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
"use") on a handheld GPS in IMC under IFR. The FAA doesn't appear to
need to make official rules.

Thus my proposing the parallel.

Jose