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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS
gregscheetah wrote: Since direct can only be given under radar control (IFR GPS or otherwise) .... I am not sure where everyone is getting this information. Maybe it is a 'rule' but I have often been given direct routes when out of ATC radar and, for a while, out of ATC communications. And I don't have a panel GPS. I use the handheld. But I always get a vector before hand, not for legality, but in case the GPS craps out I have some idea of what direction to fly. You're not direct, you're on a vector. If you are on a random route you're supposed to be in radar contact, some centers don't care. Salt Lake frequently allows aircraft to go direct for hundreds of miles without being in radar contact. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS
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. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS
You have to be real careful with those direct-to's in the intermountain
West, especially with a normally aspirated bird. That's exactly why I almost never get direct. The airways do a good job of threading the mountains for me. I wish a Garmin exec would visit out here, perhaps then we'd get airwasy in the Garmin units. -Robert (base of the Sierras) |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS
Yeah, but that's becase they don't have FOOBAR in their computer so
they want to know what direction you'll be going so they can apply radar separation. That's unrelated to what equipment you're navigating with. Its related to the discussion of not requiring ATC to assign you a vector in order to go direct. -Robert |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS
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. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS
gregscheetah wrote:
I am not sure where everyone is getting this information. Maybe it is a 'rule' but I have often been given direct routes when out of ATC radar and, for a while, out of ATC communications. 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..." |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS
Newps wrote:
Sam Spade wrote: The "rule" is that direct routes initiated by ATC are limited to the service volume of VOR (or rarely, NDBs) and the controller can assure that MIAs will not be violated. When the pilot makes the request, though, let the buyer beware. It is irrelavant who makes the request, the rules are the same. That's sure what is says on paper. Still, let the "buyer beware" when he makes the request. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS
Newps,
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. I'd be very much interested in any insights you might be able to share regarding the FAA's behavior here. (As I said earlier, I'm here to learn.) Regards, Tim. On Thu, 04 May 2006 11:46:11 -0600, Newps wrote: gregscheetah wrote: Since direct can only be given under radar control (IFR GPS or otherwise) .... I am not sure where everyone is getting this information. Maybe it is a 'rule' but I have often been given direct routes when out of ATC radar and, for a while, out of ATC communications. And I don't have a panel GPS. I use the handheld. But I always get a vector before hand, not for legality, but in case the GPS craps out I have some idea of what direction to fly. You're not direct, you're on a vector. If you are on a random route you're supposed to be in radar contact, some centers don't care. Salt Lake frequently allows aircraft to go direct for hundreds of miles without being in radar contact. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS
Tim Auckland wrote: Newps, 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 It's already there, the controller simply needs to read the book. It doesn't appear to have done so, even though the debate has been going on since at least 1998. It's like anything else in the FAA, they don't care until you wreck something. Then the FAA will buy part or all of your airplane when you sue. |
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 |