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.

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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.