IFR use of handheld GPS

"Steven P. McNicoll" writes:

Perhaps your scenario is self-contradictory. 91.205.d.2 appears to
require "... navigational equipment appropriate to the ground
facilities to be used ...". [...]

I'm in full compliance with FAR 91.205 in that regard, I have two fully
functional VOR receivers aboard.

But those ordinary VOR receivers will do approximately nothing for
you, when flying direct to a faraway VOR they cannot pick up yet, thus
they are not "appropriate to the ground facilities to be used".

- FChE

On 05/08/06 10:39, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
"Steven P. McNicoll" writes:

Perhaps your scenario is self-contradictory. 91.205.d.2 appears to
require "... navigational equipment appropriate to the ground
facilities to be used ...". [...]

I'm in full compliance with FAR 91.205 in that regard, I have two fully
functional VOR receivers aboard.

But those ordinary VOR receivers will do approximately nothing for
you, when flying direct to a faraway VOR they cannot pick up yet, thus
they are not "appropriate to the ground facilities to be used".

- FChE

I think the point is that no ground facilities are being used for the
direct-to part of the flight. You're assuming that he is using the VOR
receiver to go direct-to a VOR 1000 miles away, but he's already said
that he was using the GPS.


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

"Frank Ch. Eigler" wrote in message
...

But those ordinary VOR receivers will do approximately nothing for
you, when flying direct to a faraway VOR they cannot pick up yet, thus
they are not "appropriate to the ground facilities to be used".


They're fully appropriate when I'm actually using them.

I'm aware that anything can malfunction. I've answered your questions, it's
time for you to answer mine.

You have neither answered my questions nor done what I suggested. Why
not?

Ron Lee

In article t,
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
wrote in message
roups.com...
So if the AIM says that handhelds are not authorized for IFR
navigation, there must be a rule somewhere, right?

One would think so, but there isn't.

There's a lot of stuff in the AIM that isn't backed up by a rule in the FARs.
My favorite example is "Land and Hold Short" operations. There's nothing
in the FARs about this, but the AIM explains it at length, including the
"requirement" to read back all hold short instructions. So, if it's not in the
FARs, then I don't actually have to read back that hold short instruction,
right?!? (Yeah...try that at a busy airport and see how far you get...)

-- Dane

In article t,
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
wrote in message
roups.com...

I suppose this means that this has come up before and you have a good
counterpoint for it? Besides throwing out the entire AIM, I hope.


Oh, it's come up many times. This is like a religion with some people, a
matter of faith. They insist use of handheld GPS during IFR enroute
operations in US controlled airspace is illegal and/or unsafe but none of
them can identify any regulation that prohibits it or any hazard caused by
such use.

sigh I guess I don't understand why someone would want to intentionally
operate outside of those guidelines set out in the AIM (barring an emergency
or other detriment to flight safety).

You are correct...there is no "regulation" (i.e. - rule in the FARs) that
state you can not use a hand-held GPS for IFR navigation. However, the
non-regulatory AIM makes it very clear. As I mentioned in a previous post,
there's also nothing in the FARs about requiring you to read back a hold
short instruction....just the AIM.

I'm certainly no legal expert (nor would I ever want to be), so I can't
make a professional interpretation as to the regulatory or legal status
of things like the AIM, Advisory Circulars, etc... However, it seems
reckless and irresponsible to operate outside of those guidelines.

You are also correct in that there is nothing that says that use of
a handheld for IFR operations is unsafe. However, more importantly,
there's nothing to indicate that it *is* safe! The TSO process exists
for a reason: to prove, via a documented and certified process, that
a piece of avionics will do what it is supposed to do, when it is supposed
to do it.

It's more a matter of faith to assume that the hand-held *is* safe and
will do what it's supposed to do than to assume it is illegal and/or unsafe.

-- Dane

On 05/08/06 14:43, Dane Spearing wrote:
In article t,
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
wrote in message
groups.com...
So if the AIM says that handhelds are not authorized for IFR
navigation, there must be a rule somewhere, right?

One would think so, but there isn't.

There's a lot of stuff in the AIM that isn't backed up by a rule in the FARs.
My favorite example is "Land and Hold Short" operations. There's nothing
in the FARs about this, but the AIM explains it at length, including the
"requirement" to read back all hold short instructions. So, if it's not in the
FARs, then I don't actually have to read back that hold short instruction,
right?!? (Yeah...try that at a busy airport and see how far you get...)

-- Dane

I suspect if you don't read it back, you won't be cleared to land. If
you land anyway, you're violating an FAR. If you want to land, you'd
better read it back.

Perhaps in this case, there is no need for an FAR?

.... not a good example, then.


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

Dane Spearing wrote
... The TSO process exists
for a reason: to prove, via a documented and certified process, that
a piece of avionics will do what it is supposed to do, when it is supposed
to do it.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. Good one. But you forgot the smiley face. g

In article ,
Jon Woellhaf wrote:
Dane Spearing wrote
... The TSO process exists
for a reason: to prove, via a documented and certified process, that
a piece of avionics will do what it is supposed to do, when it is supposed
to do it.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. Good one. But you forgot the smiley face. g

There. Happy now?!?

(Well, that *is* what the TSO process is *supposed* to be for....I never said
that it actually accomplished that goal....)

-- Dane

"Dane Spearing" wrote in message
...

You are correct...there is no "regulation" (i.e. - rule in the FARs) that
state you can not use a hand-held GPS for IFR navigation.

Correct...as the SOLE REFERENCE.

However, the
non-regulatory AIM makes it very clear. As I mentioned in a previous
post,
there's also nothing in the FARs about requiring you to read back a hold
short instruction....just the AIM.

TSO 129 requirement for IFR instruments?

Even seven years old, this article is relevant:
http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182076-1.html
November 29, 1998

Pelican's Perch #11:
Using a Handheld GPS — IFR!

/--

Never one to let a good idea, or safer method of flying, wither away for
lack of action or misunderstanding, AVweb's John Deakin takes on the subject
of flying IFR with your GPS handheld. "Not legal," you say? "Not so," says
John. Flying IFR with your handheld GPS is not only legal, it's a godsend he
says, and explains just how to get the most out of that handful of
navigation wizardry.

/--