IFR use of handheld GPS

Ted wrote:

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news:Pkp7g.175618$bm6.124940@fed1read04...


And, it's Stevie's assertion.


...That is pure bull****....


...You are either stupid or stubborn...


Sam, does your mother wash your mouth out with soap when you try and use
that language in front of her?

Are you losing your grip, Sam?

Perhaps you should take some valium and relax a bit before you attempt to
continue this legal discussion as you are clearly overwhelmed by those who
disagree with you?





No, it's playing with Steve on his terms.

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news:ZlJ7g.175941$bm6.31585@fed1read04...

Bull****.


Pottymouth.

Travis Marlatte wrote:

No, it was yours, Sam. Whether you knew it or not. Steven simply picked up
on your fairly inocent, but mistaken statement that ATC uses SERVICE VOLUMES
to guide direct routing. You even referenced a table that is NOT based on
service volumes.

You both agree about the limitations on direct routing and Steven knows it.
He just likes to nit pick the details.


Those are the values derived from service volumes, so to call them
service volumes in the context of the 7110.65 is not only reasonable, it
is exactly what the authors of the 7110.65 do as follows:

"4-1-4. VFR-ON-TOP
Use a route not meeting service volume limitations only if an aircraft
requests to operate "VFR-on-top" on this route."

To attach precision to a patch-work document such as the 7110.65 is a
fool's errand.

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news:_NJ7g.175944$bm6.20748@fed1read04...

For purposes of ATC handing as set forth in 7110.65, service volumes are
stated in MSL values.


Service volumes are always stated in AGL values and are not used for
purposes of ATC handing as set forth in FAAO 7110.65.

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news:FOJ7g.175945$bm6.30359@fed1read04...

No, it's playing with Steve on his terms.


Steve's terms are to present a cogent argument supported by verifiable
documentation. You don't play that way.

On Mon, 08 May 2006 08:59:03 -0400, Roy Smith wrote:


While the AIM may not be regulatory, it also doesn't lie. When a simple
declaratory statement is made such as, "hand-held GPS systems are not
authorized for IFR navigation, instrument approaches, or as a principal
instrument flight reference", it's a pretty good guess that there is some
regulation, somewhere that backs that up.

As Steven has so often pointed out, nobody has been able to cite that
regulation.

I applaud John Deakin and Steven for challenging commnonly held
assumptions they believe to be wrong, even if they do it in their own
particular style. It's one of the ways in which we learn.

Anybody who feels confident
enough that handheld GPS is good enough for IFR is welcome to invite an
FSDO guy to ride along with you for an inspection with a handheld as your
sole means of IFR navigation outside of DR, vectors, celestial, and a ham
sandwich. See how far you get. Then please post about it so we can all
share in your experience.

Until that time, all this talk about how the AIM is not regulatory and how
it's OK to fly IFR with a handheld is just a lot of masturbation.

No it's not. Chances are that you'd get a FSDO guy who assumes that
the AIM statement is based on a FAR. It's not worth the hassle or
expense of an airplane flight to try to persuade this one guy
otherwise.

What you do in the real world is up to you. Personally, on
reflection, I'd use the GPS to get the heading I want to fly, then ask
ATC for that vector. I believe the Direct routing is legal, but I see
no reason to stir up a possible hornet's nest in the air when the
alternative is so simple.

Tim.

"Steven P. McNicoll" writes:

The hand-held GPS is not included in 91.205 because it is
not approved for IFR flight.

If my aircraft contains all of the instruments and equipment
specified in 14 CFR 91.205, then I am in compliance with that
regulation. [...]

Perhaps your scenario is self-contradictory. 91.205.d.2 appears to
require "... navigational equipment appropriate to the ground
facilities to be used ...". If you're filing to a far-away ground
facility (far away airport or navaid) that you don't have appropriate
nagivational equipment (super-duper VOR receiver or substitutable GPS)
to guide yourself to, you may be in violation right there.

It may be interesting to other readers that in other parts of the
world, it is sometimes required to carry sufficient *extra*
navigational equipment that would enable an instrument letdown to an
alternate in the case of a failure of any one.

- FChE

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

Perhaps your scenario is self-contradictory. 91.205.d.2 appears to
require "... navigational equipment appropriate to the ground
facilities to be used ...". If you're filing to a far-away ground
facility (far away airport or navaid) that you don't have appropriate
nagivational equipment (super-duper VOR receiver or substitutable GPS)
to guide yourself to, you may be in violation right there.


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

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:


"Ron Lee" wrote in message
...

A primary reason that handheld/VFR GPS units are not acceptable for
VFR use is that they not not include an integrity capability. That is
essential for IFR ops.


Can you explain why that is so?

Let me ask you a few things.

1) Are you aware that the clocks onboard a GPS satellite can
malfunction?

2) Are you aware that when a malfunction occurs that the users' GPS
unit derived position can drift off by hundreds or thousands of miles?

3) Are you aware that the pilot may well have ZERO indication of that
failure without an integrity functionality in his user equipment?

If your responses are "So," "So," and "So" then I have no desire to
ever fly with you if you are a pilot.

Ron Lee

"Ron Lee" wrote in message
...
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:


"Ron Lee" wrote in message
...

A primary reason that handheld/VFR GPS units are not acceptable for
VFR use is that they not not include an integrity capability. That is
essential for IFR ops.


Can you explain why that is so?


Let me ask you a few things.

1) Are you aware that the clocks onboard a GPS satellite can
malfunction?

2) Are you aware that when a malfunction occurs that the users' GPS
unit derived position can drift off by hundreds or thousands of miles?

3) Are you aware that the pilot may well have ZERO indication of that
failure without an integrity functionality in his user equipment?

If your responses are "So," "So," and "So" then I have no desire to
ever fly with you if you are a pilot.


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