IFR use of handheld GPS

In article . net,
"Ted" wrote:

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
"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.


This is like a religion with you people. It's strictly a matter faith
that
use of handheld GPS during IFR enroute flight in US controlled airspace
is
illegal and/or unsafe.

It depends on what you're using it for. A handheld GPS and a ham sandwich
are both useful objects, but using either one for the other's intended
purpose can be dangerous.

If not nutritious.

Most handheld GPS's that I've seen are somewhat lacking in the nutrition
department.

Sam Spade writes:

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
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.

McNicoll is known for picking or inventing the most immaterial nits
with of the most unreasonable interpretations of ordinary discussion.
His dedication to the task is kind of sad for onlookers and
aggravating to participants -- kind of like a three-year old asking
"why?" ad infinitum. Offer him a lollipop, not more argument.

- FChE

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

McNicoll is known for picking or inventing the most immaterial nits
with of the most unreasonable interpretations of ordinary discussion.
His dedication to the task is kind of sad for onlookers and
aggravating to participants -- kind of like a three-year old asking
"why?" ad infinitum. Offer him a lollipop, not more argument.


He has yet to offer any argument.

Dane Spearing wrote:

Section 1-1-19-d of the AIM addresses the general requirements
for conducting any GPS operations under IFR. Section 1-1-19-d1a
explicitly states (and I quote):

"Visual flight rules (VFR) and hand-held GPS systems are not authorized
for IFR navigation, instrument approaches, or as a principal instrument
flight reference."

Okay. Good find. Now, some will always bring up the fact that the AIM
is not regulatory, but it is an official FAA publication and therefore
cannot be disregarded. I somehow missed that sentence over the years.
So I suppose weaseling around it by claiming its really GPS-assisted
dead reckoning is necessary.

So if the AIM says that handhelds are not authorized for IFR
navigation, there must be a rule somewhere, right?

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

Faith is a mysterious thing.

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.

wrote:
Dane Spearing wrote:


Section 1-1-19-d of the AIM addresses the general requirements
for conducting any GPS operations under IFR. Section 1-1-19-d1a
explicitly states (and I quote):

"Visual flight rules (VFR) and hand-held GPS systems are not authorized
for IFR navigation, instrument approaches, or as a principal instrument
flight reference."


Okay. Good find. Now, some will always bring up the fact that the AIM
is not regulatory, but it is an official FAA publication and therefore
cannot be disregarded. I somehow missed that sentence over the years.
So I suppose weaseling around it by claiming its really GPS-assisted
dead reckoning is necessary.

So if the AIM says that handhelds are not authorized for IFR
navigation, there must be a rule somewhere, right?

Not necessarily. The AIM is meant to contain information that is "good
practice", not just regulatory information. The FARs are for
regulation. If the AIM was also regulatory and only contained
information already in the FARs, what would be the point of it?


Matt

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.


--
-------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
PWK


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

Steven is correct. Keep in mind that the AIM is not regulatory. Plus, the
fact that Alaska has special rules does not mean anything for the other 49
states.

--
-------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
PWK


"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news:Wip7g.175615$bm6.36868@fed1read04...
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.

In article ,
Matt Whiting wrote:

So if the AIM says that handhelds are not authorized for IFR
navigation, there must be a rule somewhere, right?

Not necessarily. The AIM is meant to contain information that is "good
practice", not just regulatory information. The FARs are for
regulation. If the AIM was also regulatory and only contained
information already in the FARs, what would be the point of it?

Yes, it's true that the AIM is "not regulatory". We all learned that and
regurgitated it back on some private pilot knowledge test long ago. But,
just because it doesn't cite chapter and verse from 14 CFR is no reason to
completely ignore what it says.

The paragraph in question is 1-1-19-d-1-(a):

1. Authorization to conduct any GPS operation under IFR requires that:

(a) GPS navigation equipment used must be approved in accordance with the
requirements specified in Technical Standard Order (TSO) TSO-C129, or
equivalent, and the installation must be done in accordance with Advisory
Circular AC 20-138, Airworthiness Approval of Global Positioning System (GPS)
Navigation Equipment for Use as a VFR and IFR Supplemental Navigation System,
or Advisory Circular AC 20-130A, Airworthiness Approval of Navigation or
Flight Management Systems Integrating Multiple Navigation Sensors, or
equivalent. Equipment approved in accordance with TSO-C115a does not meet the
requirements of TSO-C129. Visual flight rules (VFR) and hand-held GPS systems
are not authorized for IFR navigation, instrument approaches, or as a
principal instrument flight reference. During IFR operations they may be
considered only an aid to situational awareness.

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. 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.

"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?