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 |
#181
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS
"Ron Lee" wrote in message ... You have neither answered my questions nor done what I suggested. Why not? Your "questions" were actually one question. I answered them when I said anything can malfunction. I'll do what you suggested after you send me money to pay for the flight. I'm left to conclude you cannot answer my question. |
#182
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS
"Dane Spearing" wrote in message ... 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). Because direct flight is quicker than following the airways and handheld GPS is cheaper to purchase. 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. Does reading back a hold short instruction need to be in the FARs? ATC is required to get the readback. If you don't read back the hold short ATC is going to instruct you to do something other than what you want to do until you do read it back and there is something in the FARs about adhering to ATC instructions. 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. What's to interpret? The AIM itself says it's not regulatory and the Advisory Circular Checklist says that unless incorporated into a regulation by reference the contents of an advisory circular are not binding on the public. 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 absence of any danger or harm from it's use indicates it is safe. 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. We don't assume it's safe, we know it's safe because even a complete failure of a handheld GPS during IFR enroute flight in US controlled airspace presents no danger. |
#183
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS
"Dane Spearing" wrote in message ... 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...) You only have to read it back if you wish to land at that airport. |
#184
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Sam Spade" wrote in message news:gmJ7g.175942$bm6.83898@fed1read04... Travis Marlatte wrote: Steven is correct. Keep in mind that the AIM is not regulatory. Plus, the fact that Alaska has special rules does not mean anything for the other 49 states. But Part 95 is. ...irrelevant to the subject under discussion. That is your opinion, which (as is often the case) contrary to the facts. |
#185
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS
"Sam Spade" wrote in message news:JRZ7g.176003$bm6.52932@fed1read04... That is your opinion, which (as is often the case) contrary to the facts. Cite the cases. |
#186
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS
Foul language aside, the definition of an airway is separate from the
regulation of how to track an airway. -- ------------------------------- Travis Lake N3094P KPWK "Sam Spade" wrote in message news:ZlJ7g.175941$bm6.31585@fed1read04... Steven P. McNicoll wrote: "Sam Spade" wrote in message news:Wip7g.175615$bm6.36868@fed1read04... You are either stupid or stubborn, or perhaps both. I am neither. The AIM reference is explanatory. The AIM is not regulatory. The 8260-16, when describing Federal Airwaty V-XXX, which is formed by VOR facilities, is regulatory. Irrelevant to the subject under discussion. Bull****. |
#187
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS
In article ,
"Travis Marlatte" wrote: Foul language aside, the definition of an airway is separate from the regulation of how to track an airway. isn't there a relationship? -- Bob Noel Looking for a sig the lawyers will hate |
#188
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS
Part 95 is what? Regulatory? I agree.
Part 95 talks about altitudes, not tracking airways. Part 95 talks about altitudes in Alaska. Not the lower 48. Part 95 is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Steven is correct. There is no regulation or set of regulations that require certified GPS for IFR flight. I have a certified GPS. I want the RAIM capability. However, I would not hestitate to use a handheld to track a direct route - as long as I could back it up with other ground-based fixes. I even back up my certified GPS with ground-based fixes. -- ------------------------------- Travis Lake N3094P PWK "Sam Spade" wrote in message news:gmJ7g.175942$bm6.83898@fed1read04... Travis Marlatte wrote: 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. But Part 95 is. |
#189
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS
Travis Marlatte wrote:
Part 95 is what? Regulatory? I agree. Part 95 talks about altitudes, not tracking airways. Part 95 talks about altitudes in Alaska. Not the lower 48. Part 95 is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. You don't understand how Part 95 works. Part 95 governs IFR Altitudes in all 50 states and other areas under FAA jurisdiction, not just Alaska. Where did you get the idea it covers only Alaska? IFR Alitudes = MEAs, MRAs, MOCAs, MCAs. Those are the altitudes of airways. Airways are issued under Part 95 via the federal register via incorporation by reference, exactly like instrument approach procedures (Part 97). The *regulatory* source document for an airway specifies the required VOR stations, among other things. The analogy is a VOR approach at PDQ Airport. You cannot fly that approach using ADF, for example. |
#190
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS
In your usual evasive style I noticed you ignored my post about service volumnes and VFR on top. |
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 |