A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Instrument Flight Rules
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

IFR use of handheld GPS



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old May 4th 06, 06:46 PM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default IFR use of handheld GPS



gregscheetah wrote:

Since direct can only be given under radar control (IFR GPS or
otherwise) ....



I am not sure where everyone is getting this information. Maybe it is
a 'rule' but I have often been given direct routes when out of ATC
radar and, for a while, out of ATC communications. And I don't have a
panel GPS. I use the handheld. But I always get a vector before hand,
not for legality, but in case the GPS craps out I have some idea of
what direction to fly.


You're not direct, you're on a vector. If you are on a random route
you're supposed to be in radar contact, some centers don't care. Salt
Lake frequently allows aircraft to go direct for hundreds of miles
without being in radar contact.
Ads
  #32  
Old May 4th 06, 07:29 PM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default IFR use of handheld GPS

Way off topic, Jose, but take a look at this from FAA Legal Opinions:

"Dear Mr. Brock:

Letter, May 12, 1987

This letter is in reply to your letter dated May 12, 1987, You describe a
proposed flight as a raffle prize for a charitable endeavor. The aircraft is
a Beechcraft Bonanza owned by a partnership. The partnership consists of
your wife and yourself. The aircraft is properly maintained. You are the
exclusive pilot of the aircraft, but your class 2 medical certificate
privileges have lapsed. The certificate, class 3 medical privileges, remain
current.
Your company raises money by various raffles, bake sales and donations
for a needy family at Christmas time. The company is not itself a charitable
organization. The fundraising is entirely voluntary and the activity is not
officially sponsored by the company.
The flight is to be a prize from a raffle. It will consist of a day or
half a day's outing, probably including lunch at Big Bear Airport or Santa
Barbara and return to Torrance Airport. There will be no compensation for
the flight except that the fuel and the luncheons will be paid from the
collected funds. You will donate all other expenses of operating the
airplane and your time. All other raffle costs in excess of fuel and
luncheon costs will be donated to the needy family.
The raffle organization will, of course, represent to the prospective
ticket purchasers that the flight is the prize, or one of the prizes for the
winner.
Section 61.118(a) of the Federal Aviation Regulations provides:
(a) A private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in
command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if the
flight is only incidental to that business or employment and the aircraft
does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire.

{p1}

As outlined above, it is our opinion that compensation for the flight
exists in two forms: (1) the direct reimbursement for fuel, and (2) the
acquisition of pilot in command time, which can be used to demonstrate
aeronautical experience eligibility for an airman certificate. With respect
to the latter form of compensation, the agency has consistently held that a
private pilot does not share the expenses of a flight with his passengers by
"donating" his pilot services, so as to fall within FAR 61.118(b). Also, the
charitable cause is not incidental to the business of the pilot, that is,
yourself, as directly related to the business enterprise, as required by FAR
61.118(a).
Additionally, the flight, as the direct inducement for the raffle
solicitation, is a charter type flight. The length of the flight removes it
from the exception provided in the applicability statement at FAR
135.1(b)(2). Even if the solicitation is conceded to be of such limited
scope as to not constitute a holding out to the public so as to constitute a
flight in air transportation, that is, common carriage, a promise is made to
the buyers of the raffle tickets to provide a service to the winners. The
service has value. In short, the flight is a flight in air commerce of
persons for compensation or hire as a commercial operator (not an air
carrier) in a small aircraft. FAR 135.1(a)(3) applies. A Part 135
certificate is required.

Sincerely,

DeWITTE T. LAWSON, JR.
Regional Counsel"

"Jose" wrote in message
t...
Many people insist it is illegal but none of them has been able to find
an FAR that supports that assertion.


Many people also insist that as a private pilot, "holding out" is illegal,
but none of them have been able to find an FAR that supports their
assertion.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.



  #33  
Old May 4th 06, 07:41 PM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default IFR use of handheld GPS

You have to be real careful with those direct-to's in the intermountain
West, especially with a normally aspirated bird.


That's exactly why I almost never get direct. The airways do a good job
of threading the mountains for me. I wish a Garmin exec would visit out
here, perhaps then we'd get airwasy in the Garmin units.

-Robert (base of the Sierras)

  #34  
Old May 4th 06, 07:50 PM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default IFR use of handheld GPS

Yeah, but that's becase they don't have FOOBAR in their computer so
they want to know what direction you'll be going so they can apply
radar separation. That's unrelated to what equipment you're navigating
with.


Its related to the discussion of not requiring ATC to assign you a
vector in order to go direct.

-Robert

  #35  
Old May 4th 06, 07:58 PM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default IFR use of handheld GPS

Way off topic, Jose, but take a look at this from FAA Legal Opinions[...]

As outlined above, it is our opinion that compensation for the flight
exists in two forms: [...] and (2) the acquisition of pilot in
command time, which can be used to demonstrate aeronautical
experience eligibility for an airman certificate.


I'm aware that the FAA has decided, without making rules, what
constitutes "compensation". In my mind they are making this law up out
of whole cloth, without going through a proper rulemaking procedure.
Nonetheless, they will hang you on it.

In like manner, I am convinced the FAA will hang you on reliance (not
"use") on a handheld GPS in IMC under IFR. The FAA doesn't appear to
need to make official rules.

Thus my proposing the parallel.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.
  #36  
Old May 4th 06, 07:59 PM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default IFR use of handheld GPS

gregscheetah wrote:

I am not sure where everyone is getting this information. Maybe it is
a 'rule' but I have often been given direct routes when out of ATC
radar and, for a while, out of ATC communications.


The ATC folks like to quote FAA Order 7110.65R
http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/Chp5/atc0505.html#5-5-1 which says, among
other stuff that I don't understand, that "Radar separation shall be
applied to all RNAV aircraft operating on a random (impromptu) route at
or below FL 450..."

  #37  
Old May 4th 06, 08:10 PM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default IFR use of handheld GPS

Peter,

John Deakin wrote about this on Avweb back in 1998.

Take a look at:

http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182076-1.html

Tim.

On 3 May 2006 14:41:25 -0700, wrote:

Tim,

All of that sounds very reasonable to me. But so many people think
that they can't navigate direct without approved panel mount GPSs that
I thought there might be some truth in it.

So if a controller asks if I can navigate direct to some intersection
(while under IFR) I can say yes and use my handheld and that's okay? I
suppose it'll all work out, but I wasn't sure how to answer that
question a month or so ago when I was asked. So I said "we can wing
it" and his response was, "well I better give you a vector" and then I
went and "augmented" his vector with my handheld. I'm sure the
controller would have preferred that I just say yes and do it. It
would have been easier for him.

Peter

Tim Auckland wrote:
Here's my layman's understanding of this. I hope someone will jump
in and correct me if I've got something wrong,

If you're IFR en-route, ATC has three ways of directing you::

a) via an airway;
b) direct;
c) vectors;

ATC needs to have you on radar to issue (b) or (c).

You should only accept a direct clearance if you're confident you can
navigate direct.
It doesn't matter what method you plan to use to navigate direct -- it
can be dead reckoning, celestial navigation, visual (if you're VMC),
VOR, hand-held GPS, panel-mount GPS, etc.

If you're not confident you can navigate direct, then you should
refuse the direct clearance. ATC already has you on radar, so it's
typically no big deal for them to issue a radar vector instead.

What happens if you've accepted a direct clearance, and your hand-held
GPS's battereis die?
It's just the same as any other reason for being unable to navigate
direct (clouds cover the stars, you can no longer see your
destination, your ham sandwich falls to the floor...). You inform
ATC, eg:
"Cessna 12345 is no longer able to navigate direct xyz. Request
radar vectors."
(Remember, they've already got you on radar to issue the direct
clearance.)

So, it's OK to accept a direct clearance, even if you're /U, as long
as you're confident you can do the navigation.

It's also good practice to always cross-check your navigation using
some independent means.

Once again, if any of this is wrong, stupid, or illegal, please
correct me. I'm here to learn!

Cheers,

Tim.



  #38  
Old May 4th 06, 09:41 PM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default IFR use of handheld GPS

Newps wrote:


Sam Spade wrote:


The "rule" is that direct routes initiated by ATC are limited to the
service volume of VOR (or rarely, NDBs) and the controller can assure
that MIAs will not be violated.

When the pilot makes the request, though, let the buyer beware.





It is irrelavant who makes the request, the rules are the same.


That's sure what is says on paper. Still, let the "buyer beware" when
he makes the request.
  #39  
Old May 4th 06, 10:41 PM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default IFR use of handheld GPS

Newps,

If using a hand-held GPS as a significant IFR navigation tool is
against the spirit of the FARs, surely the FAA could put an end to the
practice very simply by strongly discouraging controllers from issuing
Direct-To clearances to /A and /U aircraft
(unless of course it's Direct-To a ground-based navaid and the plane
is within the service volume of the navaid).

It doesn't appear to have done so, even though the debate has been
going on since at least 1998.

I'd be very much interested in any insights you might be able to share
regarding the FAA's behavior here.

(As I said earlier, I'm here to learn.)

Regards,

Tim.



On Thu, 04 May 2006 11:46:11 -0600, Newps wrote:



gregscheetah wrote:

Since direct can only be given under radar control (IFR GPS or
otherwise) ....



I am not sure where everyone is getting this information. Maybe it is
a 'rule' but I have often been given direct routes when out of ATC
radar and, for a while, out of ATC communications. And I don't have a
panel GPS. I use the handheld. But I always get a vector before hand,
not for legality, but in case the GPS craps out I have some idea of
what direction to fly.


You're not direct, you're on a vector. If you are on a random route
you're supposed to be in radar contact, some centers don't care. Salt
Lake frequently allows aircraft to go direct for hundreds of miles
without being in radar contact.


  #40  
Old May 4th 06, 11:01 PM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default IFR use of handheld GPS



Tim Auckland wrote:
Newps,

If using a hand-held GPS as a significant IFR navigation tool is
against the spirit of the FARs, surely the FAA could put an end to the
practice very simply by strongly discouraging controllers from issuing
Direct-To clearances to /A and /U aircraft


It's already there, the controller simply needs to read the book.



It doesn't appear to have done so, even though the debate has been
going on since at least 1998.


It's like anything else in the FAA, they don't care until you wreck
something. Then the FAA will buy part or all of your airplane when you sue.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Navcom - handheld VS panel ? [email protected] Home Built 10 October 31st 05 09:08 PM
HANDHELD RADIO [email protected] Soaring 15 March 29th 05 03:03 PM
GPS Handheld Kai Glaesner Instrument Flight Rules 2 November 16th 04 05:01 PM
Upgrade handheld GPS, or save for panel mount? [email protected] Owning 7 March 8th 04 04:33 PM
Ext antenna connection for handheld radio Ray Andraka Owning 7 March 5th 04 02:10 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2014 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.