So what regulation(s) is/are being broken

Don Jones

Don Jones

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
855
Location
Las Cruces, New Mexico
Display Name
Display name:
DJones
Pilot departs an airport IFR, filed /u, has VFR GPS noted in the remarks of his flight plan. Receives and accepts a direct routing even though he has no other way to fly said routing other than his VFR only GPS. Which reg(s) is he breaking. I have spent quite a while searching and besides the obvious "it's illegal" I have been unable to find the pertinent regs. There are a lot of folks on other boards(not me!) pronouncing loudly that this is a legal operation.
 
91.205(d)(2). And yes, there are a lot of people out there who don't understand the application of that rule to that situation. Further, since ATC has a tendency these days to clear first and check suffixes later, such clearances are common. It is the pilot's responsibility, not the controller's, to ensure compliance with this rule. However, as long as your GPS works and you go where the controller wants, it is highly unlikely you'll ever get bagged for this one unless:
  1. Something gets messed up, and either you or separation is lost, and the controller files a PD report on you with the FSDO, or
  2. You try flying an approach which requires an IFR GPS (like a VOR/DME approach with no DME in the plane) and happen to get ramp checked on landing.
Because folks rarely if ever get caught, a lot of folks think it's legal to do this, and they're wrong. That said, there are workarounds.

Let's say you want to cut a corner and go direct to an intersection on an airway on the other side of the VOR to which you are currently tracking. You cannot ask for a clearance direct to that intersection -- you don't have the "navigation equipment suitable for the route to be flown." However, you can look at your handheld GPS, see that a direct course to that intersection is 070, and ask for a 070 vector to join the airway near that intersection. If the controller then says, "Turn left heading 070, join Victor Four Twenty Six east of Bongo VOR, flight plan route," you're good to go -- follow the GPS to that intersection, intercept the radial for the airway, and track it on down the line.

This may seem merely semantics, perhaps, but when you're getting vectored, the controller has responsibility for ensuring you stay on course. When cleared direct, you have sole responsibility for that, and without the right nav gear, the FAA says you cannot accept that responsibility.
 
Last edited:
Equipment required for IFR flight:
91.205(d)(2) Two-way radio communication and navigation equipment suitable for the route to be flown

Edit: Darn. Too slow.

Edit2: I guess if he/she were on a "VFR-on-top" clearance, they could continue navigating by VFR standards as long as they remained in VMC.
 
Don Jones said:
Pilot departs an airport IFR, filed /u, has VFR GPS noted in the remarks of his flight plan. Receives and accepts a direct routing even though he has no other way to fly said routing other than his VFR only GPS. Which reg(s) is he breaking. I have spent quite a while searching and besides the obvious "it's illegal" I have been unable to find the pertinent regs. There are a lot of folks on other boards(not me!) pronouncing loudly that this is a legal operation.
Click to expand...

If the "VFR only GPS" is installed equipment there should be a placard stating it's for VFR use only, the described operation would then be in violation of FAR 91.9(a). If the GPS is a handheld the operation is perfectly legal.
 
CJones said:
I guess if he/she were on a "VFR-on-top" clearance, they could continue navigating by VFR standards as long as they remained in VMC.
Click to expand...
VFR-on-top relieves you only of the IFR altitude rules (and for ATC, the separation standards), not the horizontal navigation requirements. You must still track the cleared route and use IFR-legal nav systems to do so.
 
roncachamp said:
If the "VFR only GPS" is installed equipment there should be a placard stating it's for VFR use only, the described operation would then be in violation of FAR 91.9(a).
Click to expand...
That's true.
If the GPS is a handheld the operation is perfectly legal.
Click to expand...
That's not. 91.205(d)(2) applies. And it really doesn't make any sense that it would be legal to do something with a handheld GPS that isn't legal with a panel-mounted VFR-only GPS. Anyone who doubts this can call the FAA Flight Standards Service (AFS-400) and be told so directly.
 
Ron Levy said:
91.205(d)(2) applies.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. 91.205 states what must be installed in the aircraft for various operations, it doesn't prohibit the use of uninstalled devices.

Anyone who doubts this can call the FAA Flight Standards Service (AFS-400) and be told so directly.
Click to expand...
I did just that about ten years ago. Several FSDOs initially cited various FARs that were "violated". They were not able to explain how any of them were violated, however.
 
It has been a while since I have flown a /u airplane, but I have gotten that request form ATC before. knowing that if I accept it I am responsible for the route navigation and would be in violation of the regs that Ron stated. What I have done is replied that I could go direct if they gave me a vector to fly. ATC then assigns me a heading and since I have a compass and a DG I can fly that legaly.
 
Ron pointed out the relevant facts. Steven is wrong on the handheld GPS use. None of them are approved for IFR.

In any case, this issue doesn't cause any problems as long as you do what Ron said and ask for a "vector heading 180 direct FIXAA". When I was flying /A, I'd just do that - it achieves exactly what you're looking for.

-Felix
 
Ron Levy said:
This may seem merely semantics, perhaps, but when you're getting vectored, the controller has responsibility for ensuring you stay on course. When cleared direct, you have sole responsibility for that, and without the right nav gear, the FAA says you cannot accept that responsibility.
Click to expand...

Negative. The controller is required to provide radar monitoring and course guidance as necessary. See FAA Order JO 7110.65S paragraph 4-1-2.a.


http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraf...s/atpubs/ATC/Chp4/atc0401.html#atc0401.html.1
 
Last edited:
Steven is wrong and his circular logic doesn't help. AFS-400 gave me the word on this, and will to you if you contact them. I will not futher respond to his incorrect statements on this issue.
 
As others have stated getting vectors is the "key" to making this legal.
I personally would do as Ron had suggested and just make a request for vectors.
IMHO, when ATC knows you have that GPS in the plane, there is an unseen wink from them, they know what you are doing and are more than happy to oblige in most situations with granting vectors.

Mark B
 
Ok, so where does it spell out what is "suitable". Or is that like everything
else in the FAR's where one must read between the lines:nonod:

91.205(d)(2) Two-way radio communication and navigation equipment suitable for the route to be flown
 
Not SURE Don. But the "suitable" word in the above, goes into the entire "IFR certified" and tested etc. Which covers more than one reg. Depending on whether it is GPS, or VOR being checked etc...
 
markb5900 said:
Not SURE Don. But the "suitable" word in the above, goes into the entire "IFR certified" and tested etc. Which covers more than one reg. Depending on whether it is GPS, or VOR being checked etc...
Click to expand...

I know the AIM spells it out pretty clearly, although we all know that it is not a "regulatory" document. Given it is published official information I am sure it(the aim) would be thrown at you if you were violated. Is my thinking correct here?

d. General Requirements
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.
(b) Aircraft using GPS navigation equipment under IFR must be equipped with an approved and operational alternate means of navigation appropriate to the flight. Active monitoring of alternative navigation equipment is not required if the GPS receiver uses RAIM for integrity monitoring. Active monitoring of an alternate means of navigation is required when the RAIM capability of the GPS equipment is lost.
 
Last edited:
To me YES.
The AIM isn't "regulatory" but if you don't follow it, IMHO you are going to get hung with what is in it.
 
One way to look at the subject of handheld GPS: having a handheld GPS does not allow the pilot to legally fly anything more than the pilot could fly without it.
 
Equipment required for IFR flight:
91.205(d)(2) Two-way radio communication and navigation equipment suitable for the route to be flown

OK, so you are flying along and ask for direct XYZ intersection and the controller grants the request. You are still in the service volume area of the VOR's but using your GPS to guide you to an intersection. As long as you can fix your position with the required equipment (VOR/DME) you have met the requirement of the above FAR.
 
You are still in the service volume area of the VOR's but using your GPS to guide you to an intersection. As long as you can fix your position with the required equipment (VOR/DME) you have met the requirement of the above FAR.
Click to expand...
It doesn't say "equipment suitable for some route that you could switch to if you had to", it says "route to be flown".

What's the route you're flying here? Can you fly that route with your nav radio and DME?
-harry
 
It seems to me that some simply do not want to pay for an IFR gps and would rather just bend the regulations in ways that they simply cannot be bent.

I'm sorry--but you can't go flying around with a VFR GPS as your primary course guidance during IFR operations. You can claim that you're using your VOR or whatever but if you turn your GPS off you would be unable to maintain your course to the fix with the VOR or ADF. Get the vectors, fly the VOR's like they're meant to be flown, or get a certified GPS.
 
mantakos said:
It doesn't say "equipment suitable for some route that you could switch to if you had to", it says "route to be flown".

What's the route you're flying here? Can you fly that route with your nav radio and DME?
-harry
Click to expand...

Sure, why not? Are you saying a pilot can't use VOR/DME and do a cross plot to navigate?

Several years ago I use to fly from JFK to the Dominican Republic via the Atlantic routes down the east coast. At that time we were strictly class one navigation with only 2 VOR's and 2 DME's. We would cross plot navigate using VOR/DME's to fix our position along the route, all perfectly legal.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
Equipment required for IFR flight:
91.205(d)(2) Two-way radio communication and navigation equipment suitable for the route to be flown

OK, so you are flying along and ask for direct XYZ intersection and the controller grants the request. You are still in the service volume area of the VOR's but using your GPS to guide you to an intersection. As long as you can fix your position with the required equipment (VOR/DME) you have met the requirement of the above FAR.
Click to expand...

In this situation you are correct. As long as the fix can be identified by other means (VOR/DME etc.) you are fine and could say you are using the VFR GPS for situational awareness only. However the original situation was on a direct routing with no other way to fly the routing other than the VFR GPS.
 
Don Jones said:
I know the AIM spells it out pretty clearly, although we all know that it is not a "regulatory" document. Given it is published official information I am sure it(the aim) would be thrown at you if you were violated. Is my thinking correct here?
Click to expand...
Yes, your thinking is correct. While the AIM is not itself regulatory, it provides explanations and guidance. In this case, getting caught doing what the AIM says not to do will result in trouble with the FAA.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
Equipment required for IFR flight:
91.205(d)(2) Two-way radio communication and navigation equipment suitable for the route to be flown

OK, so you are flying along and ask for direct XYZ intersection and the controller grants the request. You are still in the service volume area of the VOR's but using your GPS to guide you to an intersection. As long as you can fix your position with the required equipment (VOR/DME) you have met the requirement of the above FAR.
Click to expand...
The FAA does not authorize point-to-point nav using only VOR's unless the line between the two points runs along a VOR radial. The Navy does it, the Air Force used to (but now, I understand, prohibits it without a navigator aboard), but civilian pilots are not authorized to do this. If you think otherwise, I suggest discussing this with AFS-400, who will quickly disavow you of your belief.
 
Last edited:
Don Jones said:
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.
Click to expand...

So, isn't ded reckoning a legal means to navigate IFR? If so, can't one fly using ded reckoning and have a VFR GPS "considered only an aid to situational awareness.".

I've never had to contemplate this becuase I have an IFR GPS in my bird so I may be completely off base here.
 
The way "I" understand it. Dead reckoning isn't acceptable.
You have to have positive course guidance at all times IFR, and with DR, you don't have that.

Mark B.
 
Ron Levy said:
That said, there are workarounds.

Let's say you want to cut a corner and go direct to an intersection on an airway on the other side of the VOR to which you are currently tracking. You cannot ask for a clearance direct to that intersection -- you don't have the "navigation equipment suitable for the route to be flown." However, you can look at your handheld GPS, see that a direct course to that intersection is 070, and ask for a 070 vector to join the airway near that intersection. If the controller then says, "Turn left heading 070, join Victor Four Twenty Six east of Bongo VOR, flight plan route," you're good to go -- follow the GPS to that intersection, intercept the radial for the airway, and track it on down the line.
Click to expand...

Ron,

Would it be more correct to say "you're good to go -- fly heading 070 until you intersect Victor Four Twenty Six"? It may or not match your GPS track (gps signals could go haywire on you after the clearance). Your clearance was to fly a heading... if it happens to match the GPS after that, then that's icing on the cupcake. If it DOESN'T match, then you fly heading 070 until cleared otherwise. Yes?
 
Ron Levy said:
The FAA does not authorize point-to-point nav using only VOR's unless the line between the two points runs along a VOR radial. The Navy does it, the Air Force used to (but now, I understand, prohibits it without a navigator aboard), but civilian pilots are not authorized to do this. If you think otherwise, I suggest discussing this with AFS-400, who will quickly disavow you of your belief.
Click to expand...

How about with a VOR RNAV unit like a KNS80?
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Well, I think that probably doesn't quite fit what Ron meant when he said "using only VOR's". I think the bottom line is that you need a needle.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I wasn't intending to pick on Ron, I'm sure that was his intended meaning. It's just my technical / infrastructure engineer side coming out. :smile: Technically, you can't fly point to point using only VOR's, either... unless you have a VOR head in the plane and radios to receive them. The KNS80 does that, too, just in a different way, but using the same "VORs" and no databases (as with GPS).
 
Ron Levy said:
The FAA does not authorize point-to-point nav using only VOR's unless the line between the two points runs along a VOR radial. The Navy does it, the Air Force used to (but now, I understand, prohibits it without a navigator aboard), but civilian pilots are not authorized to do this. If you think otherwise, I suggest discussing this with AFS-400, who will quickly disavow you of your belief.
Click to expand...

I have discussed this with the FAA (albeit was a few years ago) during an operations meeting discussing class one and class two navigation. I asked a very similar hypothetical question and was told no problem as long as I could fix my position when requested by ATC.

This is all a moot point anyway since all one really needs to do is ask ATC for a heading direct then fly the GPS.
 
Last edited:
Rotor&Wing said:
I have discussed this with the FAA (albeit was a few years ago) during an operations meeting discussing class one and class two navigation. I asked a very similar hypothetical question and was told no problem as long as I could fix my position when requested by ATC.
Click to expand...

An odd request for ATC to make since they've got you on radar.
 
Ron - do you agree that "Fly heading 190, direct XYZ when able" would be legal in this case?

I seem to recall ded reckoning, and a tuna sandwich being quoted when this topic used to come up on rec.aviation.ifr.
 
roncachamp said:
An odd request for ATC to make since they've got you on radar.
Click to expand...

Radar coverage is not 100% across the globe. In a nubmer of areas that I've flown, including while on IFR flights, I've been told "xxx, radar contact lost. That's pretty normal where you are, we'll probably pick you up again in xx miles." And I tend to fly in the more populated areas that have better radar coverage.

While I've not had ATC ever request for me to give my position yet (other than when I'm trying to pick up flight following), I would not find it odd. Really, you should always have your location ready anyway, so that you know exactly where you are if there's a problem.

I do the requested heading bit as stated in the /A and /U planes I fly when it makes sense. While the Mooney is /G, the Aztec is /U and the Archer I did my IFR training in is /A. I know the flying club isn't going to put an IFR GPS in the Archer (only two out of the 30 or so that I'm aware of actually use it for IFR flying anyway), and while I do intend on putting an IFR GPS in the Aztec, I just bought the thing and I've got a few other things I want to deal with on it first.

For some routes, flying via the Victors adds significant distance. For example, flying Victors from where my aunt and uncle live in Virginia back home turns a 300 mile trip into a 350 mile trip. No thanks, I'd rather fly in a straight line and save the 50 miles. Flying from here to Youngstown, Ohio, though (a frequent route for me for the animal rescue flights I do) doesn't add anything significant.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Radar coverage is not 100% across the globe. In a nubmer of areas that I've flown, including while on IFR flights, I've been told "xxx, radar contact lost. That's pretty normal where you are, we'll probably pick you up again in xx miles." And I tend to fly in the more populated areas that have better radar coverage.

While I've not had ATC ever request for me to give my position yet (other than when I'm trying to pick up flight following), I would not find it odd. Really, you should always have your location ready anyway, so that you know exactly where you are if there's a problem.

I do the requested heading bit as stated in the /A and /U planes I fly when it makes sense. While the Mooney is /G, the Aztec is /U and the Archer I did my IFR training in is /A. I know the flying club isn't going to put an IFR GPS in the Archer (only two out of the 30 or so that I'm aware of actually use it for IFR flying anyway), and while I do intend on putting an IFR GPS in the Aztec, I just bought the thing and I've got a few other things I want to deal with on it first.

For some routes, flying via the Victors adds significant distance. For example, flying Victors from where my aunt and uncle live in Virginia back home turns a 300 mile trip into a 350 mile trip. No thanks, I'd rather fly in a straight line and save the 50 miles. Flying from here to Youngstown, Ohio, though (a frequent route for me for the animal rescue flights I do) doesn't add anything significant.
Click to expand...

All true, but beside the point. IFR route clearances off of airways or beyond the normal altitude and distance limitations of navaids are available only where ATC can provide radar monitoring.
 
Last edited:
Don Jones said:
I know the AIM spells it out pretty clearly, although we all know that it is not a "regulatory" document. Given it is published official information I am sure it(the aim) would be thrown at you if you were violated. Is my thinking correct here?
Click to expand...
I think so (see my signature).

There was a citation to the "navigation equipment suitable for the route to be flown" language in FAR 91.205. That language used to be a reference to "ground based facilities" and was amended not too long ago to bring the FAR into the 21st Century.

At the same time, the FAA also added a definition of "suitable RNAV system" to FAR 1.1

==============================
Suitable RNAV system is an RNAV system that meets the required performance established for a type of operation, e.g. IFR; and is suitable for operation over the route to be flown in terms of any performance criteria (including accuracy) established by the air navigation service provider for certain routes (e.g. oceanic, ATS routes, and IAPs). An RNAV system's suitability is dependent upon the availability of ground and/or satellite navigation aids that are needed to meet any route performance criteria that may be prescribed in route specifications to navigate the aircraft along the route to be flown. Information on suitable RNAV systems is published in FAA guidance material.
==============================

I think that last sentence is (a) a recognition that the speed of technology is greater than the speed of the regulatory process, (b) rules about the use of technology is more suitable in "guidance material" than can be written and published faster and (b) an intentional incorporation of FAA "guidance material" (including the AIM) on that subject to "regulatory" or at least interpretive status.
 
midlifeflyer said:
I think that last sentence is (a) a recognition that the speed of technology is greater than the speed of the regulatory process, (b) rules about the use of technology is more suitable in "guidance material" than can be written and published faster and (b) an intentional incorporation of FAA "guidance material" (including the AIM) on that subject to "regulatory" or at least interpretive status.
Click to expand...
I think it's also faster than the common sense of some if left to their own accord.

My thought is... if equipment installed is required to comply with TSO, would non-TSO'd equipment be allowed for use for critical navigation functions?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top