Handheld GPS
 

Going into Dallas under IMC I heard a fellow cargo operator (to be unnamed) say to ATC "I can take a shortcut direct to a fix on the arrival. I have my handheld GPS onboard." ATC didn't really acknowledge so the pilot tried the attempt a second time. It hurts my head to think that pilots at the 135 operation level are unaware you can't be /G with a handheld. Be careful out there.

and now its on tape......Kudos to ATC for not responding and probably saving his butt (and a bunch of paperwork). Now someone needs to find this guy and enlighten him.

What makes you sure he was /G with a handheld? That's a pretty big assumption if all you heard was what you put in your post. Direct routings are given every day by ATC to pilots with handheld GPS who have filed something other than /G.

The conversation usually involves some version of direct routing ion a radar environment with the understanding that the aircraft is on radar, is choosing a heading based on the situational awareness being provided, and an expectation that if there is a course issue, ATC will advise.

"I have my handheld GPS onboard" is often shorthand for all that, with both the pilot and ATC aware of the requirement that GPS not be used for primary navigation.

A longer version of the conversation might be something like this real one:

ATC: Proceed direct FIXNAME
Pilot: We're VFR GPS only. It looks like a heading of 275°. Will you advise of course deviations?
ATC: Will advise. proceed direct FIXNAME on that heading.

whatever he filed..he filed, but, wouldnt you consider that above stated instance as using a handheld for primary course guidance and navigation?

It is not legally possible to fly direct to an intersection or other rnav waypoint without being /g.

You can use your handheld to fly direct a vor, or some other land based fix regardless of distance using a handheld if you ask for a heading (and here the words "when able direct")

It is also a question if you request VFR-on-top can you can use your handheld gps, or pilotage to fly direct to a fix?

It really depends on the opspecs.

At a previous employer, we were authorized to fly off airways and outside the service volumes as long as we could reliably fix our position at least once per hour.

Perhaps a better way is to request a vector until direct.

I agree 100%...but as stated by the OP, it sounds like treading in dangerous waters, regardless of what is accepted, or commonplace.
ask for heading to keep it legal, but as stated above...sounds risky. just my $.02

Musta missed that section in the AIM...

;)

What about Loran/INS/VOR RNAV recievers? /g is not the only way to RNAV.

That being said, under most circumstances I would agree, however some 135 operators have a provision in the ops specs that allows them to area navigate without the use of any RNAV equipment (provided of course that certain requirements are met). Most notably of these is the ability to reliable fix your position at least once an hour using VORs. Another is operating within the Standard Service Volume of Airway VOR's. Basically, your Dead Reckoning on an IFR flight plan, in IMC conditions which is not precluded by the FAR's

As far as handhelds helping to provide "situational awareness" during this "area navigation" I believe the FAA has no real concern as long as it's not being utilized as the primary means of navigation.

If this operator did indeed have this op specs provision and the requirements of the provision were met, this communication was absolutely not necessary. A simple request to proceed direct to the fix would have sufficed. Of course the other glaring possibility is that this pilot was indeed in violation. However, speculation is about all that can be done considering such limited facts. We should probably not rush to judgment.

Many, many years ago I was a new hire second officer on the 727 out of CLE. After level off at 280 on the all nighter to LAX, the CAP told the F/O to request direct LAX. ATC came back "gee, I didn't know you guys had INS on your 727s". The F/O came back "no, we don't have INS, but we do have ACARS". (The CAP then choked on his coffee.) ATC then said "OK, cleared LAX via ACARS direct". We had a good laugh, then went direct via the creased map method.

Note: This was when VLF/OMEGA and LORAN were just coming into common use, and I'm sure ATC really had no idea what any of them were.

Joe

It was IMC (he had to be IFR)...and you can't take a "heading direct when able" to a FIX that isn't ground based without a panel mounted IFR approved GPS

If he did have an INS/RNAV system, then ok. I doubt the late night, cargo carrying, get rid of every extra piece of equipment caravan had it. Who knows though. Maybe I was presumptuous.

I'll bite- What's the "creased map" method. I think I have a general idea, but I'd love to hear the explanation. :)

Okay, I'll jump in here and stir up the pot. Have done in the past, and still do to this day. Flying along in a non /G airplane. Request a direct clearance. ATC is informed of the VFR only GPS. They have asked me what heading do I need to get there. I inform them. They issued me a clearance to fly that heading. This is a legal loophole (if you want to call it that). Of course I was flying Part 91. When I change controllers, I advise them "Flying last assigned heading xxx". I have NEVER had a problem with this. Okay now, here it comes...:)

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. You're one of the everyday people I mentioned earlier. (How's that for a flame?)

If I'm thinking of the same thing, it's just a way to "draw" a straight line without ruler and pencil.

You take your chart, pinch your current position with one thumb and forefinger, then pinch your "direct" destination with another to create a crease that gives you a courseline between here and there. You then find a nearby VOR and the radial that parallels your courseline (or in the case of VOR too far away to receive, the VOR you are heading for) and, voila! – instant magnetic course. Calculate/estimate a wind correction and...

Essentially, it's dead reckoning. I've seen some pretty heated discussions about whether dead reckoning is legal under IFR, with positions falling generally into the "always", "never", and "in radar contact" categories. No clear guidance form the FAA.

Yeah, I'm one of those everyday people who has only been flying for 37 years. Go figure.:p

Me: "Center, whizbang 102?"

Center: "Whizbang 102, center."

Me: "Hey uh...it looks like a heading of xxx would really work out well for vectors to MYFIX. Can I get a vector direct?"

Center: "Whizbang 102, sure, fly heading 103 vectors to MYFIX."

Me: "Whizbang 102, heading 103 vectors to MYFIX. Thank you."

It's called a RADAR vector, folks. We get them all the time.

"Fly heading 120 vectors for your climb."

"Fly heading 080 vectors around airspace."

"Fly heading 180 vectors to final."

"Fly heading 360 vectors for controller amusement."

Really, it's not a big deal. Quit worrying about what the other guy is doing and fly your aircraft.

No, I've never clicked "direct" and flown that course with the clearance "cleared direct to___" using a handheld, but I've suggested headings for vectors. It's perfectly legal.

-mini

To add to what I said earlier. I have, on several occasions, had a controller ask ME if I had a handheld GPS onboard. I affirmed, and he asked what heading I needed to get to "X". Like mini said, it is a radar vector, therefore, it is legal. If they need you to change your course, believe me they will tell you. Okay, we have beat this one to death already. Move along...:D

Many of us have had them, even weekend warriors like me. Even have had them on IFR dual cross country training flights. The dialog can take some different forms but when both ATC and the pilot are on the same page they are essentially a radar vector. It's when the dialog doesn't take place that there's a potential for a problem.