|
|
Well, actually there are two separate issues. The first one is to allow you to use GPS for your primary navigation using the WAAS cert. Secondly, the ATC manuals are not and have not kept up with the rest of the RNAV aircraft rules. The 7110.65 (ATC manual chapter 4) does not care about what type navigation you are using (WAAS or non WAAS) when going direct, radar monitoring is required. That is the issue that I'm working on right now at FAA headquarters. I'd sure like to think this can be complete this year, but the FAA works at the speed of light....um I mean dark. (is dark slow?). I would anticipate these rules in place in Alaska within a month, then sometime after that in the CONUS. ERAM is taking a lot of our time at the moment too which is the En Route Automation Modernization system for all the ARTCC's. (replacement of all hardware and software exept displays). First facility that will start using it will take place in Februrary at Salt Lake City ARTCC. Nothing changes for the pilots, but the controllers will have many more new tools.
Ron Galbraith
----- Original Message -----
From: Sky2high@aol.com
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] Re: VFR on top
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 12:12:23 -0400
Ron,
You have only caused greater confusion for me.
I understood that even with an approach certified GPS (say, an old Garmin
430 filed as a /G) it could not be used as a primary navigation device outside
of radar coverage areas. Then along came WAAS. After a certain FAA
approved software level, a Garmin 430W (again still filed as /G) was now
certified for sole navigation anywhere in the continental US as long as there
was appropriate WAAS coverage and the hell with "radar coverage" (not much
in mountainous regions anyway).
I thought I could go direct anywhere with such a system (ATC
permitting) as that is what various public documents have led me to
believe.
Grayhawk
PS What use are those sloppy low altitude airways anyway (deviations
and deviants being what they are)?
In a message dated 8/15/2008 3:26:23 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
cfi@instructor.net writes:
I'd like
to clarify a misconception about flying VFR on top or OTP as the controller
sees it in his flight plan and on the data block on the scope. This
clearance isn't a clearance for a free for all or going as low as you can
go. You are still on an IFR flight plan and must stay on the filed
route. The ONLY thing that does for you is allow you to stay clear of
clouds. You must still comply with VFR visibility, distance from cloud
criteria, and the minimum IFR altitudes. This last one is the
biggy. It takes the burden off the controller to separate you from the
ground with minimum IFR separation (1000' AGL or 2000' AGL in mountainous
terrain), and other IFR aircraft unless in class B or C airspace. You
are still required to comply with this altitude. I saw this as a
controller on many many occasions, and most controllers don't know what the
pilot rules are (and don't really care), so if they tell you go as low as you
want, that is not a clearance to break the FAR's. You can be violated if
you do this. (I've seen it happen). I'd really hate for someone to
get a violation on their record because they didn't understand the
rules. If you want to fly right right over Mt Rainier (less than 2000'
AGL) and think you can do it VFR on top, you better be canceling IFR
first. There are waivers that the ATC facilities can get such as
when flying over Pikes Peak just West of Colorado Springs. The MIA
(minimum IFR altitude) is 16000'MSL. This is less than 2000 AGL, but ATC
has authorization to do this. Pilots don't have this authorization via a
VFR on top clearance. In this case you would have to be at least 16115'
MSL (2000'AGL).
Another point I'd like to bring up that
goes along with this discussion is that you are not allowed to go Direct using
GPS (or other RNAV equipment such as INS) in any controlled airspace unless
you are receiving radar monitoring(except when within navaid limitations and
going direct to a navaid). What this means is that unless you are in
radar contact, you cannot go direct. I'm sure this has happened to some
of you and you were frustrated by why you had to stay on an airway. This
is a huge issue in Alaska since there are so many non radar areas and so many
remote airports. Alaska had a waiver to be able to do this, but it
expired last month. I'm working on this very issue right now with flight
standards and all the other affected offices here at the FAA, to allow GPS
direct from airport to airport in non radar situations. Once this is
approved, we will hopefully be able to apply it in the lower 48 and you will
all be going direct to your destination a lot more frequently. As a side
note, a loophole exists that allows you to go direct in non radar if you are
on a VFR on top clearance, so keep that in mind and use the rules to your
advantage when possible.
Ron
Galbraith
>i used to fly in this area of the Cascades
all the time. If you are on an ifr flight plan with a "vfr on top"
clearance, ATC will let you go as low as you want. One time, when on a
VFR on top clearance near Mt Ranier, I asked how low i could go....they
said "you can taxi from there to here if you
want".
>
--
For archives and unsub
http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html
|
|