Going direct, under IFR, with a VFR GPS?

[jrh]

Something happened to me several months ago that I thought was interesting. I was cleared direct to an airport, while on an IFR clearance, in IMC, after I made it clear that I only had a VFR GPS. Does anybody know how this was legal?

Here's approximately what happened:

Me: Seattle Center, Arrow ABC about 15 southeast of Walla Walla, 7,500, request a pop-up IFR clearance to Caldwell, Idaho.
Ctr: Arrow ABC, squawk 2345 and say type aircraft.
Me: We're /U.
Ctr: Climb and maintain 13,000 and proceed direct Nampa. (Nampa is another airport in Idaho a few miles away from Caldwell)
Me: Climb and maintain 13,000, and, uh...we only have a VFR GPS, we're unable to proceed direct Nampa. Could we get direct Baker City VOR?
Ctr: Roger, are you able to fly a vector?
Me: Sure, we can fly a heading.
Ctr: Ok, fly heading 135 and report reaching 13,000.
[I climb for a while and report 13,000]
Ctr: Roger, now proceed direct Nampa, and you can use your VFR GPS.
[time passes]
Ctr: Contact Salt Lake Center on 1XX.XX and I let him know you're direct using a VFR GPS, and that's fine with him.

Weather on that day was good VFR around Caldwell, but cumulous clouds were building with bases at about 8,000 and tops at 14,000, so we were in IMC about half the time.

I was under the impression that you simply can't use a VFR GPS for IFR, no matter what. But does this example mean it is at the controller's discretion? Does giving me direct to a different airport than my destination have anything to do with it? What did the vector have to do with the controller's plan?

[flyguy]

Well, I'm not sure but it dosn't sound right. On the other hand, all they do when they give you a vector is guestimate a heading that will get you from where you are to where they want you, so a VFR GPS would be at least as accurate as the controller eyballing it on his scope. He probably had you climb to 13000 to get you above the MORA, at which point the GPS is just a tool to give you a heading to your waypoint. He could have just given you a vector, but the same thing is accomplished by having you go direct (and probably more accurately) and less work for him.

[MidlifeFlyer]

I don't see a problem with the scenario as written. You were flying an ATC vector for primary navigation. The VFR GPS was only for "situational awareness" which is okay under the rules. The controller was simply acknowledging that.

AIM 1-1-19.d.1.a
==============================
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.
==============================

Edit: Sorry. I missed the end of the story where he tells you to fly direct "using your GPS." That is a bit strange, and not permitted by the rules. You should have said, "Unable, may I have another vector?" Unless, of course, from ATC's standpoint you were =still= on vectors. But the problem is that in case of a violation, "ATC said it was okay" is no defense any more than it would be to flying through clouds VFR because ATC said it was okay.

[MikeD]

[ QUOTE ]
Edit: Sorry. I missed the end of the story where he tells you to fly direct "using your GPS." That is a bit strange, and not permitted by the rules. You should have said, "Unable, may I have another vector?" Unless, of course, from ATC's standpoint you were =still= on vectors. But the problem is that in case of a violation, "ATC said it was okay" is no defense any more than it would be to flying through clouds VFR because ATC said it was okay.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could be the onus was upon the pilot to maintain VMC while navigating with the VFR GPS, even though under IFR. If it was me, I would've done it differently. I wouldn't have mentioned anything about GPS, especially with the prevailing IMC conditions on the route, and would've flown the radar vector, requesting to a VORTAC or to join an airway when possible. You're just setting yourself up for being put into a corner you might not want to end up in, in a few more ways than one, regardless of who ultimately puts you there.

[Nick]

I agree with MikeD. If the GPS is not certificated for IFR use, like if it can't be used for it OR the database is out of date, I just use it as one more resource in the cockpit to let me know where I am but not as an actual navigational aid. I wouldn't tell ATC it's there either.

[jrh]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Edit: Sorry. I missed the end of the story where he tells you to fly direct "using your GPS." That is a bit strange, and not permitted by the rules. You should have said, "Unable, may I have another vector?" Unless, of course, from ATC's standpoint you were =still= on vectors. But the problem is that in case of a violation, "ATC said it was okay" is no defense any more than it would be to flying through clouds VFR because ATC said it was okay.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could be the onus was upon the pilot to maintain VMC while navigating with the VFR GPS, even though under IFR. If it was me, I would've done it differently. I wouldn't have mentioned anything about GPS, especially with the prevailing IMC conditions on the route, and would've flown the radar vector, requesting to a VORTAC or to join an airway when possible. You're just setting yourself up for being put into a corner you might not want to end up in, in a few more ways than one, regardless of who ultimately puts you there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to clarify, I didn't say anything about the GPS until asked to go direct somewhere. Notice I told the controller we were "slant Uniform" rather than "slant Golf."

When the controller cleared us direct, I informed them we were unable and told them it was because we only had a VFR GPS. I don't like saying "unable" without giving some sort of a reason. I then requested direct to a nearby VOR from which we could join an airway.

The controller never told us to maintain VFR conditions, so I treated the clearance just like any other IFR clearance and went into the clouds. Also, the conditions were such that we were in and out of the clouds, about 50/50. It was a broken layer with periodic holes big enough to circle down through. If, say, we lost comms, I would've been able to reach VFR fairly quickly and easily.

As far as putting myself in a corner, I'm not sure what you mean. If you're talking about running into terrain, the highest peaks along the route were at about 7500, so we were well above everything within 100 miles around us.

With regard to what would happen if a deviation took place...I'm not sure how one could. My understanding is that VFR GPSs are just as accurate as the IFR models, but it is the non-standardized installations and lack of guaranteed reliability for signal reception that prohibit them from IFR use. Is that not the case?

What really got me about this situation was that multiple controllers OK'd it. That's why I wondered if there was some rule I wasn't aware of.

For what it's worth, I had a friend tell me that he has been able to go "semi-direct" before with a VFR GPS by saying, "My VFR GPS shows a heading of about 135 to [destination], request heading 135." As long as he's above the MVA, the controller just says "Fly heading 135" and it counts as being vectored.

Are there any controllers here on JC that could explain this?

[DE727UPS]

If you are in radar contact and in a radar enviornment, you can use a vector from ATC to go direct. The way to approach ATC with the VFR GPS is to say "I'd like to fly heading 134 for direct Caldwell". ATC says "approved as requested". You can fly IMC all you want cause you are technically on a vector direct (pilot suggested from the GPS). Your VFR GPS will be much more accurate than vectors from enroute radar. If you get close to Caldwell and have to do an approach, though, as soon as your off radar vectors you'll need to stop using your VFR GPS for navigation....not that you ever were.

Anyway, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

[MikeD]

[ QUOTE ]
Just to clarify, I didn't say anything about the GPS until asked to go direct somewhere. Notice I told the controller we were "slant Uniform" rather than "slant Golf."

[/ QUOTE ]

I noticed that.

[ QUOTE ]

When the controller cleared us direct, I informed them we were unable and told them it was because we only had a VFR GPS. I don't like saying "unable" without giving some sort of a reason. I then requested direct to a nearby VOR from which we could join an airway.

[/ QUOTE ]

You could've just said "unable, I'm /U"; and that would've solved it.

[ QUOTE ]

The controller never told us to maintain VFR conditions, so I treated the clearance just like any other IFR clearance and went into the clouds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing wrong with that. You were on RVs. But by admitting the "VFR GPS" thing, like I said before, you open the door to getting into a corner you might not want to be in. You had the RVs, so you were good to go. Remember, never miss an opprtunity to keep quiet.

[ QUOTE ]

Also, the conditions were such that we were in and out of the clouds, about 50/50. It was a broken layer with periodic holes big enough to circle down through. If, say, we lost comms, I would've been able to reach VFR fairly quickly and easily.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine. But again, saying the whole VFR GPS gig, and later if asked what your flight conditions are and what your intentions are to a new controller, and you come back with "...we're IMC, direct XXX"; you may screw yourself.

[qute]
As far as putting myself in a corner, I'm not sure what you mean. If you're talking about running into terrain, the highest peaks along the route were at about 7500, so we were well above everything within 100 miles around us.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nah. By "corner", I mean legality-wise with the IMC around and the admission of a VFR GPS (which wasn't necessary), you open yourself up to the problem I outlined above.

[ QUOTE ]

With regard to what would happen if a deviation took place...I'm not sure how one could. My understanding is that VFR GPSs are just as accurate as the IFR models, but it is the non-standardized installations and lack of guaranteed reliability for signal reception that prohibit them from IFR use. Is that not the case?

[/ QUOTE ]

Or outdated databases. But again, you don't want to open yourself up to potential problems due to your own admission. No 5th Amendment protection on the airwaves.

[ QUOTE ]

What really got me about this situation was that multiple controllers OK'd it. That's why I wondered if there was some rule I wasn't aware of.

For what it's worth, I had a friend tell me that he has been able to go "semi-direct" before with a VFR GPS by saying, "My VFR GPS shows a heading of about 135 to [destination], request heading 135." As long as he's above the MVA, the controller just says "Fly heading 135" and it counts as being vectored.

[/ QUOTE ]

Besides being overly wordy on freq (I'm all about comm brevity......I have no use for radio blabbers that haven't the first clue of clear/concise/correct comm, but that's another subject), why mention the VFR GPS at all? That's like saying "Center, my IFR equipped Cessna 182 says I can fly heading 120 to XXX, requeest heading XXX" How about "request direct XXX", to where they'll come back with "fly heading XXX, RV to XXX."

[SteveC]

I used to use (part 91 flying) "request heading xxx, vector direct destination" and the controllers would know exactly why I asked it that way and, if it worked for them, would reply "fly heading xxx, direct destination when able".

[jrh]

[ QUOTE ]
By "corner", I mean legality-wise with the IMC around and the admission of a VFR GPS (which wasn't necessary), you open yourself up to the problem I outlined above.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how IMC has anything to do with it. IFR is IFR, VFR is VFR. When flying on an instrument flight plan, you have to follow the regs for IFR operations, regardless of weather conditions. Even if it's a beautiful clear day, I still have to be instrument current, the pitot-static system must have been checked within 24 months, VOR checked within 30 days, etc. So I'm not saying it's fine and dandy to navigate using a VFR GPS...I'm just saying, I don't understand why you keep mentioning IMC.

As for the admission...you're right, I suppose it wasn't necessary. But if using a VFR GPS is illegal, it is illegal no matter if I say anything or not. I don't want to shoot myself in the foot, but I don't want to sneak around doing something illegal, either. I just want to get to the bottom of what happened and why on this particular flight.

But anyway, this thread is getting sidetracked from the points I'm really interested in. I'd like to know why the controller did what they did.

Why did they give me direct after I stated I was /U?
Why did they give me direct to Nampa, when my destination was Caldwell? The difference is only a few miles.
Why did they give me a vector for my initial climb, but then want me to proceed direct using my own nav? Does reducing the number of aircraft on vectors ease their workload or responsibilities?
Why did they go out of their way to coordinate the issue with Salt Lake Center? Why not just tell SLC to vector me into Caldwell?
If this was illegal, did the controller know it? Or care? He specifically said, "and you can use your VFR GPS."

[EatSleepFly]

I'm far too lazy to look up all the references right now, but I'm pretty sure you can go direct using "any available means" (part 91). You just can't file /G with a VFR-only GPS.

Better be able to back it up if the thing craps out though (no different than with an IFR GPS).

[seagull]

You can legally proceed direct however you want, part 91 or otherwise. The requirement for Class I nav (which is legally what all domestic is anyway, even if you do have RNAV) is only for you to be within the service volumes of VORs, that doesn't mean you have to be tracking to or away from one, just able to use them to fix your position. So, with that in mind, you can do it. Now, there is another part of this that you must keep in mind. If you are navigating "direct" on your own, you are responsible for terrain seperation, on a radar vector, ATC is, so always keep that in mind. If you are flying on a vector and ask ATC if you can turn left 10 degrees for some weather, you have just transferred terrain sep (and possible restricted airspace avoidance) responsibility to yourself -- ATC only keeps traffic seperation.

[MikeD]

[ QUOTE ]
Why did they give me direct after I stated I was /U?

[/ QUOTE ]

Via RVs, he can do that.

[ QUOTE ]

Why did they give me direct to Nampa, when my destination was Caldwell? The difference is only a few miles.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good question. I'm not familiar enough with the geographical area to give you an accurate answer.

[ QUOTE ]

Why did they give me a vector for my initial climb, but then want me to proceed direct using my own nav? Does reducing the number of aircraft on vectors ease their workload or responsibilities?

[/ QUOTE ]

Their workload does ease with aircraft using pilot nav. Why they specifically did that to you, I don't know.

[ QUOTE ]

Why did they go out of their way to coordinate the issue with Salt Lake Center? Why not just tell SLC to vector me into Caldwell?
If this was illegal, did the controller know it? Or care? He specifically said, "and you can use your VFR GPS."

[/ QUOTE ]

He likely didn't care. It worked out for you, right?

[seagull]

[ QUOTE ]

Why did they go out of their way to coordinate the issue with Salt Lake Center? Why not just tell SLC to vector me into Caldwell?
If this was illegal, did the controller know it? Or care? He specifically said, "and you can use your VFR GPS."

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not up to ATC to decide what is, or is not, a legal operation for you. They will clear you based on the assumption that you will keep yourself legal. Their job is just traffic seperation, that is it! They don't know what regs you're operating under, they are not trained in it, and they don't care, it's not their job!

[aviategw]

I'm going to have to agree/second the idea that ATC really doesn't care about 'legalities' that pilots are taught to adhere to. As well, I second the idea that ATC will approve/suggest/allow just about anything that decreases their workload. I regularly hear of VFR only GPS equipped planes getting direct. ATC really doesn't care.

Not to say that the FAA doesn't....

[PhilosopherPilot]

[ QUOTE ]
I regularly hear of VFR only GPS equipped planes getting direct. ATC really doesn't care.

Not to say that the FAA doesn't....

[/ QUOTE ]

As MikeD said above, that seems to me to be a good reason to not go saying, "I have a VFR GPS on board, and I'm going to use it as my sole means of navigation illegally now," over the radio. Just use common sense, and if you are doing something that you can't do without the GPS, then stop doing it.

I regularly track airways with a VFR GPS, but I have the airway dialed in to the VOR as well, backing me up. I like to think of it like my mag compass. It is primary for directional control, but the heading indicator is more accurate, so that is what you use. You just back up your HI with your mag compass.

G