Non-radar IFR: put on legal thinking caps!!

[apcooper]

Alright for all the aviation lawyers out there here is something I've always wondered. If you are flying non-radar IFR and have flied /U or /A and ATC asks you for a position report (LAT and LONG) and you happen to have a hand held GPS up and running (for reference only) and you read your current lat and long to ATC can they legally use that info for seperation purposes?

 

[Vector4fun]

If you're asking me if I'm going to get up from the radar scope, find an enroute chart in the cabinet, take a ruler out of the supe's desk, and plot out your lat/long with a pencil;


NO!

 

[Jeff Helgeson]

A few things about your thinking...

1. You can be outside of controlled airspace and still be IFR and report your position using a VOR radial and DME (even if the DME is taken from your GPS).

2. When ATC asks for your position, they just want to know where you are as to be able to "radar identify" you. You tell the the location, and they find you on the scope.

3. Your GPS may not be certified for IFR, but you can still use it as a reference.

Food for thought: An airliner is cleared for an ILS approach, but is FMS equipped. The airplane follows the ILS, but do we need to turn of the magenta line with all the fixes, etc?

Suggestion: I have noticed a lot of pilots depend on the GPS and don't properly learn how to use VORs, NDBs, Dead Reckoning, etc. Use those skills as your primary and use the GPS to back it up. Don't just turn on the GPS and follow that digital CDI, only.

 

[nosehair]

back to the original question... Since you didn't file any RNAV equipment, ATC isn't likely to ask for that kind of position report...however, having said that, we know that sometimes ATC asks for things we can't produce, so we just say "unable".

I would say "unable on the lat/long, I can give you 2 VOR radial fixes, or (if you have DME) a radial/DME position, OR I can give you an approximate lat/long from my non-IFR GPS. What would you like, Sir?"

 

[DAS at 10/250]

My experience with ATC and non-radar situations: they will ususally have you on an airway and not off route. Big dead spot around TYR and LFK below 6000' b/t Ft. Worth and Houston Center.


Just my .02

 

[paulsalem]

I could be wrong but ATCers don't have lat longs one their scopes...Correct.

And do you know where 30.2434N 80.0252 West is??? Well odds are you controller doens't either. (reason why you shouldn't file LAT/LONG in an IFR flt plan, unless your above 450)

I just give VOR radials/DME.

 

[garf12]

My experience with ATC and non-radar situations: they will ususally have you on an airway and not off route. Big dead spot around TYR and LFK below 6000' b/t Ft. Worth and Houston Center.


Just my .02

Haha I know how that goes, I got into that spot on my first solo cross country. Next thing I know Houston center is asking me for a position report, ummmmm? I felt so stupid.

 

[r1830]

Flying in and out of Kodiak, Alaska, ATC does not get aircraft in radar contact until climbing through about 14,000 Feet. It doesn't matter if both aircraft are GPS equipped, ATC will keep separation through the use of Altitude restrictions, holds(inflight or ground hold for release) and/or assigning a different route to one or both aircraft. If one aircraft is on the approach and we are on the ground awaiting IFR clearance asking for a VFR climb on a nice day can usually get us off the ground. Otherwise we have to sit and wait for 15 minutes for one aircraft to complete the approach. Requesting VFR on Top below FL 180 helps out as well.

While flying on the North Slope, Nuiqsit and Kuparuk are relatively close together (32 nm). One aircraft was 15 miles north of Kuparuk and cleared for the approach and we were holding 15 miles south of Nuiqsit(a straight line distance of over 60 nm). We had to hold for 30 minutes because the missed approach procedure for the Kuparuk approach would conflict with the Nuiqsit missed approach. We asked ATC why, and he said "because it was a non radar enviroment he could not issue us an approach clearance until the other aircraft was on the ground." Both aircraft were GPS equipped but because ATC could not provide separation we had to hold. Some controllers will just give alternate missed approach instructions, but we couldn't get one that day.

 

[ackattacker]

I love how so many responses to this post reflect a radar environment mentality. For those who've never flown outside the Continental U.S. it may come as a surprise to learn that in most of the world you are often outside radar contact for most if not all of your journey (gasp!). And in these areas ATC does rely upon position reporting for aircraft separation, although the separation distances are much greater. How do you think planes safely cross the Atlantic? In my company we routinely fly scheduled 121 service in areas where there is not only no radar coverage but outside the service volumes of VOR's! We use NDB's (double gasp!). Hell, I've flown (pre 9-11) IFR through busy NY airspace without a working transponder using position reporting and filed as a /X

But to answer the question, your handheld GPS is not legal for establishing the aircrafts position with regard to ATC position reporting. The FAA considers such a handheld GPS to be legal under IFR only as an aid to situational awareness. Practically, ATC doesn't really care how you are determining your position or navigating, but the onus is on you to make sure you are doing it legally. And people have been nailed for things like this.

FAA Inspector: So, what equipment did you used to shoot that VOR/DME approach?

Pilot: I used my panel mounted VOR and DME of course.

FAA Inspector: Funny thing is that the DME is out of service...

DOH!

 

[lawfly]

Not much of a legal question, really, although major litigation in decades past arose from pre-radar midair. Throwback to training is that non-radar position reports are in reference to complusory and non-compulsory reporting points (those triangular symbols on IFR charts). Anyway, here's my comment: Carry some NASA forms.