@Peter Primary is good enough to be used on its own. That’s how I understand the term. Who knows where it’s buried. I agree they could make it more clear, however, I can’t imagine standing in a courtroom and claiming with a straight face that relying on a consumer grade GNSS receiver and unapproved charts is somehow good enough. And I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect a judge to see it that way. Do you think you could find an expert witness that would state that with conviction on record?
I remember seeing a leaflet about this. I also remember it mentioned that it’s illegal for your cellphone to transmit while in flight because of some ITU regulation, IIRC. That bit is for another discussion, I just remembered and thought it might interest you (fines in telecommunications tend to be quite high). And a bulletin from EASA which said that when you use a device to operate an aircraft, it’s no longer a PED and Part 21 applies (it becomes a “part or appliance” as defined in the Basic Regulation I think). And navigation seems necessary for aircraft operation.
I remember reading in a manual that I may substitute a panel mounted chronometer and/ or chronograph with a wrist worn one (I don’t remember the exact wording, I don’t think it mentioned wrist specifically, but it was something to this effect). Who would have thought I don’t need an approved timepiece. 
Martin wrote:
Who knows where it’s buried.
In other words, you don’t know if it’s defined anywhere in law, and it could ( as has been suggested here) just a term that was invented in Chinese whispers, that grew legs.
I’m not trying to be offensive…please don’t take it like that….just pointing out that you haven’t been able to provide a reference. Saying it’s true doesn’t make it so.
I’m not aware of any regulation which specifies how I must navigate.
And the judge that I’m explaining too, will probably have navigated to the court house using his sat nav ;) If he’s asked to judge beween a WW2 method of flying a heading to within a few degrees, for a given period of time, and estimating the wind from hours old weather forecasts and be able to put the aircraft through narrow tunnels of airspace or using a “sat nav”, I think he might think the second option more reasonable!
What follows applies to private ops.
There is no requirement for any pilot to navigate in any particular way. You can use the Force if you want to, or follow your inner voice.
There only is a requirement to carry charts (not even approved charts, in many cases there is actually no such thing) and to prepare the flight, and to carry certain equipment, which you then can happily switch off or ignore.
There isn’t even a requirement not to get lost. You can get lost to your heart’s content, as long as you follow the rules of the air (airspace, atc instructions etc.) and eventually land somewhere legal with sufficient fuel reserves. If you fly IFR under ATC control, of course you need to follow instructions so your navigation precision needs to be up to scratch.
Now, if you then bust airspace or otherwise make a bit of a mess, you will have to account for your actions, and if they in any way contributed to that mess, get punished for it.
That is the world of responsible adults.
I leave the world of rules that spell out everything in detail to robots.
This does not mean SOP in airlines are overregulation – but crucially, they are more flexible than regulators and more practical in many cases, and allow stuff (such FMS during NDB approaches) that many persnickety forumites continue to claim is illegal.
In the case of IFR, an EFB or tablet that is not certified as part of the aircraft can’t be used for navigation as it would not be suitable for any route type. It can be used for supplemental information and as an aid to situational awareness, but if you depart without a working VOR system or WAAS GPS, you would be in violation of 91.205 with the possible exception if the route was defined solely by NDB and you have an ADF on board.
So if you flew IFR on a random RNAV route not defined by a VOR radial within the service volume of the VOR and did not have an RNAV navigation system on board and were using your EFB to navigate point to point, you would be in violation of 91.205. IOW, it can’t be the means by which you accomplish your navigation. Use, yes. Use as the sole means for navigation, no.
Martin wrote:
I remember reading in a manual that I may substitute a panel mounted chronometer and/ or chronograph with a wrist worn one (I don’t remember the exact wording, I don’t think it mentioned wrist specifically, but it was something to this effect). Who would have thought I don’t need an approved timepiece.
Not in the US. A wrist watch is not part of the aircraft type certificate and is portable equipment.
Cobalt wrote:
There is no requirement for any pilot to navigate in any particular way. You can use the Force if you want to, or follow your inner voice.There only is a requirement to carry charts (not even approved charts, in many cases there is actually no such thing) and to prepare the flight, and to carry certain equipment, which you then can happily switch off or ignore.
In US regulation, 91.205 requires you to have navigation equipment suitable for the route being flown. 91.181 specifies the course to be flown in part quoted below:
Sec. 91.181 Course to be flown.
Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, no person may operate an aircraft within controlled airspace under IFR except as follows:
(a) On a an ATS route, along the centerline of that airway.
(b) On any other route, along the direct course between the navigational aids or fixes defining that route.
There is no requirement to carry charts anywhere in the regulations for part 91.
NCYankee wrote:
There is no requirement to carry charts anywhere in the regulations for part 91.
Because there is no FAR that requires current charts to be carried on board the FAA can not say you violated a regulation by carrying out of date or no charts.
Because all pilots are required by FAR 91.103 (preflight action) to: Each pilot in command shall, before beginning a flight, become familiar with all available information concerning that flight.
If you failed in your preflight preparations to notice a new restricted area and you violated that restricted area because you used non current charts, you can be held in violation. Worse, if you have an accident and any part of the cause can be traced to out of date charts, or not reviewing them before the flight you are also in violation.
Isn’t there a continued ambiguity between equipment carried and equipment used?
The US regs require the carriage of a VOR receiver (etc) but is there anything there which requires it to be used?
Specifically, if you carried all the required equipment and then posted a video on Youtube which showed that the said equipment was switched on and working but you didn’t look at it and instead used an Ipad, which exact US criminal code provision would they bust you under?
There is a natural human tendency to equate carried to used but the law I have seen doesn’t say that.
Even the even more common-sense variations e.g. do you need to carry an ADF to fly an NDB approach when in an airspace where there is no requirement for ADF carriage under any circumstances are debatable. I think you do, and the airlines certainly do even if flying the approach using FMS (INS/DME/GPS) guidance. But I have never seen a law actually saying that.
dublinpilot wrote:
In other words, you don’t know if it’s defined anywhere in law, and it could ( as has been suggested here) just a term that was invented in Chinese whispers, that grew legs.
Yep. There are really quite a few places where it can be and I don’t know them all by any means. I have seen it outside of EASA and FAA, it could very well be ICAO’s terminus technicus. The definition I wrote in fact came from Australia (and not from law), that is IIRC. I have seen it used with other instruments, for example engine instruments. I guess there it means it’s approved to replace something that was standard. It could be in any of the documents pertaining to design standard, certification, etc. Abilities to navigate visually, read maps, etc. are not installed equipment, but you have to master it to get your licence. To me it stands to reason you need similar level of approval to replace it with some gadget.
I know for example that Australia’s CASA approved some applications as chart sources (and their AIP specifically prohibited the use of non-certified GNSS receivers on their own for navigation, i think the word was supplementary as to their role). So they consider a tablet a good enough replacement for a paper and the charts themselves are approved. I don’t recall whether they allow display of your position – the reasoning there, IIRC, is that if the GNSS receiver doesn’t meet the performance standard, it could be confusing or whatever if it supplied bad position, because that kind of display is quite precise while automatic centering is vague enough.
dublinpilot wrote:
And the judge that I’m explaining too, will probably have navigated to the court house using his sat nav ;) If he’s asked to judge beween a WW2 method of flying a heading to within a few degrees, for a given period of time, and estimating the wind from hours old weather forecasts and be able to put the aircraft through narrow tunnels of airspace or using a “sat nav”, I think he might think the second option more reasonable!
Sure, when you have endless queue of people form your NAA, ATCOs, airline captains and who knows who else saying it’s wrong and dangerous. If the judge really uses GPS regularly, he probably encountered bad data. Which won’t help your cause. And they have nothing against using GPS for cross checking. So nothing is stopping you from exploiting it. And after all, those WWII methods are proven. If you can see the ground, all you have to do is look outside and make sure what you see corresponds with what the GPS says. For that you need approved charts, obviously. And you’re right, until you screw up, they don’t care much about how you do it. Even if it was prescribed to the letter, it wouldn’t change much (what they probably want isn’t what we want to hear and there is no effective oversight).
IMHO Australia is a bit of a special case. The distances out of there are so vast that almost nobody flies outside of it, so they can implement whatever regs work for them, including maybe mandating specific charts or specific tablet products.
Here in Europe you would have a war if somebody tried to force the use of say Skydemon, for normal use, or for PPL training. And it would be grossly unfair to the competition, and overly controlling to people who have other solutions which work. For example I have never used any of these Ipad products.
