Pilot of a C182 is confused when informed by approach controller that he should have refused a direct route from ARTCC controller since he was not legally equipped with GPS to fly the route under IFR. Reporter believes he was, since he had 2 VFR GPS receivers.

Home

Browse by month

Random

Latest

About

Contact

Attributes
ACN	475990
Time
Date	200006
Day	Fri
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	airport : rno.airport
State Reference	NV
Altitude	msl single value : 13000
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	artcc : zla.artcc tracon : rno.tracon
Operator	general aviation : personal
Make Model Name	Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Navigation In Use	other other vortac
Flight Phase	cruise : level
Route In Use	enroute : direct
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	other
Function	flight crew : single pilot
Qualification	pilot : commercial pilot : instrument
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 30 flight time total : 2300 flight time type : 1300
ASRS Report	475990
Person 2
Affiliation	government : faa
Function	controller : approach
Qualification	controller : radar
Events
Anomaly	aircraft equipment problem : less severe non adherence : far non adherence other
Independent Detector	other controllera
Resolutory Action	controller : issued alert none taken : detected after the fact
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Problem Areas	Aircraft Flight Crew Human Performance ATC Human Performance
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation

Narrative:

IFR flight plan filed on airways and equipment code /a. Aircraft equipped with 2 VFR GPS units, with current database. Requested and received vectors (radar) for a short-cut on the route. Controller asked if I had GPS. I replied 'VFR' GPS. Used GPS to aid navigation to vector fix. When handed over to next center controller, he rerted my flight plan and current radar vector to a quite distant VOR fix. All was going well until we were handed over to reno approach who complained that we were filed equipment /a but were flying to a distant fix on GPS navigation. He said I should have refused the unsolicited rerouting by center. I remain confused as it's my understanding that using any GPS as an adjunct to flying an assigned radar vector to a fix is legal. Nothing dangerous occurred. Conditions cavu, VMC, continuous radar contact.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PLT OF A C182 IS CONFUSED WHEN INFORMED BY APCH CTLR THAT HE SHOULD HAVE REFUSED A DIRECT RTE FROM ARTCC CTLR SINCE HE WAS NOT LEGALLY EQUIPPED WITH GPS TO FLY THE RTE UNDER IFR. RPTR BELIEVES HE WAS, SINCE HE HAD 2 VFR GPS RECEIVERS.

Narrative: IFR FLT PLAN FILED ON AIRWAYS AND EQUIP CODE /A. ACFT EQUIPPED WITH 2 VFR GPS UNITS, WITH CURRENT DATABASE. REQUESTED AND RECEIVED VECTORS (RADAR) FOR A SHORT-CUT ON THE RTE. CTLR ASKED IF I HAD GPS. I REPLIED 'VFR' GPS. USED GPS TO AID NAV TO VECTOR FIX. WHEN HANDED OVER TO NEXT CTR CTLR, HE RERTED MY FLT PLAN AND CURRENT RADAR VECTOR TO A QUITE DISTANT VOR FIX. ALL WAS GOING WELL UNTIL WE WERE HANDED OVER TO RENO APCH WHO COMPLAINED THAT WE WERE FILED EQUIP /A BUT WERE FLYING TO A DISTANT FIX ON GPS NAV. HE SAID I SHOULD HAVE REFUSED THE UNSOLICITED REROUTING BY CTR. I REMAIN CONFUSED AS IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT USING ANY GPS AS AN ADJUNCT TO FLYING AN ASSIGNED RADAR VECTOR TO A FIX IS LEGAL. NOTHING DANGEROUS OCCURRED. CONDITIONS CAVU, VMC, CONTINUOUS RADAR CONTACT.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.