 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
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.
| 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.