PA30 pilot was using unapproved GPS and LORAN equipment on an IFR flight.

Attributes
ACN	533932
Time
Date	200112
Day	Fri
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	intersection : pican
State Reference	MS
Altitude	msl single value : 6000
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	artcc : zhu.artcc
Operator	general aviation : personal
Make Model Name	PA-30 Twin Comanche
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Navigation In Use	other 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 : multi engine pilot : instrument pilot : commercial
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 75 flight time total : 3300 flight time type : 400
ASRS Report	533932
Person 2
Affiliation	government : faa
Function	controller : radar
Events
Anomaly	non adherence : published procedure non adherence : far other anomaly other
Independent Detector	aircraft equipment other aircraft equipment : gps & loran other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	other
Supplementary
Problem Areas	Flight Crew Human Performance FAA Aircraft
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance

Narrative:

While flying in visual flight conditions on an IFR clearance, pilot requested direct to mlu airport from approach controller. Pilot received and accepted a clearance direct to pican intersection then direct to mlu. Using all available onboard navigation equipment, the initial request and subsequent clearance seemed acceptable. Pilot was using VOR, GPS and LORAN information simultaneously. However, both the GPS and LORAN that were planned to be used to navigation to mlu after pican were VFR certified only. The LORAN is indicated to be VFR only via tape above the unit and was not relied upon by the pilot (but used as a backup only), however, no such markings appear on the GPS while using any of the navigation or flight plan functions. Pilot is used to flying with onboard IFR certified area navigation equipment such as GPS and INS. Pilot correctly filed the flight plan using aircraft equipment suffix of 'U,' but was lulled into using the GPS (by habit) to accept the clearance direct mlu following pican. During cruise/navigation to pican with handoff to center, center controller correctly queried the pilot as to how he planned to navigation to mlu after pican (assume he saw the 'U' equipment suffix on the flight plan). Pilot responded via GPS. Controller then asked if GPS was IFR certified. Pilot responded yes (again based on habit of flying with such equipment and the lack of warnings on the GPS navigation display pages). After several mins of confusion about why the controller was so concerned, pilot realized the potential error and requested and received direct jan VOR after pican. Upon arrival at pican, pilot tuned, idented, monitored and proceeded to jan VOR as cleared. The ease of GPS navigation combined with the wide variety and types of IFR certified and non-IFR certified GPS units make it possible and likely that other pilots may make this type of mistake. Warnings such as VFR only need to appear either on the unit itself, or on the pages containing navigation functions.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PA30 PLT WAS USING UNAPPROVED GPS AND LORAN EQUIP ON AN IFR FLT.

Narrative: WHILE FLYING IN VISUAL FLT CONDITIONS ON AN IFR CLRNC, PLT REQUESTED DIRECT TO MLU ARPT FROM APCH CTLR. PLT RECEIVED AND ACCEPTED A CLRNC DIRECT TO PICAN INTXN THEN DIRECT TO MLU. USING ALL AVAILABLE ONBOARD NAV EQUIP, THE INITIAL REQUEST AND SUBSEQUENT CLRNC SEEMED ACCEPTABLE. PLT WAS USING VOR, GPS AND LORAN INFO SIMULTANEOUSLY. HOWEVER, BOTH THE GPS AND LORAN THAT WERE PLANNED TO BE USED TO NAV TO MLU AFTER PICAN WERE VFR CERTIFIED ONLY. THE LORAN IS INDICATED TO BE VFR ONLY VIA TAPE ABOVE THE UNIT AND WAS NOT RELIED UPON BY THE PLT (BUT USED AS A BACKUP ONLY), HOWEVER, NO SUCH MARKINGS APPEAR ON THE GPS WHILE USING ANY OF THE NAV OR FLT PLAN FUNCTIONS. PLT IS USED TO FLYING WITH ONBOARD IFR CERTIFIED AREA NAV EQUIP SUCH AS GPS AND INS. PLT CORRECTLY FILED THE FLT PLAN USING ACFT EQUIP SUFFIX OF 'U,' BUT WAS LULLED INTO USING THE GPS (BY HABIT) TO ACCEPT THE CLRNC DIRECT MLU FOLLOWING PICAN. DURING CRUISE/NAV TO PICAN WITH HDOF TO CTR, CTR CTLR CORRECTLY QUERIED THE PLT AS TO HOW HE PLANNED TO NAV TO MLU AFTER PICAN (ASSUME HE SAW THE 'U' EQUIP SUFFIX ON THE FLT PLAN). PLT RESPONDED VIA GPS. CTLR THEN ASKED IF GPS WAS IFR CERTIFIED. PLT RESPONDED YES (AGAIN BASED ON HABIT OF FLYING WITH SUCH EQUIP AND THE LACK OF WARNINGS ON THE GPS NAV DISPLAY PAGES). AFTER SEVERAL MINS OF CONFUSION ABOUT WHY THE CTLR WAS SO CONCERNED, PLT REALIZED THE POTENTIAL ERROR AND REQUESTED AND RECEIVED DIRECT JAN VOR AFTER PICAN. UPON ARR AT PICAN, PLT TUNED, IDENTED, MONITORED AND PROCEEDED TO JAN VOR AS CLRED. THE EASE OF GPS NAV COMBINED WITH THE WIDE VARIETY AND TYPES OF IFR CERTIFIED AND NON-IFR CERTIFIED GPS UNITS MAKE IT POSSIBLE AND LIKELY THAT OTHER PLTS MAY MAKE THIS TYPE OF MISTAKE. WARNINGS SUCH AS VFR ONLY NEED TO APPEAR EITHER ON THE UNIT ITSELF, OR ON THE PAGES CONTAINING NAV FUNCTIONS.

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.