Aviation.ca - Your Number One Source for Canadian Aviation News, Jobs and Information!

It's that time of year again. The time when the seasonal pilots dust off the airplanes, remove the bird nests from the engine cowling, kick the tires and light the fires. Along with the traditional worries about how the airplane will perform, and how the pilots themselves will perform, there is one more issue from the ATC point of view: How the radio and procedures work will go on that first flight.

Throughout the year, this is something we watch. Now, most of the pilots we speak with fly on a regular basis, so they're a little more practiced about what to expect and what we expect, but even those that do fly regularly sometimes have some troubles. We know that. We know that not everyone is perfect. But in the pursuit of this unachievable goal, I thought I'd lay out some things for the VFR pilot who calls the ACC for what the AIM calls "enroute radar surveillance". Something that we in Moncton ACC, have come to know as "flight following".

First off, what is flight following? If you enter Class D or higher airspace on your VFR flight, the service is a little different, as it becomes a control service that you'll be provided with. But if your VFR flight is within Class E airspace (and sometimes the service will be provided in Class G airspace, but not always), you can call and ask the ACC or watch over your flight. When providing this service, ATC will, on a workload- and equipment-permitting basis, keep you apprised of pertient traffic information on IFR and other VFR aircraft operating in your area. They may also provide you with significant weather information along your route of flight, especially if it may preclude you from proceeding VFR. Flight following is not a control service. A pilot should be aware of what class of airspace he or she is in at all times, so they know what's expected of them, and what they can expect from ATC. Also, knowing this helps a pilot determine what authority ATC has over their flight, if any.

What flight following is not: It is not a substitute for the old "see and be seen" rule of VFR flight. You, as a pilot, are still required to look out the window for the same old reasons. You are responsible for avoiding terrain and obstructions, as well as IFR weather conditions. ATC's radar can usually pick out areas of precipitation, but to us, it may be a ceiling 5,000 feet AGL that you can fly under, or it could be a layer based at 200' AGL that you can't go under. We won't know. Also, while we do have limited information on terrain and obstructions, we don't carry it all. Remember we're geared more for IFR than VFR. The next thing that's still of importance is watching out for traffic. In many areas outside of busy terminal areas, we can't see an aircraft that doesn't have a transponder. This means that you could very well be flying around an area where there are gliders, paradrops, or just other aircraft with no transponder or an unserviceable one and we wouldn't know it. So regardless of whether you're talking to the ACC, you still have to look out the window.

This service is completely dependent on communication, too. Once you check in, you should remain on the ACC's frequency unless you have to leave. And we know there are a variety of reasons why you might have to leave ATC's frequency: Updating of the FIC with new flight plan information or PIREPs, transiting Mandatory Frequency Areas, making position calls through published training areas, and so on. But the tip here is this: If you do have leave ATC's frequency while they're providing this service to you, give us a "heads up". Let us know that you're leaving and how long you'll be off if you plan to return to us. That way, if we're looking at traffic approaching that we haven't told you about, or we simply can't provide you with the service any more, or whatever, we have the opportunity to tell you. It happens often that a VFR aircraft calls in and requests the service, but when we try to call to provide some information, the pilot has left our frequency and we can't communicate with him/her. So what is the pilot expecting at this point? Who knows?

Also make communications brief and to the point. We don't need to know everything that's going on, but tell us what we need to know. Generally, make your initial call with our callsign then yours. This gives us a chance to look for your flight information or get ready to copy it. When we reply, give us some basics: Your type of aircraft, where you are, where you're going and how high you're planning to fly. If we want more, we'll ask for it. But this tells us where to look for you and what you'll be up to. If any of that changes (say, you want to climb or descend, or you have to change your destination), let us know. That way we'll know what's going on and won't be guessing what's happening. If you suddenly start to climb, other aircraft that may not have been traffic for you may come into the picture, so we can tell you about it.

Lastly, when the service is being terminated, we'll tell you. It'll be more or less plain English, something to the effect of, "Radar services terminated, cleared enroute frequencies". What we're telling you, at this point, is this: "I can't provide you with any more services. You can switch to whatever frequency you'd normally be using if you weren't talking to me." If that's 126.7, or an MF or ATF, or whatever, you can switch to that when you hear a statement like this one. Also, it happens sometimes when you call that the ACC is just too busy with other traffic and they can't provide you with flight following. They'll generally tell you so right up front, "Unable flight following, cleared enroute frequencies." This generally means that there are other tasks that are taking up the controller's attention and the service cannot be provided. And this may be true even if you don't hear the ATC radio busy with chatter, since a lot of our workload is "behind the scenes" coordinating with other ATC units. Since ATC is a control service before anything else, it can often mean that the controller is absorbed in the provision of IFR ATC services and can't commit the time or attention to watch over you. But it can also mean that they simply can't provide it where you are. For example, radar coverage may not permit ATC to see you along your route of flight at your chosen altitude. Either way, if you hear a statement like this, it means that ATC can't provide the service to your flight at that time.

Hopefully, this answered many of your questions. If not, please feel free to post in the forums in the ATC section, and we can help provide you with more specific information.

The title of this post actually came from the forums a while back. It's a principle that I had been thinking about for a long time, but until one of the posts put the word to it, I didn't have a word to describe it. For those who have read my posts in the past, you'll know I've ranted about a few things. Well, lately I've seen a few things that come down to airmanship, and what is lacking is predictability.

Prime example: The other night, an aircraft was inbound to one of my region's major airports. The controller working the next sector (the airspace adjacent to mine) had just finished coordinating with me he where would put a departure that was heading out toward my inbound. After we agreed on the north side of my aircraft's track, I noticed that my aircraft was deviating to the north side of his track. When I asked him what waypoint he was navigating to, he said, "The VOR, but we'd like to go to FIXXX, if you can approve it." Well, it was all too clear that he was already going to the FIXXX that he wanted to go to. The trouble was, he had been intentionally cleared to the VOR he spoke of because of outbound traffic.

Now, I was in a bit of a mood, I suppose. My answer was a little less than diplomatic. I said, "It looks like you're flying a perfect track for it already. For future reference, don't do this sort of thing without prior approval from ATC. We have traffic being vectored north of where you're expected to be, and if you happen to be north of where you're expected to be, we're all going to get a big surprise. But none of us more so than you." It was less than professional, but it did get the point across.

Back to reality. We see this sort of thing in the Moncton FIR all the time. IFR pilots, of varying experience levels (at least, based on aircraft types being noted) who you would like to think know better, choose fixes to navigate to and do so without a clearance. And so far, I don't believe I've missed one. There are the odd occasions where I let it go without saying anything, but that's usually because it's working for me at the time and I haven't the time to rave about it. Most times, it doesn't. The problem comes down to what I'm expecting you to do, and what you're doing. If those two aren't the same, it's awfully tough for me to keep other traffic out of your way -- and you out of the way of other traffic.

I could cite example after example of this sort of deviation. And that's actually what it is -- a deviation from an IFR clearance. And it's something that should be written up as a violation against a pilot. Not because I want to teach pilots a lesson, but it's because it is technically my duty. ATC has written direction to report any pilot deviations from regulations to Transport Canada. What TC decides to do with the report after that is entirely up to them. They may throw it out, or they may follow up on it, and that could result in a penalty against the pilot's license. You can see the reluctance to make such reports. But if pilots refuse to learn from their teachings, and don't correct their behaviour (the operator in this instance has done this on other occasions in the past), then what else can I do to get my point across?

All I'm saying here, is that if the ATC system is going to work, everyone has to be on the same page. If you want to navigate to a particular fix, ask ATC for a clearance for it. If they can, they'll allow it. If they can't, there's probably a good reason why they can't -- which is all the more reason why a pilot shouldn't just do it on his own without a clearance, when you think about it. Help us keep the skies safe.

Computers are wonderful, aren't they? Once we learn what the things can do, it's great to let them go and do the things for us. Aviation has made some great advances with computers, in everything from CAD when designing and evaluating airframes to the "simple" tasks of navigation and managing a flight. Well, as anyone who has read my posts before is probably aware, I both love and hate them from an ATC point of view.

These days, more and more airplanes are being equipped with "the good gear": RNAV of various types, most prominently GPS. The whole idea of having to fly VOR to VOR watching a needle has, for many, gone by the wayside. Set the FMS, engage the autpilot and away we go! But with the systems demanding attention to set them up, it's really easy to get caught up in what they can do. So easy, in fact, there is a really big thing being ignored, either intentionally or otherwise. Did you get a clearance to do what you're doing?

In the VFR world, there are a lot fewer areas where this is a concern than for IFR. Outside of the busier terminal areas, you're on your own. But IFR needs clearances to do what they want. The reason is simple: So everyone knows what to expect of each other. Separation cannot be provided effectively if everyone does what they want without everyone else being in the know.

Cases in point: In the last two days, in Moncton ACC I have seen two situations which could have developed into much uglier ones, each in a very short time frame. In both cases, they involved aircraft approaching their destination. In the first one, the aircraft was flying through a busy terminal area to an airport in the outlying region around the busier area. This fellow took a left turn of about 25° without communication to ATC. Was it to deviate around a buildup? Was it because of traffic that didn't show on radar? Was there an engine failure that the pilot of the twin engine aircraft was dealing with? When queried, the pilot said he had set up to go direct FIXXA for the RNAV runway 36 approach.

The second aircraft did it a little differently. While still about 60NM from destination, he asked for a clearance to go direct FIXXB to join the DME arc for the straight-in ILS runway 18 approach, which he received. About 20NM back from FIXXB, he announced that he had turned "direct to the 360 radial to intercept the final approach course," the turn already being visible on radar at that point.

In both cases, the actions could have been accommodated. The problem? The pilot's job is to fly his airplane. The controller's job is to coordinate the traffic flow and ensure aircraft are separated. If the pilots were to do something that is unexpected, how can a controller keep the airplanes apart? That's the point behind obtaining clearances to do what you want. Turning to a new point without a clearance from ATC is like an IFR airplane making a climb to a new altitude without a clearance. Especially for the fellow in the busy terminal area. ATC uses as little as 3NM radar separation in a terminal environment. Do the math with the old 1 and 60 rule. If you turn 10°, a track that most pilots queried in these situations say, "isn't that much," you fly less than 20NM on the new heading before you've turned the 3NM separation into nothing. And most that I have observed will start such turns before that point.

ATC may be quite likely to accommodate the actions desired. But at the very least, they have to know about it. In either case, in controlled airspace, a clearance has to be sought from ATC just like any other action before the action is taken to ensure there is no conflict. Whether it's a deviation around weather or to set up for an approach, the approval has to be sought first to ensure the safe flow of air traffic. The system is designed that way for a reason. Of course, in an emergency, things can change, but then we're talking about immediate and potentially unavoidable harm. But in the absence of that, there is no provision for "shoot first, ask questions later."

Yes, computers can be our friends. But we have to realize that the rules under which we're flying have remained as they are for a reason in this case. Just make sure you have permission to do what you want before you program "Otto" for the task.

The concept of filing a flight plan seems daunting when you first get into flight training. Or, at least, it did for me. I much preferred the local flights where none of that was necessary. Now that I see it from the other side of the radio, flight plans are much more than just a regulatory, make-work issue.

The flight plan consists of the basics, such as who you are, where you are and where you're going. They also tell others what route you're planning to fly. Two things are important in the last two statements: Who the others are and what they do.

The "others", or "they", are the Search and Rescue people. Your life could be counting on them if things don't go as planned. They'll start searching for you when nobody else will. But where do you start? Obviously at your point of departure, right? Not necessarily. From your last known location is where they begin. If that happens to be your last known location, then yes, from the start. But position reports you make, be they on an IFR flight plan or a VFR flight plan, are very useful, as they can reduce the search time by eliminating the need to search where you've already successfully passed.

Once you depart on a flight plan, IFR or VFR, a departure message must be sent. This can be done simply as your check in with an ACC on departure if you're IFR, or a radio call to an FIC if you're VFR. Once they know you're airborne, they'll begin tracking your flight. Of course, if you don't file a departure message within a reasonable time from your planned departure time, they'll go looking for you, just in case you piled in on departure. So if you cancel a flight before you depart, make sure you cancel a flight plan that you've filed, too.

Similarly, once you land, you must remember to file an arrival message. The arrival message tells ATC and FSS that you've landed safely. The act of filing an arrival message is more commonly known as "closing a flight plan," and it applies to IFR and VFR flights alike. If you don't file an arrival message of some kind, SAR personnel will go looking for your flight.

In each case, the departure and arrival messages need to get through to the right people. Primarily, FSS is responsible for VFR flights, while ATC is responsible for IFR flights. In this context, FSS refers to the folks in the FIC within whose Area Of Responsibility (AOR) you're in, and ATC refers to the ACC within whose Flight Information Region (FIR) you're in.

When flying VFR, you open your flight plan by making sure the FIC gets your departure message. You can do this by asking the tower at a controlled airport to open your flight plan, and they normally will. Otherwise, you can make a radio call to the FIC at your earliest opportunity to ensure they know you're in the air. Similarly, when you're VFR and have landed, you can close your flight plan by asking the tower to ensure your plan is closed, or by actually picking up a phone and calling FIC.

When your IFR, things are a little different. Towers automatically open and close your flight plan when you take-off or land, respectively, at a controlled airport. Normally no notice of this action taking place is given -- it's automatic. Similarly, if you land at a location served by an FSS (in the form of AAS or RAAS), this action is taken automatically. If you're landing at an airport without a tower or FSS, you must make sure the ACC gets the arrival message. You can call on an ATC Peripheral Frequency (PAL), or even by phone as well. If there is an RCO or DRCO, you can ask FSS to relay your flight plan closure.

Another thing that can be done in the case of IFR flights is for the pilot to "cancel IFR". In the Canada, it's a little different from the US. In days gone by, and in the US, once a pilot cancels IFR, his IFR flight plan is closed and IFR separation is longer provided by ATC. In Canada, separation is no longer provided by ATC, but his flight plan is still open. This is to ensure that the pilot lands safely at destination. If a pilot cancels IFR but keeps his IFR flight plan open, he must still ensure an arrival message is filed in the same way as mentioned above.

If you cancel IFR in Canada, ATC is supposed to ask if you'd also like to close your IFR flight plan. This relates to alerting services -- will anyone go looking for you if you don't land safely at destination? An IFR pilot may elect to cancel IFR and continue under VFR, but he remains an IFR aircraft in terms of alerting services until he either files a new flight plan with FIC to continue VFR or until he closes his IFR flight plan by filing an arrival message. If a pilot elects to close his IFR flight plan while still in the air, he is also stopping the process associated with alerting services. So if there isn't anyone expecting your arrival at destination, closing the flight plan when you cancel IFR may not be in your best interests. On the other hand, if you know someone is waiting for you and knows who to alert if you don't show, you may want to close your flight plan when you cancel so you don't have to remember to make the call to file the arrival message.

I know there is a lot here. There are a lot of little details to keep abreast of when dealing with flight plans, and it's easier to understand if you know what's going on -- why do you do the things you're supposed to do? I hope this answers some of those background questions. If not, the forums here are a great place to discuss the whole topic. Got questions? Feel free to post them. The more you know, the better off you are.

Recently, I received a question from an American pilot through e-mail, asking what controllers are expecting when it comes to climbs and descents. A friend of his said that IFR aircraft are expected to descend at 1,500 fpm when issued a descent instruction by ATC. I hadn't seen anything written about such a number, so into the books I went to confirm my suspicions. As it turns out, there are a number of things which could be written about in this topic that it seems many may be forgetting.

In Canada, our trusty AIM tells us what's expected of IFR aircraft issued climb and descent clearances. RAC 8.5 is the section of concern for us in this regard and lays out two paragraphs associated with climb and descent rate rules. The first one states:

When an altitude clearance is issued, the pilot should begin climb or descent promptly on acknowledgement of the clearance. The climb or descent should be made at an optimum rate consistent with the operating characteristics of the aircraft. If the above is not the case, or if it becomes necessary to stop the climb or descent, the pilot should advise ATC of the interruption or the delay in departing an altitude. (Emphasis added to original text.)

This all seems pretty simple, but amazingly, as I read this, I realized just how many pilots I speak with who acknowledge a descent clearance and then hang up for 10, 20, 50 miles, or even further. This even occurs when pilots ask for descent. They often still don't start the descent for some time afterward. It's to the point that if ATC needs an aircraft to descend for traffic purposes, it actually has to be stated, "... maintain 10,000, leave 16,000 now." As it's written above, simply telling a pilot to "maintain 10,000" is an instruction that is unambiguous. It actually means "descend now". And since the above paragraph makes it clear that the descent rate should be appropriate to the aircraft's normal operating characteristics, a cruise descent (for example, descending at 200-300 fpm) is actually something that should only be done once asked for and approved by ATC. The next paragraph on discretionary descent is what most pilots should be asking for if they don't want to descend right away:

If the phrase “at pilot’s discretion” is used in conjunction with an altitude clearance, the change of altitude may be initiated when the pilot decides. When the change is initiated, the pilot should advise ATC. Pilots may temporarily level off at any intermediate altitude; however, pilots should advise ATC of any temporary level-off at any intermediate altitude. Vertical navigation is at the pilot’s discretion; however, adherence to assigned or published altitude crossing restrictions and speeds is mandatory (CAR 602.31 Compliance with Air Traffic Control Instructions and Clearances) unless otherwise cleared. [MEAs are not considered restrictions; however, pilots are expected to remain at or above MEAs].

This paragraph would allow for a cruise descent, in my view. The statement regarding vertical navigation is at pilot's discretion includes this aspect, the way I read it.

There is more in this section of the AIM beyond rates of climb and descent, though. For example, I can't remember the last time I heard a pilot actually tell me on the radio that he had to level off at 10,000 to slow down to 250 KIAS, and yet this is observed on radar all the time. And perhaps that's why it hasn't become such a big issue (at least, not in my neck of the woods): ATC can see it. But what about outside radar coverage? Do pilots do it then?

So back to the original question: It's not practical to nail down a specific number for the descent rate. There are too many different aircraft with differing operating characteristics. Then there are differing circumstances, as well, which may play a part in the situation. As with many things in our business, they have to be left intentionally vague. But the intent is still there in these paragraphs, and it can often be seen when you look toward application. Still, this kind of discussion should get us back to the books, if only for a quick peek at something we already "know".

How many times, as a pilot or an observer, have you heard ATC say, "Keep your speed up," to an aircraft? Ever wonder just what that means? I've received a number of questions from pilots I've met and through e-mail as well. Here's what I have to offer.

In Canada, we have speed limits as most countries that are part of ICAO have. 200 knots below 3,000 feet within 10NM of a controlled airport, and 250 knots below 10,000 feet. These are both indicated speeds, of course. Now, we'll clear one thing up off the top. ATC can authorize a pilot to exceed the 200 knot speed limit mentioned above. They cannot authorize a pilot to exceed the 250 speed limit below 10,000 feet. This is a safety regulation that relates as much to birds as it does to other air traffic, I'm told. I honestly don't know the history.

Back to the title subject: What does it mean when the controller tells a pilot to, "keep his speed up?" Like so many regulations in our industry, this phraseology is pretty vague. But like those rules, it is intended to be. As a controller, I could assign a speed to your flight. Some say that would be more appropriate. And indeed, if I needed you to do a certain speed, I'd assign it. But the phraseology is used more or less to ask a pilot not to slow down too early. Basically, when this is said, we want you to fly as fast as reasonable under your circumstances and if you can carry a few extra knots, or keep the flaps up just a little longer, please do so. Often it's used to try and help the traffic behind the #1 airplane, or even, for that matter, to break a tie. One airplane is in a slightly better position, but it would be more work to make him #2 as it sort of seems like it should be done. But, if this airplane flies fast enough long enough, he can be made #1 without posing much of a delay, if any, to the other one.

One thing it doesn't mean is to break the 250 speed limit. Does it supersede the 200 knot limit? It doesn't explicitly state that you can, but I think it's vague enough to be construed as permission, and a pilot who would be questioned about it could probably make a case. Either way, ATC's radar sees groundspeed, not indicated airspeed, and we don't unusually know just what the winds are where an airplane is. So someone would have to have a real reason to investigate just what speed you were doing. In other words, a pilot is pretty safe from unwanted attention to his speed by others unless he causes a pretty major problem.

I hope this clears it up a little, but I'm sure, with the vagueness of the term, the questions will continue. Care to discuss it a little? The forum is open.

A lot of people are aware of their ability to file an IFR flight plan, or a VFR one. Many are unaware of the possibility of filing what we call composite flight plans. A composite flight plan, as the context suggests, is one where the first part of the flight is filed under one set of rules and a later portion is planned under the other set. This is different from the concept of filing an IFR flight plan to a destination with no published instrument approach procedure and canceling IFR when nearing destination. If you're the book-type, which we aviators should be to at least some extent, RAC 3.8 is a good place to start looking for info in the AIM.

In the "Flight Rules" section of the flight plan, many know to place "I" for IFR and "V" for VFR. If you're flight is IFR for the first section and VFR for the second, a pilot can file the letter "Y" in this box. If the flight is VFR for the first leg and IFR for the second, a "Z" will suffice. Similarly, if the flight is planned with more than one transition of flight rules, file the letter for the first portion. For example, if the plan is IFR/VFR/IFR, file a "Y" in the flight rules box.

In a composite flight plan, the rules for each portion of the flight are applicable as if the flight was operated entirely under those rules for each segment. That is to say, when you're on the IFR leg, you're flying under IFR, and when you're on the VFR leg, you're under VFR. Regardless of your ability to fly in IFR weather, during the VFR portion you are still required to operate clear of cloud and keep an eye out the window.

If you're IFR for the first portion of the flight, you must have a clearance before entering controlled airspace, all in the usual sense. If you depart from an airport outside of controlled airspace, then no clearance is required at that point, for example. If your airport is within controlled airspace, then you need a clearance before you're "wheels up". ATC will issue a clearance to the point at which the transition from IFR to VFR is planned, and it is expected that you will cancel the IFR portion of the flight plan at or before that point. If VFR flight is not possible, you must inform ATC of that fact and request a further clearance, so have a plan in mind just in case. ATC will be providing separation to your flight just like any other IFR flight until they hear "cancel IFR", but they will not be expecting you to pass your clearance limit without further clearance, either. Once you do cancel, you're expected to operate under VFR, and the rules of the class of airspace you're in apply to your flight from that point on.

Whether you've filed "Z" and departed VFR and are reaching the point where the IFR leg is planned, or if you're a "Y" flight plan and completing the VFR portion and planning to recover IFR, you are expected to remain in VMC and operate under VFR until such time as you have a clearance from ATC if you're IFR portion of the flight is within controlled airspace. You must not assume that ATC is aware of your position and that you're in cloud under IFR, since clearances are based on known IFR traffic. So be sure to call ATC for clearance before entering IMC if you're in controlled airspace. You may even operate under VFR past the point at which the transition to IFR was planned, but just remember to operate clear of cloud. There could be other IFR traffic in the area on a clearance. If you can't reach ATC directly on one of their frequencies, FIC can relay your IFR clearance if you call with your position and intentions.

One last note: Composite flight plans are not a useful tool if crossing into US airspace, or if the airspace concerned is in the Canadian Domestic Airspace (CDA) that is delegated to the US FAA for control purposes (it's on the Canada side of the CAN-US international boundary, but a US ARTCC provides the ATC service in the area). The FAA's computer systems don't talk the same language as ours, so the flight data doesn't get across the lines the way it should. They tell us that they'll reach ICAO standards someday, but when is never spoken of.

Composite flight plans can be a useful tool for a pilot. Generally speaking, pilots on these flights have a little more to do than just flying from point A to point B, but it's at least an option pilots should be aware of.

A long time reader of my posts posed me an interesting question regarding use of GPS during IFR flight. The situation involved an airway whose MEA was fairly high due to signal coverage, but whose MOCA was low. The controller working the flight asked if the flight was GPS equipped. The pilot stated that GPS was on board, but it was not certified for IFR. The controller said it was acceptable, and offered the pilot direct destination. Should the pilot accept the clearance?

This is a common question, and has a lot of gray areas and a lot of semantics involved. Anyone who flies with GPS knows the accuracy of such systems, and the rarity of errors. Myself, I have personally witnessed only two problems with GPS derived positions. While both were significant, I've been involved with GPS for a long time now, either through personal use or dealing with pilots using it, and have seen so few instances as to almost be negligible. In fact, I've seen more than one situation where pilots report being centered on the airway according to their VOR but their GPS showing off center. My radar, being flight-checked for precision, has always agreed with the pilots' GPS rather than the VOR. VOR radials often have bows or "wows" in them due to varying mineral contents in the terrain, etc. Some are well known to pilots and ATC in certain areas as being of significance, too.

Back to the question at hand, though. Back when NAVAID coverage was sparse, or even in places where it still is today, it is perfectly legal for a pilot without RNAV to fly IFR by dead reckoning. ATC has rules to provide for this in terms of what airspace to protect either side of track under such circumstances. Technically speaking, use of a non-IFR-approved GPS unit during IFR flight would have to fall under such rules. This may mean that ATC may not be willing to entertain the use of it due to severe restrictions that may be required for other aircraft. But if the flight is conducted entirely within radar coverage, all of that goes out the window since radar separation would be used in the normal fashion.

Still, there are two questions: 1: Is it legal for ATC to offer a clearance based on a pilot's non-IFR-certified GPS? And 2: Is it legal for a pilot to accept such a clearance?

For #1, I'm certain that it is not legal for ATC to knowingly offer a pilot a direct route based on GPS when they know the pilot's GPS is not certified for IFR. I don't think there is anything else that can be made of this aspect.

#2 is a little less clear to me. It's not the pilot's job to determine what separation ATC is supposed to use. And if ATC were to offer, wouldn't it stand to reason that they would use what is appropriate for the situation? As far as ATC is concerned, I don't think a pilot has to worry if all the information is out there. I don't know the legal consequences a pilot would face should something go wrong and the aircraft end up off course. As I indicated earlier, my own experiences suggest the chances of a GPS guiding a pilot off course far enough to become an issue would be so near to zero as makes no odds. I know for a fact, since some pilots have admitted it over my frequency, that many pilots use non-IFR-certified GPS receivers for IFR navigation -- some even telling me they're using handheld receivers from Canadian Tire. Most of them, I would suspect, simply don't tell ATC otherwise. "Are you GPS equipped?" "Yes". A case of "don't ask, don't tell"? Perhaps.

The situation encountered by my pilot friend was one where the aircraft was well above the MOCA, but below the MEA and ATC offered direct at the lower altitude. This is routine, since ATC cannot technically clear an aircraft on an airway below the MEA since they could find themselves outside of signal coverage on the airway. So we know the aircraft is safe in terms of obstacle clearance, but is this legal and acceptable? I think the technical answer has to come down a "no", based on what I have seen for rules, and from a conversation with my GPS guru and former airspace planner George Dewar. Long time readers will recognize his name from previous posts, mostly to do with airspace and GPS issues. If there is a man out there who trusts GPS more than George, I'd be surprised.