Suffix G

andybean

andybean

Pre-Flight
Joined
Jun 15, 2011
Messages
89
Display Name
Display name:
andybean
My understanding of the Suffix G as it relates to IFR flight: is that you must have an IFR certified GPS to file /G.

I fly with an IPAD (forflight) and an aera 500. I do not believe either is IFR certified. If I file IFR /G the controlers tend to give me direct clearance to the intersections. If I file /U they have me bouncing from VOR to VOR, resulting in a much longer trip.

I won't fly any GPS approaches for the obvious reason (no cert GPS).

Is it OK to claim /G for purposes of navigating all but the approach.

My hunch is that the certified IFR GPS designation applies to flying everything, not just the approach. But looking for input.
 
andybean said:
My understanding of the Suffix G as it relates to IFR flight: is that you must have an IFR certified GPS to file /G.

I fly with an IPAD (forflight) and an aera 500. I do not believe either is IFR certified. If I file IFR /G the controlers tend to give me direct clearance to the intersections. If I file /U they have me bouncing from VOR to VOR, resulting in a much longer trip.

I won't fly any GPS approaches for the obvious reason (no cert GPS).

Is it OK to claim /G for purposes of navigating all but the approach.

My hunch is that the certified IFR GPS designation applies to flying everything, not just the approach. But looking for input.
Click to expand...

This makes me want to review the other suffixes and their meanings. I think I was /U in my little 152 at my old flight school.
 
andybean said:
My understanding of the Suffix G as it relates to IFR flight: is that you must have an IFR certified GPS to file /G.

I fly with an IPAD (forflight) and an aera 500. I do not believe either is IFR certified. If I file IFR /G the controlers tend to give me direct clearance to the intersections. If I file /U they have me bouncing from VOR to VOR, resulting in a much longer trip.

I won't fly any GPS approaches for the obvious reason (no cert GPS).

Is it OK to claim /G for purposes of navigating all but the approach.

My hunch is that the certified IFR GPS designation applies to flying everything, not just the approach. But looking for input.
Click to expand...

You can't legally file /G in the current scenario you present. If the FAA wanted to bust you for it, they could. Now, you can ask the controllers for vectors...
 
andybean said:
My understanding of the Suffix G as it relates to IFR flight: is that you must have an IFR certified GPS to file /G.
Click to expand...
That is not limited to IFR operations. See AIM Section 5-1-8, Table 5-1-2. /G means "Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS), including GPS or Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS), with en route and terminal capability." If it isn't IFR-certified, it doesn't have "en route and terminal capability."

I fly with an IPAD (forflight) and an aera 500. I do not believe either is IFR certified.
Click to expand...
That is correct.

If I file IFR /G the controlers tend to give me direct clearance to the intersections.
Click to expand...
As they should, because by filing IFR you have told them you have a GPS with enroute/terminal capability. You don't, of course, if you base that on your iPad or Aera 500, but that's what they think based on what you filed.

If I file /U they have me bouncing from VOR to VOR, resulting in a much longer trip.
Click to expand...
As they should, because otherwise you aren't equipped for point-to-point IFR navigation per 14 CFR 91.205(d)(2) at 14 CFR 1.1's definition of a "Suitable RNAV system."
Suitable RNAV system is an RNAV system that meets the required performance established for a type of operation, e.g. IFR; and is suitable for operation over the route to be flown in terms of any performance criteria (including accuracy) established by the air navigation service provider for certain routes (e.g. oceanic, ATS routes, and IAPs). An RNAV system's suitability is dependent upon the availability of ground and/or satellite navigation aids that are needed to meet any route performance criteria that may be prescribed in route specifications to navigate the aircraft along the route to be flown. Information on suitable RNAV systems is published in FAA guidance material.
Click to expand...

I won't fly any GPS approaches for the obvious reason (no cert GPS).
Click to expand...
Not just no IFR-certified GPS, no IFR approach certified GPS.

Is it OK to claim /G for purposes of navigating all but the approach.
Click to expand...
Not unless you have an enroute/terminal IFR GPS.

My hunch is that the certified IFR GPS designation applies to flying everything, not just the approach. But looking for input.
Click to expand...
Your hunch is correct, and it is suppored by both the AIM and the FAR's.
 
EdFred said:
You can't legally file /G in the current scenario you present. If the FAA wanted to bust you for it, they could. Now, you can ask the controllers for vectors...
Click to expand...
...as long as the vector is to a VOR (or NDB if you also have an ADF) or to join a V-airway (or NDB bearing if you have an ADF). No direct to an intersection (other than via a defining radial) or direct to an airport (unless there is a navaid you can receive on that airport).
 
andybean said:
My understanding of the Suffix G as it relates to IFR flight: is that you must have an IFR certified GPS to file /G.

I fly with an IPAD (forflight) and an aera 500. I do not believe either is IFR certified. If I file IFR /G the controlers tend to give me direct clearance to the intersections. If I file /U they have me bouncing from VOR to VOR, resulting in a much longer trip.

I won't fly any GPS approaches for the obvious reason (no cert GPS).

Is it OK to claim /G for purposes of navigating all but the approach.

My hunch is that the certified IFR GPS designation applies to flying everything, not just the approach. But looking for input.
Click to expand...

How are you filing your route when you're being cleared direct to intersections? How are you filing your route when you're being bounced from VOR to VOR?
 
Ron Levy said:
...as long as the vector is to a VOR (or NDB if you also have an ADF) or to join a V-airway (or NDB bearing if you have an ADF). No direct to an intersection (other than via a defining radial) or direct to an airport (unless there is a navaid you can receive on that airport).
Click to expand...

When I was flying /U I got (unrequested) vectors to "nowhere" as in "Fly 020, advise when you can resume own navigation." That 020 wasn't direct to a VOR or defined radial.
 
EdFred said:
When I was flying /U I got (unrequested) vectors to "nowhere" as in "Fly 020, advise when you can resume own navigation." That 020 wasn't direct to a VOR or defined radial.
Click to expand...

Did you request vectors? What did ATC say was the purpose of the vector?
 
roncachamp said:
Did you request vectors? What did ATC say was the purpose of the vector?
Click to expand...

How often does one request unrequested vectors? :rolleyes:
I don't recall the reason, as I haven't flown /U since 2004.
 
Ron Levy said:
...as long as the vector is to a VOR (or NDB if you also have an ADF) or to join a V-airway (or NDB bearing if you have an ADF). No direct to an intersection (other than via a defining radial) or direct to an airport (unless there is a navaid you can receive on that airport).
Click to expand...

I file /U and get cleared direct to my destination all the time. I don't ask for it either. Once I was in the process of flying my filed route to a VOR and the controller said I was cleared direct, and then asked if I needed to go to the VOR for navigational reasons. I stayed on course because the direct route would have taken me into a mean looking cloud

I am new so this may be incorrect, but it seems like ATC will assume you have a VFR GPS and clear you direct to your destination if you are within radar coverage
 
Last edited:
dell30rb said:
I file /U and get cleared direct all the time. I don't ask for it either
Click to expand...
That is the controller's error. These days, they tend to assume everyone has IFR GPS, and issue direct clearances accordingly, in part because (as I understand it) your suffix is not on their scope. It's your responsibility as PIC to politely decline any clearance you cannot accept, e.g., "Center, Cessna 123 is /U, unable direct BONGO intersection."
 
Ron Levy said:
That is the controller's error. These days, they tend to assume everyone has IFR GPS, and issue direct clearances accordingly, in part because (as I understand it) your suffix is not on their scope. It's your responsibility as PIC to politely decline any clearance you cannot accept, e.g., "Center, Cessna 123 is /U, unable direct BONGO intersection."
Click to expand...

That's possible, but it seems like some of the controllers 'know' the deal. Especially considering I am in a 152! I'm sure they can see that I am the slowest airplane in the IFR system

I'll try to get "cleared by radar vectors" in there next time I am offered a direct clearance... what's the proper procedure? "request radar vectors to XXX, looks like a heading of ahhhhhhh 020"
 
Last edited:
dell30rb said:
That's possible, but it seems like some of the controllers 'know' the deal. Especially considering I am in a 152! I'm sure they can see that I am the slowest airplane in the IFR system
Click to expand...
There is no "deal" to know -- 91.205(d)(2) and 1.1 are clearl on this point. If you're IFR, you must comply with the regulations even if the controller forgets what you have aboard or what you're flying. That's your responsibility as PIC.
 
Ron Levy said:
There is no "deal" to know -- 91.205(d)(2) and 1.1 are clearl on this point. If you're IFR, you must comply with the regulations even if the controller forgets what you have aboard or what you're flying. That's your responsibility as PIC.
Click to expand...

I know, and I have always gone the long way...
 
Ron Levy said:
That is the controller's error. These days, they tend to assume everyone has IFR GPS, and issue direct clearances accordingly, in part because (as I understand it) your suffix is not on their scope. It's your responsibility as PIC to politely decline any clearance you cannot accept, e.g., "Center, Cessna 123 is /U, unable direct BONGO intersection."
Click to expand...

"... but I am fully vector qualified!" :)
 
Ron Levy said:
That is not limited to IFR operations. See AIM Section 5-1-8, Table 5-1-2. /G means "Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS), including GPS or Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS), with en route and terminal capability." If it isn't IFR-certified, it doesn't have "en route and terminal capability."
Click to expand...

A non IFR-certified GPS may not have en route and terminal capability for IFR purposes, but it does have those capabilities for VFR purposes.

I file VFR flight plans /G based on a non IFR-certified GPS because if search and rescue personnel have to come looking for me, I want them to know what VFR navigation equipment I have.
 
Ron Levy said:
...as long as the vector is to a VOR (or NDB if you also have an ADF) or to join a V-airway (or NDB bearing if you have an ADF). No direct to an intersection (other than via a defining radial) or direct to an airport (unless there is a navaid you can receive on that airport).
Click to expand...

:confused:

I haven't seen any regulation or published guidance that says radar vectors are not permitted to an intersection or an airport. 91.205(d) says you have to have navigation equipement suitable for the route to be flown, but you don't need an RNAV systrem to fly a vector.

On the other hand, if they used the word "direct," then I would have to say "unable" if I didn't have suitable equipment to fly direct to the specified fix.

I wouldn't FILE based on an expectation of vectors, because what I file needs to be a route that I can fly own nav.
 
EdFred said:
When I was flying /U I got (unrequested) vectors to "nowhere" as in "Fly 020, advise when you can resume own navigation." That 020 wasn't direct to a VOR or defined radial.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure I've received vectors without a destination being specified while being vectored for an approach.
 
Palmpilot said:
A non IFR-certified GPS may not have en route and terminal capability for IFR purposes, but it does have those capabilities for VFR purposes.
Click to expand...
No, it does not. See the AIM, 14 CFR 1.1, and the AC's on GPS's. There is no such thing in them as "VFR enroute/terminal" capability.

I file VFR flight plans /G based on a non IFR-certified GPS because if search and rescue personnel have to come looking for me, I want them to know what VFR navigation equipment I have.
Click to expand...
That is contrary to FAA guidance, but nobody's going to care as long as you stay VFR -- including the controllers. As for what the SAR folks will do with a VFR flight plan, I don't think they look anywhere beyond the route of flight block in order to choose a search area. Your route is their concern, not your navigational method.
 
Palmpilot said:
:confused:

I haven't seen any regulation or published guidance that says radar vectors are not permitted to an intersection or an airport. 91.205(d) says you have to have navigation equipement suitable for the route to be flown, but you don't need an RNAV systrem to fly a vector.
Click to expand...
Depends on the vector. According to the FAA, you must be able to resume the cleared route after radio comm failure. As it says in 91.185(c)(1)(ii), "If being radar vectored, by the direct route from the point of radio failure to the fix, route, or airway specified in the vector clearance;" If you can't fly that direct route with your onboard gear, you can't accept the vector clearance. So, without a "suitable RNAV system," if they say, "Fly heading 140, join V123," it's no problem. If they say, "Fly heading 140, vectors to BONGO intersection," you must decline, although if BONGO is on V123, you can ask them instead for a vector to join V123.

I wouldn't FILE based on an expectation of vectors, because what I file needs to be a route that I can fly own nav.
Click to expand...
That is in accordance with FAA guidance.
 
Ron Levy said:
Not just no IFR-certified GPS, no IFR approach certified GPS.

Not unless you have an enroute/terminal IFR GPS.
Click to expand...
That is correct, I only wonder how it was before when (unless I missed something) there were IFR-enroute certified receivers but not approach-certified. The equipment codes changed in 2005 but clearly there must have been a way to indicate such 'partial' capability.
 
Palmpilot said:
I'm pretty sure I've received vectors without a destination being specified while being vectored for an approach.
Click to expand...
I highly doubt that. I'm sure they said something like "Fly heading 123, vectors for the ILS 9 approach." At least, that's what they're supoosed to do.
FAA Order 7110.65 Section 5-6-2 said:
b. When initiating a vector, advise the pilot of the purpose.
PHRASEOLOGY-
VECTOR TO (fix or airway).

VECTOR TO INTERCEPT (name of NAVAID) (specified) RADIAL.

VECTOR FOR SPACING.

VECTOR TO FINAL APPROACH COURSE,

or if the pilot does not have knowledge of the type of
approach,

VECTOR TO (approach name) FINAL APPROACH COURSE.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
olasek said:
That is correct, I only wonder how it was before when (unless I missed something) there were IFR-enroute certified receivers but not approach-certified. The equipment codes changed in 2005 but clearly there must have been a way to indicate such 'partial' capability.
Click to expand...
They just said IFR GPS, and yes, I had a Trimble 2000T (e/t only) back in the 90's, and filed /G.
 
olasek said:
That is correct, I only wonder how it was before when (unless I missed something) there were IFR-enroute certified receivers but not approach-certified. The equipment codes changed in 2005 but clearly there must have been a way to indicate such 'partial' capability.
Click to expand...


I remember using /R for enroute Loran and GPS boxes.
 
matthammer said:
Ah, okay. I didn't get my first FAR/AIM till around 2001 at the age of 12, so that's a bit before my time. ;)
Click to expand...
When I got my first FAR/AIM book, IIRC, it did not include suffixes of any kind. But then again, I was born during the Truman Adminstration.
 
Yeah, I was always around the "latest tech" guys. Most were guys that went to sea before they flew, so they understand the value you get from every edge. I remember trying out vertical DGPS approaches on a Trimble rig with a local radio correction beacon that worked pretty damned well really.

Then we had the Satloc system for Ag work. They had their own satellite that provided the correction signal that allowed us to have <1' swath accuracy back in the days of Selective Availability still being turned on. This was Pre WAAS, this was when the government was playing with LAAS and DGPS gear on field. You paid an annual subscription to Satloc to use their satellite. There was also another system Picodas that the Gov't would accept on contract (it records your coverage) but I never used it. Satloc was not a navigational system, just a swath guidance and record keeping system. I got out of Ag shortly after that and often wondered if that augmentation system didn't become WAAS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top