Narrative:

Company X is an aircraft ferry company that has delivered over 3000 aircraft worldwide in the past 17 yrs. We were contracted to deliver 2 mdt aircraft from the united states mainland to honolulu. The aircraft were fitted with ferry tanks and flown under a special airworthiness certificate. A temporary HF was fitted and a GPS. In addition 2 other GPS units were carried. There was a LORAN C on board the mdt but not fitted as the honolulu LORAN chain was withdrawn from service 12 months ago. On arrival in honolulu in the second aircraft, the aircraft and crew were subject to an FAA ramp check. The inspector stated that the flight was in violation of the FARS because of the navigation equipment used. It was pointed out that the relevant far, 511, stated 'appropriate electronic navigation equipment' and nowhere is there a definitive list of such equipment. The flight was on track and landed within 30 seconds of the flight planned time. It was further mentioned to the inspector, as it has been to the western region and washington, that other long range navigation equipment is not suitable to our delivery task. The allowable drift of an INS would put the aircraft outside the limits allowed, i.e., 15 hours, 32 NM. Vlfirst officermega suffers from 'P' static, strongly experienced at the levels we fly. With no heading reference input, the vlfirst officermega would also far exceed the allowable navigation limits due to dr operation. Doppler is unsuitable. In addition, many of the aircraft we deliver are single engine'ed, but worse, have only 1 electrical supply which can fail (we have had about 60 over the yrs). Therefore, any of the aforementioned navaids are susceptible to the failure of the single power sources. The GPS can operate on its own battery pack. In conclusion, after 10000 hours cumulative operating experience (without 1 failure or off track error) with the GPS and considering other factors, some of which are mentioned above, we contend that the GPS as used are 'appropriate electronic navigation equipment.' that afternoon the same honolulu office issued a ferry permit for an aircraft returning to the mainland. This was based on the fact that a LORAN was fitted for navigation even though the honolulu stations were withdrawn from service. We are presently corresponding with afs-2 and other offices in washington.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLC OF AN MDT ACFT ON AN OCEANIC FERRY FLT WERE FOUND TO NOT HAVE REQUIRED NAV EQUIP FOR THE FLT BY AN FAA INSPECTOR DOING A RAMP INSPECTION AT DEST.

Narrative: COMPANY X IS AN ACFT FERRY COMPANY THAT HAS DELIVERED OVER 3000 ACFT WORLDWIDE IN THE PAST 17 YRS. WE WERE CONTRACTED TO DELIVER 2 MDT ACFT FROM THE UNITED STATES MAINLAND TO HONOLULU. THE ACFT WERE FITTED WITH FERRY TANKS AND FLOWN UNDER A SPECIAL AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATE. A TEMPORARY HF WAS FITTED AND A GPS. IN ADDITION 2 OTHER GPS UNITS WERE CARRIED. THERE WAS A LORAN C ON BOARD THE MDT BUT NOT FITTED AS THE HONOLULU LORAN CHAIN WAS WITHDRAWN FROM SVC 12 MONTHS AGO. ON ARR IN HONOLULU IN THE SECOND ACFT, THE ACFT AND CREW WERE SUBJECT TO AN FAA RAMP CHK. THE INSPECTOR STATED THAT THE FLT WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE FARS BECAUSE OF THE NAV EQUIP USED. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE RELEVANT FAR, 511, STATED 'APPROPRIATE ELECTRONIC NAV EQUIP' AND NOWHERE IS THERE A DEFINITIVE LIST OF SUCH EQUIP. THE FLT WAS ON TRACK AND LANDED WITHIN 30 SECONDS OF THE FLT PLANNED TIME. IT WAS FURTHER MENTIONED TO THE INSPECTOR, AS IT HAS BEEN TO THE WESTERN REGION AND WASHINGTON, THAT OTHER LONG RANGE NAV EQUIP IS NOT SUITABLE TO OUR DELIVERY TASK. THE ALLOWABLE DRIFT OF AN INS WOULD PUT THE ACFT OUTSIDE THE LIMITS ALLOWED, I.E., 15 HRS, 32 NM. VLF/OMEGA SUFFERS FROM 'P' STATIC, STRONGLY EXPERIENCED AT THE LEVELS WE FLY. WITH NO HDG REF INPUT, THE VLF/OMEGA WOULD ALSO FAR EXCEED THE ALLOWABLE NAV LIMITS DUE TO DR OP. DOPPLER IS UNSUITABLE. IN ADDITION, MANY OF THE ACFT WE DELIVER ARE SINGLE ENG'ED, BUT WORSE, HAVE ONLY 1 ELECTRICAL SUPPLY WHICH CAN FAIL (WE HAVE HAD ABOUT 60 OVER THE YRS). THEREFORE, ANY OF THE AFOREMENTIONED NAVAIDS ARE SUSCEPTIBLE TO THE FAILURE OF THE SINGLE PWR SOURCES. THE GPS CAN OPERATE ON ITS OWN BATTERY PACK. IN CONCLUSION, AFTER 10000 HRS CUMULATIVE OPERATING EXPERIENCE (WITHOUT 1 FAILURE OR OFF TRACK ERROR) WITH THE GPS AND CONSIDERING OTHER FACTORS, SOME OF WHICH ARE MENTIONED ABOVE, WE CONTEND THAT THE GPS AS USED ARE 'APPROPRIATE ELECTRONIC NAV EQUIP.' THAT AFTERNOON THE SAME HONOLULU OFFICE ISSUED A FERRY PERMIT FOR AN ACFT RETURNING TO THE MAINLAND. THIS WAS BASED ON THE FACT THAT A LORAN WAS FITTED FOR NAV EVEN THOUGH THE HONOLULU STATIONS WERE WITHDRAWN FROM SVC. WE ARE PRESENTLY CORRESPONDING WITH AFS-2 AND OTHER OFFICES IN WASHINGTON.

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.