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.