OK, I broke down and sprung for the Lowrance Airmap 2000c instead of the
1000. Wow.

Normally I rent a plane that has a panel-mounted IFR certified Garmin 430,
but that may change due to circumstances beyond my control in a few months.

Obviously I can't file /G IFR without a proper IFR GPS, but this one will be
used as a backup and for cross-reference at the very least.

So...do I tell a briefer to note that I have a VFR GPS and will the
controllers take note, sending me direct, off airways? Will it make any
difference to them at all? Given the fact that nearly everyone has one
nowadays, will they assume I have a GPS even if I don't indicate it?
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino

Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com

More Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

Tell them. Just as is the case with icing certification, the controllers are
not into law enforcement. Tell them you have a GPS and you will get all of
the benefits.

Bob Gardner

"Wizard of Draws" > wrote in message
news:BF96C057.43EB4%jeffbREMOVE@REMOVEwizardofdraw s.com...
> OK, I broke down and sprung for the Lowrance Airmap 2000c instead of the
> 1000. Wow.
>
> Normally I rent a plane that has a panel-mounted IFR certified Garmin 430,
> but that may change due to circumstances beyond my control in a few
> months.
>
> Obviously I can't file /G IFR without a proper IFR GPS, but this one will
> be
> used as a backup and for cross-reference at the very least.
>
> So...do I tell a briefer to note that I have a VFR GPS and will the
> controllers take note, sending me direct, off airways? Will it make any
> difference to them at all? Given the fact that nearly everyone has one
> nowadays, will they assume I have a GPS even if I don't indicate it?
> --
> Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino
>
> Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
> http://www.wizardofdraws.com
>
> More Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
> http://www.cartoonclipart.com
>

On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 18:11:56 -0800, Bob Gardner wrote:

> Tell them. Just as is the case with icing certification, the controllers are
> not into law enforcement. Tell them you have a GPS and you will get all of
> the benefits.

Wouldn't it look odd if you file /a and request Direct?

Doesn't the GPS have to be en route certified? Heck the Garmin 296 has all
the approaches, but does not have the victor highways that I could see.

What would happen if your clearance got changed en route?

Or does that not happen when you file direct and fly off the airways?

Allen

I used to put VFR GPS in remarks and would get direct from some, others, no
way.

From Atlanta center or nearby approach controllers: 'Can you negotiate
direct XYZ? " Yes
"Then N6852F, cleared direct XYZ."

When I requested direct from Indy, they said no can do, you're not /Garmin.

Guess it matters who you ask.

Thx, {|;-)

Victor J. (Jim) Osborne, Jr.

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
...
> Tell them. Just as is the case with icing certification, the controllers
> are not into law enforcement. Tell them you have a GPS and you will get
> all of the benefits.
>
> Bob Gardner
>
>> So...do I tell a briefer to note that I have a VFR GPS and will the
>> controllers take note, sending me direct, off airways? Will it make any
>> difference to them at all? Given the fact that nearly everyone has one
>> nowadays, will they assume I have a GPS even if I don't indicate it?
>> --
>> Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino
>>
>> Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
>> http://www.wizardofdraws.com

Lately it seems like when I am in a /A airplane ATC assumes I have a hand-held
(sometimes I do, sometimes I don't) and gives me direct routing without my asking.

Then, flying into Winnipeg yesterday /G I got direct routing to a waypoint that
wasn't in the G430! Some days you can't win!


On 11/8/2005 7:51 PM, Wizard of Draws wrote the following:
> OK, I broke down and sprung for the Lowrance Airmap 2000c instead of the
> 1000. Wow.
>
> Normally I rent a plane that has a panel-mounted IFR certified Garmin 430,
> but that may change due to circumstances beyond my control in a few months.
>
> Obviously I can't file /G IFR without a proper IFR GPS, but this one will be
> used as a backup and for cross-reference at the very least.
>
> So...do I tell a briefer to note that I have a VFR GPS and will the
> controllers take note, sending me direct, off airways? Will it make any
> difference to them at all? Given the fact that nearly everyone has one
> nowadays, will they assume I have a GPS even if I don't indicate it?

"A Lieberman" wrote:
>
>> Tell them. Just as is the case with icing certification, the
>> controllers are
>> not into law enforcement. Tell them you have a GPS and you will get
>> all of
>> the benefits.
>
> Wouldn't it look odd if you file /a and request Direct?

Nope.

> Doesn't the GPS have to be en route certified? Heck the Garmin 296
> has all
> the approaches, but does not have the victor highways that I could
> see.
> What would happen if your clearance got changed en route?

I'd put the NAVAIDS and intersections in the 296 and use it as an "aid
to situational awareness" as I flew the clearance.

> Or does that not happen when you file direct and fly off the airways?

It happens often, especially when you fly into big city airspace. I
always get cleared direct from Mobile to Houston or Dallas, but then
Center always amends my clearance before I get to the Bravo airspace.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Wizard of Draws" > wrote in message
news:BF96C057.43EB4%jeffbREMOVE@REMOVEwizardofdraw s.com...
>
> So...do I tell a briefer to note that I have a VFR GPS and will the
> controllers take note, sending me direct, off airways? Will it make any
> difference to them at all? Given the fact that nearly everyone has one
> nowadays, will they assume I have a GPS even if I don't indicate it?
>

If you file off airways and if radar monitoring can be provided and if
specific routing is not required for your departure/destination airport then
you'll get direct routing. Indicating you have a VFR GPS makes no
difference.

On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 21:14:11 -0600, Dan Luke wrote:

Hey Dan,

Thanks for responding.

> It happens often, especially when you fly into big city airspace. I
> always get cleared direct from Mobile to Houston or Dallas, but then
> Center always amends my clearance before I get to the Bravo airspace.

Can I assume that the amendment would be vectors to an approach or an
arrival procedure where ATC will vector you?

Or is it assumed you will know how to get on the airway from a non standard
"entry" from a direct routing you are on?

I ask this as I am planning a trip up to Ohio which would take me through
Cincinnati Bravo from Owensboro KY to Stuebenville Ohio.

I would assume, that I get my clearance direct from OWB to 2G2, but expect
vectors in and around Cincy Bravo "for traffic". Would this be the
amendment you would be talking about?

Allen

"A Lieberman" > wrote in message
...
>
> Wouldn't it look odd if you file /a and request Direct?
>

It's done regularly and has been for years.


>
> Doesn't the GPS have to be en route certified?
>

Nope.


>
> What would happen if your clearance got changed en route?
>

The same thing that happens without GPS. You fly a new clearance.

"A Lieberman" wrote:
>
>> It happens often, especially when you fly into big city airspace. I
>> always get cleared direct from Mobile to Houston or Dallas, but then
>> Center always amends my clearance before I get to the Bravo airspace.
>
> Can I assume that the amendment would be vectors to an approach or an
> arrival procedure where ATC will vector you?

Yes. Going into HOU or DAL it's usually a STAR.

> Or is it assumed you will know how to get on the airway from a non
> standard
> "entry" from a direct routing you are on?

Well, I've never been directed to join an airway without being given a
heading to fly to do it. If ATC has a route change for you, it will
usually begin with a fix, such as "direct Gregg County (VOR), DUMPY2
arrival, direct."

> I ask this as I am planning a trip up to Ohio which would take me
> through
> Cincinnati Bravo from Owensboro KY to Stuebenville Ohio.
>
> I would assume, that I get my clearance direct from OWB to 2G2, but
> expect
> vectors in and around Cincy Bravo "for traffic". Would this be the
> amendment you would be talking about?

Well, vectors for traffic can happen any time in busy airspace, but
usually don't involve route waypoint changes. Once the traffic is no
factor, they'll tell you to resume own navigation, IOW, head for the
next fix or get back on the airway, if that was your clearance.

However, the TRACON might have regular routes for transients to fly
through parts of its airspace. If that's the case, you'll probably be
given the change before you get there. That will give you a little time
to set up your NAV gear.

If you're not landing there or busting through one of their approach or
departure corridors, you may not get any change at all.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Bob Gardner" > writes:

> Tell them. Just as is the case with icing certification, the
> controllers are not into law enforcement. Tell them you have a GPS
> and you will get all of the benefits.

.... and as with flying in icing with substandard equipment, you will
face all the risks in case something goes wrong.

- FChE

"Frank Ch. Eigler" > wrote in message
...
>
> ... and as with flying in icing with substandard equipment, you will
> face all the risks in case something goes wrong.
>

What are the risks of flying IFR with a VFR GPS?

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "Frank Ch. Eigler" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> ... and as with flying in icing with substandard equipment, you will
>> face all the risks in case something goes wrong.
>>
>
> What are the risks of flying IFR with a VFR GPS?

What happens when these VFR GPS's drop reception of all but one or two
satellites? Do they instantly provide a RAIM message?

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
>
> What happens when these VFR GPS's drop reception of all but one or two
> satellites? Do they instantly provide a RAIM message?
>

I don't know? Is it a problem if they don't?

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "Peter R." > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> What happens when these VFR GPS's drop reception of all but one or two
>> satellites? Do they instantly provide a RAIM message?
>>
>
> I don't know? Is it a problem if they don't?

If the pilot were using the unit for primary navigation in IMC and the unit
did not warn the pilot of too few satellites to be able to calculate
position, would that be a problem?

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
>
> If the pilot were using the unit for primary navigation in IMC and the
> unit
> did not warn the pilot of too few satellites to be able to calculate
> position, would that be a problem?
>

No.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "Peter R." > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> If the pilot were using the unit for primary navigation in IMC and the
>> unit
>> did not warn the pilot of too few satellites to be able to calculate
>> position, would that be a problem?
>>
>
> No.

Why?

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
>
> Why?
>

Because the properties of a "problem" are not present. Do you disagree? If
so, why?

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "Peter R." > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Why?
>>
>
> Because the properties of a "problem" are not present.
<snip>

Primary navigation (the VFR GPS) is no longer reliable, the aircraft is
IMC, and the pilot is unaware that the unit is no longer reliable. Those
are not properties of a problem?




--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
>
> Primary navigation (the VFR GPS) is no longer reliable, the aircraft is
> IMC, and the pilot is unaware that the unit is no longer reliable. Those
> are not properties of a problem?
>

I don't think so. If the aircraft drifts off course the controller will
nudge it back and the pilot will then be aware that the unit is no longer
reliable. No problem.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "Peter R." > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Primary navigation (the VFR GPS) is no longer reliable, the aircraft is
>> IMC, and the pilot is unaware that the unit is no longer reliable. Those
>> are not properties of a problem?
>>
>
> I don't think so. If the aircraft drifts off course the controller will
> nudge it back and the pilot will then be aware that the unit is no longer
> reliable. No problem.

Assuming the aircraft is in controlled airspace. What if it isn't?

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Peter R." > wrote:

> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>
>> "Peter R." > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> Primary navigation (the VFR GPS) is no longer reliable, the aircraft is
>>> IMC, and the pilot is unaware that the unit is no longer reliable. Those
>>> are not properties of a problem?
>>>
>>
>> I don't think so. If the aircraft drifts off course the controller will
>> nudge it back and the pilot will then be aware that the unit is no longer
>> reliable. No problem.
>
> Assuming the aircraft is in controlled airspace. What if it isn't?

Sorry, I mean assuming the aircraft is in radar contact.

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
>
> Assuming the aircraft is in controlled airspace. What if it isn't?
>

We're not assuming the aircraft is in controlled airspace, we know it is.
That was established in the original message.

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
>
> Sorry, I mean assuming the aircraft is in radar contact.
>

Radar monitoring is required for off-airways routes beyond navaid
altitude/distance limits. So if not in radar contact your route will be via
airways or between navaids within the established limits. You'll know the
VFR GPS is unreliable when it no longer agrees with your more traditional
navigation radios.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> You'll know the
> VFR GPS is unreliable when it no longer agrees with your more
> traditional navigation radios.

Assuming the pilot is continually tuning his traditional navigation radios,
then including those in his instrument scan. And what if he does not?

You asked what the risks of flying IFR with a VFR GPS are. There's one.

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
>
> Assuming the pilot is continually tuning his traditional navigation
> radios,
> then including those in his instrument scan. And what if he does not?
>

Why would he do that?


>
> You asked what the risks of flying IFR with a VFR GPS are. There's one.
>

But I didn't ask what are the risks of flying IFR using a VFR GPS
exclusively.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> But I didn't ask what are the risks of flying IFR using a VFR GPS
> exclusively.

You didn't ask what are the risks of flying IFR using a VFR GPS in concert
with other navigation instruments, either.

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
>
> You didn't ask what are the risks of flying IFR using a VFR GPS in concert
> with other navigation instruments, either.
>

No, I didn't. I didn't have to, as the the other navigation instruments are
required to be there. The bottom line is you haven't identified any risk
from flying IFR with a VFR GPS.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> No, I didn't. I didn't have to, as the the other navigation instruments are
> required to be there.

Are they required to be used?

> The bottom line is you haven't identified any risk
> from flying IFR with a VFR GPS.

Yes I did. Just because your newsgroup pride won't let you recognize it
doesn't mean it didn't happen.

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Peter R." > wrote:

>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>
>> "Peter R." > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> What happens when these VFR GPS's drop reception of all but one or two
>>> satellites? Do they instantly provide a RAIM message?
>>>
>>
>> I don't know? Is it a problem if they don't?
>
>If the pilot were using the unit for primary navigation in IMC and the unit
>did not warn the pilot of too few satellites to be able to calculate
>position, would that be a problem?

You should note that if you lose lock (too few satellites) then your
display will start flashing (or portions of it). That is not RAIM
which determines if you have a signal error.

Ron Lee

In article >,
"Peter R." > wrote:
> Assuming the pilot is continually tuning his traditional navigation radios,
> then including those in his instrument scan. And what if he does not?
>
> You asked what the risks of flying IFR with a VFR GPS are. There's one.


Why wouldn't you use all available information? I never rely on any one
source if I have supplementary sources of information available, GPS or
no GPS.



JKG

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
>
> Yes I did. Just because your newsgroup pride won't let you recognize it
> doesn't mean it didn't happen.
>

Are you seriously going to maintain that the risk in flying IFR with a VFR
GPS is that it will cause the pilot to leave his required nav radios off and
he will then not recognize if he has drifted off the assigned airway in a
nonradar environment?

Jonathan Goodish > wrote:

> Why wouldn't you use all available information? I never rely on any one
> source if I have supplementary sources of information available, GPS or
> no GPS.

I was merely identifying one risk of using a VFR GPS, not stating that
everyone who flies with a VFR GPS does not use all available information.

Recall that the NTSB accident database has at least one recent C172 fatal
accident where the NTSB concluded that the pilot was flying a GPS approach
with nothing but a VFR GPS.


--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Ron Lee > wrote:

> You should note that if you lose lock (too few satellites) then your
> display will start flashing (or portions of it). That is not RAIM
> which determines if you have a signal error.

Just to clarify, are you saying that a *VFR* GPS's screen flashes when the
GPS loses the required number of satellites for position calculation and
that error is not a result of built-in RAIM?



--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> Are you seriously going to maintain that the risk in flying IFR with a VFR
> GPS is that it will cause the pilot to leave his required nav radios off and
> he will then not recognize if he has drifted off the assigned airway in a
> nonradar environment?

Yes, I am going to maintain that premise because even more unthinkable,
someone was actually killed flying a GPS approach with nothing but a VFR
GPS. If someone was crazy enough to do that, then I certainly do not have
a problem believing that someone might attempt navigation on an assigned
airway with nothing but a VFR GPS.

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Peter R." > wrote:

> Yes, I am going to maintain that premise because even more unthinkable,
> someone was actually killed flying a GPS approach with nothing but a VFR
> GPS.

Here's the accident report:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20021023X05372&key=1

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
>
> Yes,
>

Then you have identified yourself as an idiot.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> Then you have identified yourself as an idiot.

A personal attack in place of a logical response to my evidence presented.

I expected more of you.

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Peter R. wrote:
> A personal attack in place of a logical response to my evidence presented.
> I expected more of you.

Peter, that was where you went wrong. :)

Gerald

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
>
> A personal attack in place of a logical response to my evidence presented.
>
> I expected more of you.
>

That's not a personal attack. You took an idiotic position. I even asked
you to confirm your position, and you did. Idiotic positions are taken by
idiots.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> That's not a personal attack. You took an idiotic position. I even asked
> you to confirm your position, and you did. Idiotic positions are taken by
> idiots.

Don't try to kiss and make up. We need time apart.

--
Peter
If you love someone, set him free.























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Peter R." > wrote in message
> ...
>>Primary navigation (the VFR GPS) is no longer reliable, the aircraft is
>>IMC, and the pilot is unaware that the unit is no longer reliable. Those
>>are not properties of a problem?
> I don't think so. If the aircraft drifts off course the controller will
> nudge it back and the pilot will then be aware that the unit is no longer
> reliable. No problem.

But chewing up TONS of radio time becomes a problem for all aircraft.
On another thread, you argued that saying the extra zero for runway
zero-nine takes up time. Now we're talking about taking up probably
minutes of time. that I see as a problem especially if the controller
then gives a clearance direct to a VOR/NDB that is not within range or
is not in the database. That chews up serious amounts of more airtime.
I've read many reports of controllers getting ****ed at pilots for
not having waypoints in their certified GPS. I can only imagine
what happens when pilot has nothing in their "database" other than a
few points. For the pilot with the VFR GPS, your primary navigation
becomes radar vectors. I'd rather know where I am at ALL time rather
than depending on a controller. I know of one pilot getting RV in IMC,
controller forgot about him and augered it in (CFIT).

I can definitely see how a VFR GPS is useful when flying enroute and VMC
with loads of VOR's for use as a backup (err, primary navigation). To
do it, single pilot, in IMC, just has many single point failures or
where you have backups but requires a lot of work to get positively
established/stabilized again.

Gerald Sylvester

Peter,

> Assuming the pilot is continually tuning his traditional navigation radios,
> then including those in his instrument scan. And what if he does not?
>

Then he doesn't adhere to the rules. That's like asking: What if the pilots
points the airplane at the ground?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Peter,

> I am going to maintain that premise because even more unthinkable,
> someone was actually killed flying a GPS approach with nothing but a VFR
> GPS. I
>

So what does that show? People do stupid things in airplanes all the time.
Are you suggesting flying should be prohibited because of that?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Gerald Sylvester" wrote:

> I've read many reports of controllers getting ****ed at pilots for
> not having waypoints in their certified GPS. I can only imagine
> what happens when pilot has nothing in their "database" other than a
> few points.

??

What waypoints are found in my certified KLN 90-B that aren't found in
my 396?

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

In article >,
"Peter R." > wrote:
> > Why wouldn't you use all available information? I never rely on any one
> > source if I have supplementary sources of information available, GPS or
> > no GPS.
>
> I was merely identifying one risk of using a VFR GPS, not stating that
> everyone who flies with a VFR GPS does not use all available information.


Isn't this also true if you fly airways but DON'T use a VFR GPS?


JKG

In article >,
"Peter R." > wrote:

> Ron Lee > wrote:
>
> > You should note that if you lose lock (too few satellites) then your
> > display will start flashing (or portions of it). That is not RAIM
> > which determines if you have a signal error.
>
> Just to clarify, are you saying that a *VFR* GPS's screen flashes when the
> GPS loses the required number of satellites for position calculation and
> that error is not a result of built-in RAIM?


When my hand held Garmin loses enough sats for position calculation, I
receive an alarm on the unit (both visual and audible).

I believe that RAIM performs a checksum to verify the integrity of the
data received from the sats. Hand held devices are indeed missing this
functionality, but it makes no difference for enroute, in my opinion.


JKG

Thomas Borchert > wrote:

> So what does that show? People do stupid things in airplanes all the time.

That was my point.

> Are you suggesting flying should be prohibited because of that?

Come on, Tom. You come across to me as intelligent. Where did you
interpret that I was suggesting any such thing?


--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Thomas Borchert > wrote:

> Then he doesn't adhere to the rules. That's like asking: What if the pilots
> points the airplane at the ground?

Apples and oranges. Pointing the aircraft at the ground is not analogous
to using a VFR GPS to navigate.

Besides, what rule is broken by pointing the aircraft at the ground?

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Peter,

> Besides, what rule is broken by pointing the aircraft at the ground?
>

91.3, of course ;-)

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Jonathan Goodish > wrote:

> Isn't this also true if you fly airways but DON'T use a VFR GPS?

I am not sure what you are asking. Is what true? To use all information
even when flying by VOR or that there is a risk of a failed VOR receiver on
an airway?

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Gerald Sylvester" > wrote in message
om...
>
> But chewing up TONS of radio time becomes a problem for all aircraft.
>

Nudging aircraft back on course is done all the time, it doesn't chew up
TONS of radio time.


>
> On another thread, you argued that saying the extra zero for runway
> zero-nine takes up time.
>

I said that in response to someone that said saying the extra zero takes
little time. But I didn't say the extra zero should be avoided in order to
save time, I said it should be avoided because it is a source for potential
confusion. The time saved is a small bonus.


>
> Now we're talking about taking up probably
> minutes of time.
>

No we're not, we're talking about a few seconds. Aircraft wander off course
from time to time and have been doing so since long before there was GPS.


>
> that I see as a problem especially if the controller
> then gives a clearance direct to a VOR/NDB that is not within range or
> is not in the database. That chews up serious amounts of more airtime.
>

No, it doesn't. Where do you get these ideas?


>
> I've read many reports of controllers getting ****ed at pilots for
> not having waypoints in their certified GPS.
>

Cite some of them.


>
> I can only imagine
> what happens when pilot has nothing in their "database" other than a few
> points.
>

How is that pertinent to this discussion?


>
> For the pilot with the VFR GPS, your primary navigation
> becomes radar vectors.
>

How so?


>
> I'd rather know where I am at ALL time rather
> than depending on a controller.
>

Do you fly IFR with nothing but a GPS on board?


>
> I know of one pilot getting RV in IMC,
> controller forgot about him and augered it in (CFIT).
>

Did that pilot have no nav radios on board?


>
> I can definitely see how a VFR GPS is useful when flying enroute and VMC
> with loads of VOR's for use as a backup (err, primary navigation). To do
> it, single pilot, in IMC, just has many single point failures or
> where you have backups but requires a lot of work to get positively
> established/stabilized again.
>

So you're saying that having a GPS on board in IMC creates excessive
workload on the pilot and adds many points of failure. I think most pilots
would disagree with you, but no matter, your "problem" is remedied by simply
not having the GPS on board.

Thomas Borchert > wrote:

> Peter,
>
>> Besides, what rule is broken by pointing the aircraft at the ground?
>>
>
> 91.3, of course ;-)

Do you mean 91.13, careless or reckless operation?

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
>
> Besides, what rule is broken by pointing the aircraft at the ground?
>

Under the conditions stated, probably 91.303.

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
>
> 91.3, of course ;-)
>

Methinks you meant some other regulation.


§ 91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.

(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is
the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.

(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in
command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to
meet that emergency.

(c) Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under paragraph (b) of
this section shall, upon the request of the Administrator, send a written
report of that deviation to the Administrator.

Peter,

Yep, sorry.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Steven,

91.13. The 1 got lost. Sorry!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
>
> 91.13. The 1 got lost. Sorry!
>

Okay, but how is the life or property of another endangered by pointing the
aircraft at the ground?

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> 91.13. The 1 got lost. Sorry!
>>
>
> Okay, but how is the life or property of another endangered by pointing the
> aircraft at the ground?

http://tinyurl.com/defvx


--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

> Recall that the NTSB accident database has at least one recent C172 fatal
> accident where the NTSB concluded that the pilot was flying a GPS approach
> with nothing but a VFR GPS.

What was the cause of that crash? Was the VFR GPS giving erronious
information? Was it hard to use, not being attached to the plane? Was
the pilot unfamiliar with the device? Was the approach even in the
database?

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>
> What was the cause of that crash? Was the VFR GPS giving erronious
> information? Was it hard to use, not being attached to the plane? Was
> the pilot unfamiliar with the device? Was the approach even in the
> database?
>

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20021023X05372&key=1

The NTSB determined the probable cause to be the failure of the pilot
to follow the published instrument approach procedure resulting in an early
descent into the tower. Why conclude the pilot believed he was someplace
other than where he was? Why is that more likely than just a descent below
the MDA?

Jose > wrote:

> What was the cause of that crash? Was the VFR GPS giving erronious
> information? Was it hard to use, not being attached to the plane? Was
> the pilot unfamiliar with the device? Was the approach even in the
> database?

Well, the official, sterile probable cause reads:

"The failure of the pilot to follow the published instrument approach
procedure, which resulted in an early descent into an antenna tower. A
factor was the low ceiling"

Of course, all of those factors you mentioned certainly are possible, too,
but not provable. A clue to these other factors leading to this accident
was that the aircraft was one mile to the right of course at the IAF.

I recall reading an accident analysis article of this crash (I forgot which
of my monthly periodicals it was in) a few months ago that went into more
detail about the pilot flying an IFR approach with a VFR GPS.

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
>
> Well, the official, sterile probable cause reads:
>
> "The failure of the pilot to follow the published instrument approach
> procedure, which resulted in an early descent into an antenna tower. A
> factor was the low ceiling"
>
> Of course, all of those factors you mentioned certainly are possible, too,
> but not provable.
>

Nor is the NTSB's probable cause.


>
> A clue to these other factors leading to this accident
> was that the aircraft was one mile to the right of course at the IAF.
>

But "just slightly left of the approach course centerline" when it struck
the tower.

Gerald Sylvester wrote:
>
> I can definitely see how a VFR GPS is useful when flying enroute and VMC
> with loads of VOR's for use as a backup (err, primary navigation). To
> do it, single pilot, in IMC, just has many single point failures or
> where you have backups but requires a lot of work to get positively
> established/stabilized again.

How does a handheld GPS have more SPOFs than a panel mount IFR certified
GPS? I would submit it has less because with a handheld electric power
is no longer a single point of failure like it is with a panel mount
(assuming you have a power adapter to plug it in and fresh batteries in
case you lose electric power).

The only legitimate argument that can be made is that the panel mount
GPS has an external antenna and the handheld relies on one mounted on
the windscreen or the unit itself.

I've been flying with a handheld GPS for almost ten years an have only
lost signal once in flight. And that was only for less than a minute.
Since I didn't do anything to get the signal back, I don't think it had
anything to do with antenna placement.

Now, if we're talking about precision GPS approaches, that's a different
story. But enroute navigation (and possibly even non-precision GPS
approaches) should be just as safe with a handheld as a panel mount.


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame >
## VP, Product Development
## MFM Software, Inc. (http://www.mfm.com/)
"If you have to ask, you won't understand."

Peter R. wrote:
> "Peter R." > wrote:
>
>
>>Yes, I am going to maintain that premise because even more unthinkable,
>>someone was actually killed flying a GPS approach with nothing but a VFR
>>GPS.
>
>
> Here's the accident report:
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20021023X05372&key=1
>
According to the accident report the plane impacted a tower just left of
the centerline but 450 below the published minimum height. Short of
WAAS no GPS will keep you from trouble if you don't follow the altitude
restrictions on the plate. I find it interesting that the report
mentions that a GPS was found in the plane but makes no mention of
charts on board. Could this have been a case of him not having the
plate but trying to fly the approach from his VFR GPS? If this is the
case the certification level of the GPS has no bearing in the crash.

Mark T. Dame wrote:

>
> Now, if we're talking about precision GPS approaches, that's a different
> story. But enroute navigation (and possibly even non-precision GPS
> approaches) should be just as safe with a handheld as a panel mount.

You will usually have as good of accuracy with a hand-held (with an
external antenna, but you lack the interity because you don't have
approach RAIM.

Would this ever matter?

It depends upon the volume of operations. For you personally, the
RAIM-hole day may never occur when you're using your hand-held for an
RNAV IAP.

Since there aren't any precision RNAV IAPs, other than LPV (which
requires WAAAS) I fail to see your distinction between precision and
non-precision.

John Theune wrote:

> Peter R. wrote:
>
>> "Peter R." > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Yes, I am going to maintain that premise because even more unthinkable,
>>> someone was actually killed flying a GPS approach with nothing but a VFR
>>> GPS.
>>
>>
>>
>> Here's the accident report:
>>
>> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20021023X05372&key=1
>>
> According to the accident report the plane impacted a tower just left of
> the centerline but 450 below the published minimum height. Short of
> WAAS no GPS will keep you from trouble if you don't follow the altitude
> restrictions on the plate. I find it interesting that the report
> mentions that a GPS was found in the plane but makes no mention of
> charts on board. Could this have been a case of him not having the
> plate but trying to fly the approach from his VFR GPS? If this is the
> case the certification level of the GPS has no bearing in the crash.

That accident was the result of the pilot's failure to fly the correct
altitude. It had nothing to do with the type of GPS being used.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Wizard of Draws" > wrote in message
> news:BF96C057.43EB4%jeffbREMOVE@REMOVEwizardofdraw s.com...
>>
>> So...do I tell a briefer to note that I have a VFR GPS and will the
>> controllers take note, sending me direct, off airways? Will it make any
>> difference to them at all? Given the fact that nearly everyone has one
>> nowadays, will they assume I have a GPS even if I don't indicate it?
>>
>
> If you file off airways and if radar monitoring can be provided and if
> specific routing is not required for your departure/destination airport
> then you'll get direct routing. Indicating you have a VFR GPS makes no
> difference.
>

That seems to be an overly broad statement. I have put "VFR GPS" in Remarks
when filing /U for an off-airways (random) route and had controllers
specifically refer to using my VFR GPS to proceed direct to an intersection.
Whether they should have done so is another issue. But is sure seemed to
make a difference.

John Theune > wrote:
>
>> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20021023X05372&key=1
>>
>According to the accident report the plane impacted a tower just left of
>the centerline but 450 below the published minimum height. Short of
>WAAS no GPS will keep you from trouble if you don't follow the altitude
>restrictions on the plate. I find it interesting that the report
>mentions that a GPS was found in the plane but makes no mention of
>charts on board. Could this have been a case of him not having the
>plate but trying to fly the approach from his VFR GPS? If this is the
>case the certification level of the GPS has no bearing in the crash.

Baro is used for height.

Ron Lee

"Peter R." > wrote:

>Ron Lee > wrote:
>
>> You should note that if you lose lock (too few satellites) then your
>> display will start flashing (or portions of it). That is not RAIM
>> which determines if you have a signal error.
>
>Just to clarify, are you saying that a *VFR* GPS's screen flashes when the
>GPS loses the required number of satellites for position calculation and
>that error is not a result of built-in RAIM?
>

Portions do such as position. Take your favorite handheld and look
at various displays. Note that some will flash until you get a solid
GPS lock.

Ron Lee

wrote:
>> Now, if we're talking about precision GPS approaches, that's a different
>> story. But enroute navigation (and possibly even non-precision GPS
>> approaches) should be just as safe with a handheld as a panel mount.
>
>You will usually have as good of accuracy with a hand-held (with an
>external antenna, but you lack the interity because you don't have
>approach RAIM.
>
>Would this ever matter?
>
>It depends upon the volume of operations. For you personally, the
>RAIM-hole day may never occur when you're using your hand-held for an
>RNAV IAP.

A RAIM hole would not affect position accuracy as long as there is no
GPS signal error...which are rare.

Ron Lee

"Stan Prevost" > wrote:
>>
>
>That seems to be an overly broad statement. I have put "VFR GPS" in Remarks
>when filing /U for an off-airways (random) route and had controllers
>specifically refer to using my VFR GPS to proceed direct to an intersection.
>Whether they should have done so is another issue. But is sure seemed to
>make a difference.
>
Your non-IFR GPS has intersections in it? What model is it?

Ron Lee

"Stan Prevost" > wrote in message
...
>
> That seems to be an overly broad statement. I have put "VFR GPS" in
> Remarks when filing /U for an off-airways (random) route and had
> controllers specifically refer to using my VFR GPS to proceed direct to an
> intersection. Whether they should have done so is another issue. But is
> sure seemed to make a difference.
>

In what way?

Ron Lee wrote:
> "Peter R." > wrote:
>>Ron Lee > wrote:
>>>You should note that if you lose lock (too few satellites) then your
>>>display will start flashing (or portions of it). That is not RAIM
>>>which determines if you have a signal error.
>>Just to clarify, are you saying that a *VFR* GPS's screen flashes when the
>>GPS loses the required number of satellites for position calculation and
>>that error is not a result of built-in RAIM?
> Portions do such as position. Take your favorite handheld and look
> at various displays. Note that some will flash until you get a solid
> GPS lock.

my handheld keeps updating and displaying as though I kept going
straight ahead at the same exact speed and course as when it
lost the lock. So there is NO warning at all.

Gerald

On 11/10/05 8:25 PM, in article , "Ron Lee"
> wrote:

> "Stan Prevost" > wrote:
>>>
>>
>> That seems to be an overly broad statement. I have put "VFR GPS" in Remarks
>> when filing /U for an off-airways (random) route and had controllers
>> specifically refer to using my VFR GPS to proceed direct to an intersection.
>> Whether they should have done so is another issue. But is sure seemed to
>> make a difference.
>>
> Your non-IFR GPS has intersections in it? What model is it?
>
> Ron Lee
>

My new Airmap 2000c, which was the reason for this thread, has them.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino

Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com

More Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

Gerald Sylvester wrote:

> Ron Lee wrote:
>
>> "Peter R." > wrote:
>>
>>> Ron Lee > wrote:
>>>
>>>> You should note that if you lose lock (too few satellites) then your
>>>> display will start flashing (or portions of it). That is not RAIM
>>>> which determines if you have a signal error.
>>>
>>> Just to clarify, are you saying that a *VFR* GPS's screen flashes
>>> when the
>>> GPS loses the required number of satellites for position calculation and
>>> that error is not a result of built-in RAIM?
>>
>> Portions do such as position. Take your favorite handheld and look
>> at various displays. Note that some will flash until you get a solid
>> GPS lock.
>
>
> my handheld keeps updating and displaying as though I kept going
> straight ahead at the same exact speed and course as when it
> lost the lock. So there is NO warning at all.
>
> Gerald
>
What model is this? I've owned a Garmin 195 and Magellan 500 and both
started flashing if the lost the signal. I had a older non aviation Gps
and as I recall it did not flash when it lost signal. From my
experience and that of other pilots I've talked with all the aviation
GPS tell you when you lost signal. By the way how does your unit update
if you have lost the signal? I can see it freezing and displaying the
same info but how would it update?
John

"Gerald Sylvester" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> my handheld keeps updating and displaying as though I kept going straight
> ahead at the same exact speed and course as when it
> lost the lock.

Does the distance also remain the same?

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Stan Prevost" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> That seems to be an overly broad statement. I have put "VFR GPS" in
>> Remarks when filing /U for an off-airways (random) route and had
>> controllers specifically refer to using my VFR GPS to proceed direct to
>> an intersection. Whether they should have done so is another issue. But
>> is sure seemed to make a difference.
>>
>
> In what way?
>

I misremembered the flight on which I received direct to an intersection.
On that flight, I had filed a combination of airways and direct VOR. At one
point, a controller asked if I could use my VFR GPS to navigate direct to an
intersection, bypassing the VOR I was flying on an airway to.

Do you think I would have been asked to use my VFR GPS to navigate direct to
an intersection if I had not indicated on the flight plan that I was
equipped with a VFR GPS?

"Stan Prevost" > wrote in message
...
>
> I misremembered the flight on which I received direct to an intersection.
> On that flight, I had filed a combination of airways and direct VOR. At
> one point, a controller asked if I could use my VFR GPS to navigate direct
> to an intersection, bypassing the VOR I was flying on an airway to.
>
> Do you think I would have been asked to use my VFR GPS to navigate direct
> to an intersection if I had not indicated on the flight plan that I was
> equipped with a VFR GPS?
>

My statement was made with regard to filing the flight plan. You don't need
to put "VFR GPS" in remarks when you file if you want a direct route. Just
file direct, ATC will assume you can fly what you file.

Ron Lee wrote:
>
> Your non-IFR GPS has intersections in it? What model is it?

My Garmin GPSMAP 196 has intersections in it. I sure wish it had
airways in there by name too, that would be handy.

Peter > wrote:
>
>As a pilot based in the UK, where virulent anti-GPS attitude still
>remains among large sections of the GA community (not to mention the
>entire GA section of the CAA, apparently) I read this thread with some
>amusement!
>
Peter, why are people there anti-GPS?

Ron Lee

Ron Lee > wrote:

> Peter, why are people there anti-GPS?

Most likely because in its current form, GPS availability is controlled by
the US Gov't. If the roles were reversed, I might also share this
sentiment.

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
>
> Most likely because in its current form, GPS availability is controlled by
> the US Gov't. If the roles were reversed, I might also share this
> sentiment.
>

So an extremely accurate navigational system is available and paid for
completely by another nation. What's not to like about that?

Steven,

> So an extremely accurate navigational system is available and paid for
> completely by another nation. What's not to like about that?
>

Uhm, the somewhat unpredictable boss, George Bush. While I would think it
unconceivable to switch GPS off because of the economic consequences,
with this guy, you never know what god will tell him to do next or some
such nonsense.

I still don't think that's the reason for an anti-GPS sentiment in the UK
- if it exists.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Peter,

> where virulent anti-GPS attitude still
> remains among large sections of the GA community
>

Hmm. Data? Or at least some indications?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Peter,

> Most likely because in its current form, GPS availability is controlled by
> the US Gov't.
>

That would be pretty stupid, wouldn't it? Because that control has no
practical consequences. In reality, money controls GPS. And the economic
impact of GPS has become WAY too high for it to ever be switched off.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

In article >,
Peter > wrote:
> >When my hand held Garmin loses enough sats for position calculation, I
> >receive an alarm on the unit (both visual and audible).
>
> Right, but some of the old units (the 10 year old but still widely
> used Garmin 195 being one case that keeps popping up anecdotally)
> don't implement this properly.

I used to own a 195, and I'm pretty sure that it alerted me when it lost
position, but I no longer own it, so I can't verify if or how this
functionality existed. It's easy enough to implemented I can't imagine
any hand held manufacturer excluding it.



JKG

> wrote:

> That accident was the result of the pilot's failure to fly the correct
> altitude. It had nothing to do with the type of GPS being used.

Perhaps, but the reason for my reference to the accident in this thread was
to support my point that the possibility exists for instrument-rated pilots
to use a VFR GPS as the only means of navigation. It is unquestionable
that this accident pilot did.


--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> So an extremely accurate navigational system is available and paid for
> completely by another nation. What's not to like about that?

Perception is based in emotion, not necessarily reality. Emotions are not
logical.

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Peter R." > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Most likely because in its current form, GPS availability is controlled by
>>the US Gov't. If the roles were reversed, I might also share this
>>sentiment.
>>
>
>
> So an extremely accurate navigational system is available and paid for
> completely by another nation. What's not to like about that?

There is one fundamental difference to other means
of IFR navigation: It is impossible to test and
approve the GPS signal. For the other NAVAIDs the
station can be measured on ground and fly the measuring
flights and compare the results with the specs in
ICAO Annex 10, and that's it.

Been there - done that.

--

Tauno Voipio
tauno voipio (at) iki fi

Without getting into the middle of this general discussion, I'd like to point out
one thing about RAIM that seems to be misunderstood... One of the primary purposes
of RAIM is 'Predict" when a coverage 'problem' will occur and notify you before it
happens. Now, it can only predict such coverage problems (shortage of sats in view)
based on the orbits and times of the current sat configuration. It may not know if
a specific sat has gone 'out of service'.
Of course, out of service sats and normal coverage shortages are rare these days,
but they do happen. The IFR units will tell you about the upcoming problem BEFORE
it happens, while VFR units will only tell you after it has occurred.
A bigger problem is probably some of the testing that goes on in some locations
which make any GPS unit unusable. Watch those NOTAMs!



Peter wrote:

> Jonathan Goodish > wrote:
>
>
>>When my hand held Garmin loses enough sats for position calculation, I
>>receive an alarm on the unit (both visual and audible).
>
>
> Right, but some of the old units (the 10 year old but still widely
> used Garmin 195 being one case that keeps popping up anecdotally)
> don't implement this properly.
>

: technological level than in the USA; the pilot magazines also largely
: ignore the IFR market. And IFR activity is even lower elsewhere in
: Europe.

Interesting. Perhaps some Canadians reading can pipe in on this idea. This
past summer while flying through Canada to Alaska, it certainly seemed like IFR was
the vast minority. I'm sure some of it was that I was in the sticks for a lot of the
time, but even in the relatively populated plains provinces, one didn't hear much
about IFR traffic (or traffic at all for that matter). Perhaps the US just has more
infrastructure so IFR is easier to do casually for PP?

Just a thought... not harping on anyone's turf... :)

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

> Perhaps, but the reason for my reference to the accident in this thread was
> to support my point that the possibility exists for instrument-rated pilots
> to use a VFR GPS as the only means of navigation. It is unquestionable
> that this accident pilot did.

It is =not= unquestionable that this accident pilot did. It is known
that a VFR GPS was found at the accident site. If a tuna sandwich was
found there, would that be incontrivertable evidence that the pilot was
relying solely on a tuna sandwich for IFR flight?

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 22:36:32 -0500, Wizard of Draws
> wrote:

>>
>
>My new Airmap 2000c, which was the reason for this thread, has them.
Vintage Garmin 195, updated software and database, has them, and
approaches as well.

Jose,

> If a tuna sandwich was
> found there, would that be incontrivertable evidence that the pilot was
> relying solely on a tuna sandwich for IFR flight?
>

In that case, it would of course be incontrovertible that both occupants
had the fish and the accident was caused by that.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 04:05:09 GMT, John Theune >
wrote:
>>
>What model is this? I've owned a Garmin 195 and Magellan 500 and both
>started flashing if the lost the signal. I had a older non aviation Gps
>and as I recall it did not flash when it lost signal. From my
>experience and that of other pilots I've talked with all the aviation
>GPS tell you when you lost signal. By the way how does your unit update
>if you have lost the signal? I can see it freezing and displaying the
>same info but how would it update?
>John
I have 195. It lets you know when the signal is lost with a message
flashing. I also recall from reading the manual that it interpolates
position, etc. based on speed & heading at time of signal loss for a
short time (x number of seconds?) after loss of signal. If signal loss
is momentary it carries on normally.
I normally use my 195 plugged into aircraft power and with external
antenna. I have noticed that it interferes with the aircraft radio
equipment with static and various buzzes depending on frequency
selected. It does the same to my car radio when I use it there. I do
have some concern that it might interfere with the LOC/GS receiver for
instance, but I haven't seen it affect the accuracy when doing
practice ILS approaches with the unit on.
I have had it go bonkers once when flying very close to VOR Julian
(JLI). It gave the lost signal error message, along with bad position
& direction display, and would not re-aquire until i powered it down
and restarted.

On 11/11/2005 08:33, Jose wrote:

>> Perhaps, but the reason for my reference to the accident in this thread was
>> to support my point that the possibility exists for instrument-rated pilots
>> to use a VFR GPS as the only means of navigation. It is unquestionable
>> that this accident pilot did.
>
> It is =not= unquestionable that this accident pilot did. It is known
> that a VFR GPS was found at the accident site. If a tuna sandwich was
> found there, would that be incontrivertable evidence that the pilot was
> relying solely on a tuna sandwich for IFR flight?

Perhaps not, but it might come in handy ;-)

Sorry, you're response (with which I agree 100%) just made me laugh.

>
> Jose


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Sacramento, CA

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
>
> Perhaps, but the reason for my reference to the accident in this thread
> was
> to support my point that the possibility exists for instrument-rated
> pilots
> to use a VFR GPS as the only means of navigation. It is unquestionable
> that this accident pilot did.
>

That's unquestionable only if the VFR GPS was the only nav gear aboard the
airplane. I think that unlikely. Since the aircraft struck a tower which
was only slightly off the FAC there's no reason to believe a navigational
error contributed to this accident.

Peter,

> is that a lot of
> (mostly VFR) pilots think that GPS is somehow unreliable, suspect,
> dodgy, and they stick to the compass+stopwatch method.
>

not here in Germany.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Peter,

> >Hmm. Data? Or at least some indications?
>
> I live here.
>

I'm asking because I live in Germany - and here it isn't as you
describe.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Tauno Voipio" > wrote in message
...
>
> There is one fundamental difference to other means
> of IFR navigation: It is impossible to test and
> approve the GPS signal. For the other NAVAIDs the
> station can be measured on ground and fly the measuring
> flights and compare the results with the specs in
> ICAO Annex 10, and that's it.
>
> Been there - done that.
>

Why is it impossible to test the GPS signal?

wrote:

> Mark T. Dame wrote:
>
>> Now, if we're talking about precision GPS approaches, that's a
>> different story. But enroute navigation (and possibly even
>> non-precision GPS approaches) should be just as safe with a handheld
>> as a panel mount.
>
> You will usually have as good of accuracy with a hand-held (with an
> external antenna, but you lack the interity because you don't have
> approach RAIM.
>
> Would this ever matter?

Not really. As long as your hand held can tell you when you when it
doesn't have enough satellites for 2D navigation. In which case, you go
missed just like you would with a panel mount.


> Since there aren't any precision RNAV IAPs, other than LPV (which
> requires WAAAS) I fail to see your distinction between precision and
> non-precision.

Which is my point: if you have a panel mount without WAAS, it's no
better than a handheld. So why shouldn't you be allowed to use a
handheld for the same operations as a panel mount IFR approved GPS?

It really comes down to not being able to control the installation. But
the installation is all about signal reception. If the FAA (or other
nations' equivalents) sets a reception standard for IFR operations, the
GPS manufactures can update the software to tell you when you are not
receiving IFR quality signal (just like at least some do for 2D and 3D
navigation). So technically it's completely plausible to have an IFR
certified handheld.

Bureaucratically is a different story.


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame >
## VP, Product Development
## MFM Software, Inc. (http://www.mfm.com/)
"And so it was only with the advent of pocket computers that the
startling truth became finally apparent, and it was this:

Numbers written on restaurant checks within the confines of
restaurants do not follow the same mathematical laws as numbers
written on any other pieces of paper in any other parts of the
Universe."
-- Life, the Universe, and Everything, Douglas Adams

Jonathan Goodish wrote:
>
> I used to own a 195, and I'm pretty sure that it alerted me when it lost
> position, but I no longer own it, so I can't verify if or how this
> functionality existed.

I had a 195 and as I recall, it popped up a message when it lost signal
(full or partial). I only saw it once in actual use. I normally only
saw this when I went carried inside after playing with it outside.


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame >
## VP, Product Development
## MFM Software, Inc. (http://www.mfm.com/)
"An important, but often overlooked, feature of running a computer
system is maintaining its security from outside intrusion, internal
sabotage, and just plain user stupidity."
-- Unix System Administration, Fiedler and Hunter

>>Right, but some of the old units (the 10 year old but still widely
>>used Garmin 195 being one case that keeps popping up anecdotally)
>>don't implement this properly.
> I used to own a 195, and I'm pretty sure that it alerted me when it lost
> position, but I no longer own it, so I can't verify if or how this
> functionality existed. It's easy enough to implemented I can't imagine
> any hand held manufacturer excluding it.

that's exactly why there are IFR-certified GPS's that must adhere to
some basic design, operating principles and functionability
and then there are 'other' GPS's. There
is no such thing as a 'VFR GPS.' It is just an 'other' GPS. It could
be a Garmin Forerunner to a Garmin 396. As long as it is not certified,
who knows where it falls between those. Now we all know the 396 is
on the same level as a IFR-certified GPS but all those others leave
a LOT of room for interpretation in the design none of which the user
has access to (manufacturer proprietary).

Gerald

> Vintage Garmin 195, updated software and database, has them, and
> approaches as well.


when was the last time you updated the database?

Gerald

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> That's unquestionable only if the VFR GPS was the only nav gear aboard the
> airplane. I think that unlikely.

The pilot was cleared to fly a GPS approach in an aircraft without an IFR
certified GPS. How else is he going to navigate the approach course?

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Jose > wrote:

> It is =not= unquestionable that this accident pilot did. It is known
> that a VFR GPS was found at the accident site.

The pilot was cleared to fly a GPS approach into the airport and struck the
tower along the approach course. How else was he navigating, if not by the
VFR GPS?

Again, I agree that hitting the tower was not due to the navigation device
used.

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Jose wrote:

>> Perhaps, but the reason for my reference to the accident in this
>> thread was
>> to support my point that the possibility exists for instrument-rated
>> pilots
>> to use a VFR GPS as the only means of navigation. It is unquestionable
>> that this accident pilot did.
>
>
> It is =not= unquestionable that this accident pilot did. It is known
> that a VFR GPS was found at the accident site. If a tuna sandwich was
> found there, would that be incontrivertable evidence that the pilot was
> relying solely on a tuna sandwich for IFR flight?
>
> Jose
If he had asked for the Tuna Fish approach to his destination I would
agree. He asked for the GPS approach and the only GPS on board his
aircraft was the hand held.

> If he had asked for the Tuna Fish approach to his destination I would agree. He asked for the GPS approach and the only GPS on board his aircraft was the hand held.

Oh. :)

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
>
> The pilot was cleared to fly a GPS approach in an aircraft without an IFR
> certified GPS. How else is he going to navigate the approach course?
>

Irrelevant. The presence of a VFR GPS does not preclude the use of any
other navigational systems. Given that the aircraft struck a tower that was
very nearly on the FAC centerline it appears that navigating the approach
course was not a problem.

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
>
> Again, I agree that hitting the tower was not due to the navigation device
> used.
>

Then why did you bring this accident into the discussion?

"John Theune" > wrote in message
news:qP5df.115$9T4.18@trnddc04...
>
> If he had asked for the Tuna Fish approach to his destination I would
> agree. He asked for the GPS approach and the only GPS on board his
> aircraft was the hand held.
>

Which appears worked just fine, as the aircraft impacted a tower that was
virtually on the FAC centerline.

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 18:25:42 GMT, Gerald Sylvester
> wrote:

>> Vintage Garmin 195, updated software and database, has them, and
>> approaches as well.
>
>
>when was the last time you updated the database?
>
>Gerald
I think I have April or May. I'll probably do another before the year
is up. $35 each time.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> Irrelevant. The presence of a VFR GPS does not preclude the use of any
> other navigational systems.

What other navigational system is used once the aircraft is cleared for a
GPS approach?

> Given that the aircraft struck a tower that was
> very nearly on the FAC centerline it appears that navigating the approach
> course was not a problem.

The presence of the GPS may be irrelevant to the cause of the accident, but
it is completely relevant to my original point that a pilot may be tempted
to use a VFR GPS as the sole means of navigation, legal or otherwise.

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "Peter R." > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Again, I agree that hitting the tower was not due to the navigation device
>> used.
>>
>
> Then why did you bring this accident into the discussion?

Now you are trolling.

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
>
> What other navigational system is used once the aircraft is cleared for a
> GPS approach?
>

Anything the pilot has available and wishes to use.


>
> The presence of the GPS may be irrelevant to the cause of the accident,
> but
> it is completely relevant to my original point that a pilot may be tempted
> to use a VFR GPS as the sole means of navigation, legal or otherwise.
>

That was idiocy.

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
>
> Now you are trolling.
>

I'm just asking a simple question. Why wont you answer it?

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

>>
>> The presence of the GPS may be irrelevant to the cause of the accident,
>> but
>> it is completely relevant to my original point that a pilot may be tempted
>> to use a VFR GPS as the sole means of navigation, legal or otherwise.
>>
>
> That was idiocy

Yep, your lack of an intelligent response was already noted. Now you are
repeating yourself.

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> I'm just asking a simple question. Why wont you answer it?

I already did.

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
>
> Yep, your lack of an intelligent response was already noted. Now you are
> repeating yourself.
>

We all have our roles. You keep demonstrating idiocy, I'll keep pointing it
out.

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
>
> I already did.
>

A review of the thread indicates you haven't.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "Peter R." > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Yep, your lack of an intelligent response was already noted. Now you are
>> repeating yourself.
>>
>
> We all have our roles. You keep demonstrating idiocy, I'll keep pointing it
> out.

Why is it idiocy? You never explained your reasoning.

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

In article >,
Gerald Sylvester > wrote:
> is no such thing as a 'VFR GPS.' It is just an 'other' GPS. It could
> be a Garmin Forerunner to a Garmin 396. As long as it is not certified,
> who knows where it falls between those. Now we all know the 396 is
> on the same level as a IFR-certified GPS but all those others leave
> a LOT of room for interpretation in the design none of which the user
> has access to (manufacturer proprietary).

Feature implementations should be readily apparent. The bottom line
with this debate is that RAIM is one of the key features that makes an
IFR enroute and approach certified GPS so certifiable. RAIM is a
verification mechanism, not simply a method of notifying the user when a
signal is lost.

In my opinion, there is no practical difference for enroute navigation
between a panel-mount certified GPS and a hand held which is not
certified.



JKG

Tauno Voipio > wrote:

>There is one fundamental difference to other means
>of IFR navigation: It is impossible to test and
>approve the GPS signal. For the other NAVAIDs the
>station can be measured on ground and fly the measuring
>flights and compare the results with the specs in
>ICAO Annex 10, and that's it.

RAIM plus many systems monitor GPS

Ron Lee

Jonathan Goodish > wrote:
>
>In my opinion, there is no practical difference for enroute navigation
>between a panel-mount certified GPS and a hand held which is not
>certified.

Yes there is. RAIM provided integrity. As long as no signal error
exists (vast majority of the time) then your assertion is basically
correct.

Ron Lee

Peter R. wrote:
> > wrote:
>
>
>>That accident was the result of the pilot's failure to fly the correct
>>altitude. It had nothing to do with the type of GPS being used.
>
>
> Perhaps, but the reason for my reference to the accident in this thread was
> to support my point that the possibility exists for instrument-rated pilots
> to use a VFR GPS as the only means of navigation. It is unquestionable
> that this accident pilot did.
>
>
Perhaps? Perhaps the VFR GPS shoved the yoke forward, causing him to
bust the altitude?

Peter R. wrote:

> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>
>
>>"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>Yep, your lack of an intelligent response was already noted. Now you are
>>>repeating yourself.
>>>
>>
>>We all have our roles. You keep demonstrating idiocy, I'll keep pointing it
>>out.
>
>
> Why is it idiocy? You never explained your reasoning.
>
You must be new here. ;-)

One difference I have not seen mentioned is how the VFR GPS appears in
the scan and relates to the other instruments. I know having a
permanently mounted, cable free installation where everything is always
where it's supposed to be makes a difference in the usability of an
instrument. This is one reason why I don't think we will ever see IFR
certified handhelds. The installation is part of the certification.

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
>
> Yes there is. RAIM provided integrity. As long as no signal error
> exists (vast majority of the time) then your assertion is basically
> correct.
>

How does RAIM provided integrity make a practical difference?

Jonathan Goodish wrote:
> Feature implementations should be readily apparent.

it certainly is but everything behind the scenes is not.
This includes product design and stability, product
serialization (product tracking), documentation for
installation and servicing, etc. For instance, a certified
IFR GPS will definitely require more testing during
the design and release as well as during the installation
than a non-certified unit. Is this apparent to the user,
no, it is not.

Gerald Sylvester

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>> Yes there is. RAIM provided integrity. As long as no signal error
>> exists (vast majority of the time) then your assertion is basically
>> correct.
>>
>
>How does RAIM provided integrity make a practical difference?

In the event of a signal error that could cause a position error of
hundreds of miles you would be alerted. Otherwise you might
accurately follow a slowly drifting position from GPS into terra
firma.

Ron Lee

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
>
> In the event of a signal error that could cause a position error of
> hundreds of miles you would be alerted. Otherwise you might
> accurately follow a slowly drifting position from GPS into terra
> firma.
>

Nope. The controller will alert me to the error and nudge me back on
course.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
In the event of a signal error that could cause a position error of
>> hundreds of miles you would be alerted. Otherwise you might
>> accurately follow a slowly drifting position from GPS into terra
>> firma.
>>
>
>Nope. The controller will alert me to the error and nudge me back on
>course.
>
Ok. You must be in an area with radar coverage everywhere.

Ron Lee

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
>
> Ok. You must be in an area with radar coverage everywhere.
>

I'm in the US. If I'm on an off-airways route beyond usable navaid limits
then I'm definitely within radar coverage because radar monitoring is
required for such operations.

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
>
> Why is it idiocy? You never explained your reasoning.
>

A non-idiot doesn't need an explanation and an idiot wouldn't understand
one.

Doug wrote:
> One difference I have not seen mentioned is how the VFR GPS appears in
> the scan and relates to the other instruments. I know having a
> permanently mounted, cable free installation where everything is always
> where it's supposed to be makes a difference in the usability of an
> instrument. This is one reason why I don't think we will ever see IFR
> certified handhelds. The installation is part of the certification.
>

The TSO for IFR certification of the avionics and the installation
requires RAIM, auto CDI scaling, panel mount, display on the CDI or HSI
in the primary field of view (your point), demonstration that other
installed avionics will not interfere with the performance of the GPS
avionics, and a switch to select conventional nav or GPS to the primary
display.

A hand-held does none of the above. ;-)

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "Peter R." > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Why is it idiocy? You never explained your reasoning.
>>
>
> A non-idiot doesn't need an explanation and an idiot wouldn't understand
> one.

Reached the end of your intellectual limit, I see. Too bad, I used to have
some respect for you.

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
>
> Reached the end of your intellectual limit, I see. Too bad, I used to
> have
> some respect for you.
>

An idiot has lost respect for me. I'm okay with that.

Peter > wrote:

>RAIM also requires an encoding altimeter input which is difficult to
>do in a handheld.

Basic RAIM does not require this input. You may be right that TSO'd
implementations require it but that is to improve RAIM availability
since baro acts like another positioning input.

Ron Lee

Ron Lee wrote:
> wrote:

> A RAIM hole would not affect position accuracy as long as there is no
> GPS signal error...which are rare.
>
> Ron Lee

True, but that isn't the FAA or ICAO certification view of it all. The
folks who drive those standards are pretty sharp industry engineers, not
just FAA autocrats.

Peter R. wrote:

> Ron Lee > wrote:
>
>
>>Peter, why are people there anti-GPS?
>
>
> Most likely because in its current form, GPS availability is controlled by
> the US Gov't. If the roles were reversed, I might also share this
> sentiment.
>

And, the U.S. pays for it all.

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> Steven,
>
>
>>So an extremely accurate navigational system is available and paid for
>>completely by another nation. What's not to like about that?
>>
>
>
> Uhm, the somewhat unpredictable boss, George Bush. While I would think it
> unconceivable to switch GPS off because of the economic consequences,
> with this guy, you never know what god will tell him to do next or some
> such nonsense.
>
> I still don't think that's the reason for an anti-GPS sentiment in the UK
> - if it exists.
>
Bush, as bad as he is, would create major havoc with the U.S. air
carriers if he shut down the system.

Sometimes you folks give Bush too much credit. I recall the Europeans
making essentially the same arguements when Clinton was president.

Folks over there simply should refuse to use the U.S. system and build
their own.

> wrote:

> Folks over there simply should refuse to use the U.S. system and build
> their own.

They are. It's called "Galileo."

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Peter > wrote:
>
>Yes, and the project is driven by a proposed charging scheme, where a
>low accuracy signal (roughly equiv to the US one) is free and a higher
>accuracy signal will be charged for.

The integrity service will be fee-based.

>Since the free signal from the USA is plenty good enough for en-route
>navigation of cars, boats, and planes, it is pretty obvious that any
>attempt to raise money from planes would have to involve authorised
>GPS approaches being conditional on the carriage of a prepaid decoder
>for the "better" signal.

Seems like one possible solution.

>What I don't get is who will bother to pay. ILS is nearly everywhere,
>and nonprecision NDB/VOR approaches are OK for most of the rest. Any
>commercial transport will still need to carry all the equipment.

Concur

>Any national security crisis bad enough to cause the US one to be
>turned off will also turn off the Euro one.

>It's typical European political stupidity.

Maybe not stupidity. Perhaps more an ego thing.

>There's also a Russian system, Glonass; not sure where it's at.

IMO, GLONASS is not a viable system.

Ron Lee

In article >,
(Ron Lee) wrote:

> Jonathan Goodish > wrote:
> >
> >In my opinion, there is no practical difference for enroute navigation
> >between a panel-mount certified GPS and a hand held which is not
> >certified.
>
> Yes there is. RAIM provided integrity. As long as no signal error
> exists (vast majority of the time) then your assertion is basically
> correct.


But what if signal error exists? How is risk increased because of it
for enroute navigation? For practical purposes, it isn't.


JKG

In article >,
Gerald Sylvester > wrote:
> installation and servicing, etc. For instance, a certified
> IFR GPS will definitely require more testing during
> the design and release as well as during the installation
> than a non-certified unit. Is this apparent to the user,
> no, it is not.


I would be willing to bet that Garmin shares a significant amount of
code between their panels and their handhelds, at least when it comes to
the 396. And, the Jepp data is the Jepp data. Sure, there is no
certification document with which handhelds must comply, but I just
don't think it's worth losing any sleep over, or even giving much though
to, for enroute navigation. I just don't care. In almost 10 years of
using various hand held GPS units in the airplane for enroute
navigation, I have never ended up in the wrong place. That's certainly
more than I can say for my ADF.



JKG

In article >,
Jonathan Goodish > wrote:

> In almost 10 years of using various hand held GPS units in the airplane
> for enroute navigation, I have never ended up in the wrong place.
> That's certainly more than I can say for my ADF.

Be careful who hears you say that. You're using logic. The FAA doesn't
like it when you do that.

In article <Eoqdf.744$7A.348@fed1read04>, says...

>>
>
>And, the U.S. pays for it all.

Which is why "Galileo" is being developed.
It irks the Europeans to no end that a functional, accurate system can be
offered for FREE - all the more so if it's paid for by the US.

The way things are SUPPOSED to work is that end users and common citizens are
supposed to pay high user fees for everything, to support windfall profits
for a few "sweetheart" companies, who in turn support political parties.

Regulations to make this a de facto requirement will be forthcoming as soon
as Galileo shows signs of becoming operational.

GF

> Bush, as bad as he is, would create major havoc with the U.S. air
> carriers if he shut down the system.
>

The air carriers are not really major users of GPS, AFAIK.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Greg,

> Which is why "Galileo" is being developed.
> It irks the Europeans to no end that a functional, accurate system can be
> offered for FREE - all the more so if it's paid for by the US.
>

Actually, it irks some few but big European companies that they are not
profiting from GPS. That's why they make the EU ask them to buil their own
system...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

In article >,
Thomas Borchert > wrote:

> The air carriers are not really major users of GPS, AFAIK.

This will change as more and more airliners become capable of at
least RNP-4. Not many nav systems are capable of RNP-4 over
the ocean.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

"Greg Farris" wrote:

> The way things are SUPPOSED to work is that end users and common
> citizens are
> supposed to pay high user fees for everything, to support windfall
> profits
> for a few "sweetheart" companies, who in turn support political
> parties.

The way it works in the U. S, we put the payoffs in the Transportation
Bill. Everyone helps pad the Raytheon, Lockheed, Boeing et al. bottom
lines and the national credit card rockets into unexplored galaxies of
debt.
>
> Regulations to make this a de facto requirement will be forthcoming as
> soon
> as Galileo shows signs of becoming operational.

Exactly. Watch for international carriers to be forced to install two
different systems as the U. S./Euro ****ing contest goes on and on.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Jonathan Goodish" wrote:

> I would be willing to bet that Garmin shares a significant amount of
> code between their panels and their handhelds, at least when it comes
> to
> the 396. And, the Jepp data is the Jepp data. Sure, there is no
> certification document with which handhelds must comply, but I just
> don't think it's worth losing any sleep over, or even giving much
> though
> to, for enroute navigation. I just don't care. In almost 10 years of
> using various hand held GPS units in the airplane for enroute
> navigation, I have never ended up in the wrong place. That's
> certainly
> more than I can say for my ADF.

Bingo.

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> Exactly. Watch for international carriers to be forced to install two
> different systems as the U. S./Euro ****ing contest goes on and on.
>

A one-sided ****ing contest?

Peter R. wrote:
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Folks over there simply should refuse to use the U.S. system and build
>>their own.
>
>
> They are. It's called "Galileo."
>
I'll believe it when I see it. And, will it have the spares and support
that the US system has?

Peter wrote:

> "Peter R." > wrote

> Since the free signal from the USA is plenty good enough for en-route
> navigation of cars, boats, and planes, it is pretty obvious that any
> attempt to raise money from planes would have to involve authorised
> GPS approaches being conditional on the carriage of a prepaid decoder
> for the "better" signal.

The US system is good enough to support RNP 0.10 instrument approach
procedures when combined with redundant FMSes, EGPWS, and Baro VNAV.
It's already being done by the Aussies and Canadians using the US system.

Thomas Borchert wrote:

>>Bush, as bad as he is, would create major havoc with the U.S. air
>>carriers if he shut down the system.
>>
>
>
> The air carriers are not really major users of GPS, AFAIK.
>

Not so. Although the US air carrier fleet has less than 50% GPS
equippage, virutally all international flights are with GPS-equipped
aircraft.

And, some carriers, like ALaska, have GPS and the other goodies for
advanced RNP, performance-based instrument approach procedures. By
year's end KPSP will be added to the short list of new RNP SAAAR RNAV
IAPs (KDCA and KSUN already being published).

Starting next year the U.S. should see an additional 25 RNP SAAAR RNAV
IAPs each year.

Jonathan Goodish wrote:
> In article >,
> Gerald Sylvester > wrote
> I would be willing to bet that Garmin shares a significant amount of
> code between their panels and their handhelds, at least when it comes to
> the 396.

Handhelds like the Garmin Forerunner? As I said, the big difference
between certified and non-certified is the behind the scenese design
and testing. If it isn't tested, it leaves a LOT of room for
potential problems that Garmin might know about but doesn't
want to spend $$$$ and additional testing to fix.

For the 396, yes, I agree. 90% of the code is the same but that
doesn't guarantee that it works nor is compatible with the hardware.
Your system yes through trial and error. For the one manufactured
next week with the different chipset (I'm completely making this up
and have no inside knowledge at all....I could have named any
handheld GPS unit), maybe not.

> Sure, there is no
> certification document with which handhelds must comply, but I just
> don't think it's worth losing any sleep over, or even giving much though
> to, for enroute navigation. I just don't care.

would you care if a handheld you are using decides to improperly
calculate the route to all waypoints 200 or more miles away?
I'm sure you would. What about if the manufacturer knows about this
and doesn't tell you about it? I'm sure you would.

Ever wonder why US Part 121 and 135 operators spend hundreds of
thousands and more to get certified GPS systems when the $25 00
Garmin 396 can do the same. All comes down to liability.

I wish I could afford the 396 as it seems to be a great unit.

Gerald

Gerald Sylvester wrote:
> Jonathan Goodish wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> Gerald Sylvester > wrote
> Handhelds like the Garmin Forerunner? As I said, the big difference
> between certified and non-certified is the behind the scenese design
> and testing. If it isn't tested, it leaves a LOT of room for
> potential problems that Garmin might know about but doesn't
> want to spend $$$$ and additional testing to fix.

Before I **** off the Garmin lawyers, I was referring to the
Forerunner used as a mission-critical aviation GPS rather
than its intended use. I'm sure it wasn't tested for aviation
purposes and therefore has no requirement to adhere to strict
aviation requirements hence their no desire to spend money
and time testing it to those requirements.

Gerald

Thomas Borchert wrote:

Bush, as bad as he is, would create major havoc with the U.S. air
carriers if he shut down the system.



The air carriers are not really major users of GPS, AFAIK.


Not so. Although the US air carrier fleet has less than 50% GPS
equippage, virutally all international flights are with GPS-equipped
aircraft.

And, some carriers, like ALaska, have GPS and the other goodies for
advanced RNP, performance-based instrument approach procedures. By
year's end KPSP will be added to the short list of new RNP SAAAR RNAV
IAPs (KDCA and KSUN already being published).

Starting next year the U.S. should see an additional 25 RNP SAAAR RNAV
IAPs each year.

indeed - in addition, the capstone project (ADS-B) in Alaska (used prominently by commercial ops) requires GPS data to operate. NAT MNPS ops also specifies that a certified GPS can satisfy part of the minimum required equipment to navigate the north atlantic (at a much much lower cost than traditional inertial nav). while many of the older 737's that do the same 5 airport milkrun every day may still have conventional VHF nav equipment, new commercial aircraft and those navigating certain areas already depend on GPS for their daily ops.

IIRC, the number of US and Canadian LPV approaches is supposed to increase this year to over 500, a number of airports will benefit from much lower minimums with no additional ground-based nav equipment. i'm guessing that feeder airlines will increasingly equip themselves with lateral and vertical guidance GPS to reduce cancellations and improve service (and profitability).

francois

Gerald Sylvester wrote:

> my handheld keeps updating and displaying as though I kept going
> straight ahead at the same exact speed and course as when it
> lost the lock. So there is NO warning at all.
>
> Gerald
>
I've owned three Garmin hand-helds, 195, 295, and 296. They all make it
very apparent when GPS is lost.

Gerald Sylvester wrote:


> that's exactly why there are IFR-certified GPS's that must adhere to
> some basic design, operating principles and functionability
> and then there are 'other' GPS's. There
> is no such thing as a 'VFR GPS.' It is just an 'other' GPS. It could
> be a Garmin Forerunner to a Garmin 396. As long as it is not certified,
> who knows where it falls between those. Now we all know the 396 is
> on the same level as a IFR-certified GPS but all those others leave
> a LOT of room for interpretation in the design none of which the user
> has access to (manufacturer proprietary).
>
> Gerald
>

The 396 is really a 296 with a datalink for weather. I have a 195 I
still use for desktop procedures work, because it is the only Garmin
that provides NMEA statements in simulator mode.

I then had a 295, which I gifted to a pilot friend when I got my 296
this past Spring.

Both the 195 and 295 have slow, clunky processors. The 296, however, is
awesome. With a roof-mount antenna I would be very comfortable
"cheating" with a 296. ;-) The terrain feature alone is fantastic.
It's not full-press EGPWS, but close enough for light aircraft ops.

I work with this stuff all the time, especially with criteria and the
new advanced RNP stuff.

I may be a bad boy, but I have no doubt the 296 will do as good as a
Garmin 500 series for a conventional RNAV IAP provided I built the
approach as a flight plan before I launch. In that sense it is limited;
i.e., I wouldn't want to be faced with that task in the air.

Ron Lee wrote:


>
> Yes there is. RAIM provided integrity. As long as no signal error
> exists (vast majority of the time) then your assertion is basically
> correct.
>
> Ron Lee

If I have my Garmin 296 on a roof mount antenna and I check its distance
to a VOR station against my DME, then do an IAP within 30 minutes, or
so, of that check with 6, or more satellites in view, I have essentially
as much integrity as an IFR box with RAIM.

wrote:

>> Yes there is. RAIM provided integrity. As long as no signal error
>> exists (vast majority of the time) then your assertion is basically
>> correct.
>>
>> Ron Lee
>
>If I have my Garmin 296 on a roof mount antenna and I check its distance
>to a VOR station against my DME, then do an IAP within 30 minutes, or
>so, of that check with 6, or more satellites in view, I have essentially
>as much integrity as an IFR box with RAIM.

That is incorrect. You have no assurance that there was not a signal
failure in that 30 minutes. The odds are in your favor but in no way
do you have the same integrity protection as an IFR GPS unit.

Ron Lee

Ron Lee wrote:
> wrote:
>
>
>>>Yes there is. RAIM provided integrity. As long as no signal error
>>>exists (vast majority of the time) then your assertion is basically
>>>correct.
>>>
>>>Ron Lee
>>
>>If I have my Garmin 296 on a roof mount antenna and I check its distance
>>to a VOR station against my DME, then do an IAP within 30 minutes, or
>>so, of that check with 6, or more satellites in view, I have essentially
>>as much integrity as an IFR box with RAIM.
>
>
> That is incorrect. You have no assurance that there was not a signal
> failure in that 30 minutes. The odds are in your favor but in no way
> do you have the same integrity protection as an IFR GPS unit.
>
> Ron Lee
>
The odds are overwhelmingly in my favor, certainly much more so than
using ADF for an IAP, or even VOR at distances near system limits.

Ron Lee wrote:
> "Stan Prevost" > wrote:
>
>>That seems to be an overly broad statement. I have put "VFR GPS" in Remarks
>>when filing /U for an off-airways (random) route and had controllers
>>specifically refer to using my VFR GPS to proceed direct to an intersection.
>>Whether they should have done so is another issue. But is sure seemed to
>>make a difference.
>>
>
> Your non-IFR GPS has intersections in it? What model is it?
>
> Ron Lee
>
Every Garmin handheld I have owned, 195, 295, and 296, have a complete
Americas Jeppesen LNAV database; all intersections, waypoints, airports,
runway layout for IFR airports, all communications and nav frequencies,
distance to FAA transmitter, and so forth.

The approach is abbreviated but all the fixes are in the database to
build the complete approach as a flight plan.

The terrain database of the 296 is essentially the same as any
full-press EGPWS I have used. It just doesn't have the aural warnings.

Gerald Sylvester wrote:

>> Vintage Garmin 195, updated software and database, has them, and
>> approaches as well.
>
>
>
> when was the last time you updated the database?
>
> Gerald

I updated my 195 this past June. It has everything so far as I can
determine. They had to update the firmware a couple, or so, years ago
to handle the ever increasing Jeppesen nav databast.

: indeed - in addition, the capstone project (ADS-B) in Alaska (used
: prominently by commercial ops) requires GPS data to operate.

I recall after moving to Juneau in 1992 that the local news was touting AK
airlines as being the first to test the GPS approaches. Didn't understand really what
that meant at the time, but given the weather there and the huge percentage of missed
approaches, I can understand why it made financial sense to blaze trail. It is truly
about the worst kind of terrain and weather available.

First time I flew it was two years ago. I expected to be coming in from the
west as always, but nothing looked right back in the passenger compartment when we
finally broke out at about 400' AGL/MSL.... including what seemed like a 30 degree
bank! Anyway, impressive when one's not expecting it.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

I'm glad I wasn't drinking anything when I read that. Hilarious.

To bring it back on topic, basically Mr. McNicoll does not think the
requirements of the TSO pertaining to enroute IFR navigation adds to the
safety of the flight. One of the things I like about aviation is that most
everything in the regs (notice I stated MOST and not ALL) has a good reason
behind it. As with regulations in general, a good part of the stipulations
will not apply to the majority of the situations. As a result, many folks
think they're "idiotic."

I see it simply as part of the attitude of "I've done it a hundred times
before so it's perfectly safe."

Marco Leon

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
>
> Don't try to kiss and make up. We need time apart.
>
> --
> Peter
> If you love someone, set him free.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet
News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
Newsgroups
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
=----



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

"Marco Leon" <mmleon(at)yahoo.com> wrote in message
...
>
> To bring it back on topic, basically Mr. McNicoll does not think the
> requirements of the TSO pertaining to enroute IFR navigation adds to the
> safety of the flight. One of the things I like about aviation is that most
> everything in the regs (notice I stated MOST and not ALL) has a good
> reason
> behind it. As with regulations in general, a good part of the stipulations
> will not apply to the majority of the situations. As a result, many folks
> think they're "idiotic."
>
> I see it simply as part of the attitude of "I've done it a hundred times
> before so it's perfectly safe."
>

Do you see any hazard in the use of a handheld GPS during enroute IFR
flight?

In article t>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> Do you see any hazard in the use of a handheld GPS during enroute IFR
> flight?

Increased risk of hazardously misleading information.

I'll leave it to the safety experts to determine or estimate the
increased risk.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
>
> Increased risk of hazardously misleading information.
>

What hazardously misleading information?


>
> I'll leave it to the safety experts to determine or estimate the
> increased risk.
>

I posed a similar question to the safety experts some years ago, none could
identify any risk.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

>> Increased risk of hazardously misleading information.
>>
>
>What hazardously misleading information?

>
>I posed a similar question to the safety experts some years ago, none could
>identify any risk.
>
Steven, if you have other sources that will alert you to GPS HMI then
you can make the assertion that from an overall system view you are
protected. If not, then you are at risk. FACT!

Of course the risk may be smaller than running out of gas and dying
but it is quantifiable at the rate of about 10E-4 per hour.

Ron Lee

In article t>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> > Increased risk of hazardously misleading information.
>
> What hazardously misleading information?

A navigation solution that is incorrect.


>
>
> >
> > I'll leave it to the safety experts to determine or estimate the
> > increased risk.
> >
>
> I posed a similar question to the safety experts some years ago, none could
> identify any risk.

If those safety experts were unable to identify any risk, then they didn't knew
the subject area. I suggest that you find some real safety experts with actual
knowledge of aviation.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
>
> Steven, if you have other sources that will alert you to GPS HMI then
> you can make the assertion that from an overall system view you are
> protected. If not, then you are at risk. FACT!
>

Well, then, since there are other sources that will alert to GPS "HMI", we
are protected.

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
>
> A navigation solution that is incorrect.
>

What is the hazard?


>
> If those safety experts were unable to identify any risk, then they didn't
> knew
> the subject area. I suggest that you find some real safety experts with
> actual
> knowledge of aviation.
>

There is no risk. Anyone that says there is a risk in the use of a handheld
GPS for IFR enroute navigation in US controlled airspace is not a real
safety expert with actual knowledge of aviation.

Jonathan Goodish wrote in message ...
>In article >,
> (Ron Lee) wrote:
>
>> Jonathan Goodish > wrote:
>> >
>> >In my opinion, there is no practical difference for enroute navigation
>> >between a panel-mount certified GPS and a hand held which is not
>> >certified.
>>
>> Yes there is. RAIM provided integrity. As long as no signal error
>> exists (vast majority of the time) then your assertion is basically
>> correct.
>
>
>But what if signal error exists? How is risk increased because of it
>for enroute navigation? For practical purposes, it isn't.

My understanding is that RAIM calculates your location using all available
GPS signals and then goes back and "evaluates" each individual signal
against the collective result to determine the amount of error that exists.
If excessive error is present then that signal is disqualified from the
position calculation. Its only when not enough signals are left after the
disqualification process that the pilot will see a RAIM alert.

>>A navigation solution that is incorrect.
>>>
>
>
> What is the hazard?
>
>
Cumulo Granite.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Tauno Voipio" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>There is one fundamental difference to other means
>>of IFR navigation: It is impossible to test and
>>approve the GPS signal. For the other NAVAIDs the
>>station can be measured on ground and fly the measuring
>>flights and compare the results with the specs in
>>ICAO Annex 10, and that's it.
>>
>>Been there - done that.
>>
>
>
> Why is it impossible to test the GPS signal?

It is possible to measure the signal, but it does
not tell anything of the signals of the rest of the
constellation.

We can be pretty sure that an on-ground navaid
station will preform quite like how it did when
measuring it. There is no similar guarantee of
a satellite system controlled by a foreign
authority.

Also, there are no internationally accepted
standards of the GPS signal. For the other
navaids, there are technical performance
requirements in ICAO Annex 10 which is agreed
to be legally binding to all member states.

--

Tauno Voipio
tauno voipio (at) iki fi

"Jose" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> Cumulo Granite.
>

Explain.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>
>There is no risk. Anyone that says there is a risk in the use of a handheld
>GPS for IFR enroute navigation in US controlled airspace is not a real
>safety expert with actual knowledge of aviation.

Steven, when then are handheld GPS units not allowed to be used for
IFR navigation?

You can do as you wish. Darwinism works well in aviation as in other
endeavors.

Ron Lee

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
>
> Steven, when then are handheld GPS units not allowed to be used for
> IFR navigation?
>

There is no specific prohibition on them.


>
> You can do as you wish. Darwinism works well in aviation as in other
> endeavors.
>

That sounds like you do believe there is a risk in the use of a handheld GPS
for IFR enroute navigation in US controlled airspace. Please identify that
risk.

I think the lack of certified mounting is what makes VFR GPS a backup
for flight in IMC, rather than a primary. Note that an IFR GPS includes
installation in it's design. They are installed to be part of the scan.
There may be VFR installations that are indeed in the scan and
convenient enough to use, but the typical VFR installation is lacking
in this department.

I have a King KLN90B in the panel and a Garmin 195 handheld. I do use
the Garmin when in the clouds, as a backup and for overall situational
awareness. In my case, my VFR Garmin is not nearly as good as my panel
mount King. Installation is the primary difference. There is also the
issue of training and just what you are supposed to do when. The King
manual has written procedures for flight in IMC/IFR environment, the
VFR unit does not.

>>Cumulo Granite.
> Explain.
>

If you require explanation, it would be useless.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Have you ever read either TSO-c146a or TSO-c129? One of the requirements
specifies that the database in an IFR-certified box adhere to a higher
tolerance of corruptibility. Are you sure the VFR portable's database was
built to the same specifications? If not--higher risk.

I can go on and list each item-by-item but you seem to be literate so you
can read the TSOs at your leisure. Bottom line is as I stated in my previous
post that you don't personally believe the requirements outlined in these
documents reduce risk in any way, shape, or form.

If that's the case, I'm glad you don't help the FAA develop these standards.

Marco Leon



"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Ron Lee" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Steven, when then are handheld GPS units not allowed to be used for
> > IFR navigation?
> >
>
> There is no specific prohibition on them.
>
>
> >
> > You can do as you wish. Darwinism works well in aviation as in other
> > endeavors.
> >
>
> That sounds like you do believe there is a risk in the use of a handheld
GPS
> for IFR enroute navigation in US controlled airspace. Please identify
that
> risk.
>
>

"Jose" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> If you require explanation, it would be useless.
>

You mean you're unable to explain.

"Marco Leon" <mmleon(at)yahoo.com> wrote in message
...
>
> Have you ever read either TSO-c146a or TSO-c129? One of the requirements
> specifies that the database in an IFR-certified box adhere to a higher
> tolerance of corruptibility. Are you sure the VFR portable's database was
> built to the same specifications? If not--higher risk.
>

How so?


>
> I can go on and list each item-by-item but you seem to be literate so you
> can read the TSOs at your leisure. Bottom line is as I stated in my
> previous
> post that you don't personally believe the requirements outlined in these
> documents reduce risk in any way, shape, or form.
>
> If that's the case, I'm glad you don't help the FAA develop these
> standards.
>

If you believe there is a higher risk I think you should be able to identify
that risk.

>>If you require explanation, it would be useless.
> You mean you're unable to explain.
>

To you, I'm unable to explain.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>
> To you, I'm unable to explain.
>

No, you're unable to explain at all.

Jose > wrote:

>>>If you require explanation, it would be useless.
>> You mean you're unable to explain.
>>
>
> To you, I'm unable to explain.

LOL. You are holding a mirror to him and McNicoll is attacking his own
reflection like a junk yard dog.

Hilarious.



--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Doug wrote:
> I think the lack of certified mounting is what makes VFR GPS a backup
> for flight in IMC, rather than a primary.

It's not the mounting that makes it legal it's the testing of the unit
after it is installed.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Marco Leon" <mmleon(at)yahoo.com> wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Have you ever read either TSO-c146a or TSO-c129? One of the requirements
> > specifies that the database in an IFR-certified box adhere to a higher
> > tolerance of corruptibility. Are you sure the VFR portable's database
was
> > built to the same specifications? If not--higher risk.
> >
>
> How so?
If you really don't see the increased risk in using a database that is not
safeguarded from being corrupted to a level that another one that is, then
your ability to comprehend the subject matter at hand is far below the rest
of the thread's participants. It would be useless to explain the other
requirements of the TSO to you because you obviously would not understand
any of the concepts.

> > I can go on and list each item-by-item but you seem to be literate so
you
> > can read the TSOs at your leisure. Bottom line is as I stated in my
> > previous
> > post that you don't personally believe the requirements outlined in
these
> > documents reduce risk in any way, shape, or form.
> >
> > If that's the case, I'm glad you don't help the FAA develop these
> > standards.
> >
>
> If you believe there is a higher risk I think you should be able to
identify
> that risk.

You're trolling.

"Marco Leon" <mmleon(at)yahoo.com> wrote in message
...
>
> If you really don't see the increased risk in using a database that is not
> safeguarded from being corrupted to a level that another one that is, then
> your ability to comprehend the subject matter at hand is far below the
> rest
> of the thread's participants. It would be useless to explain the other
> requirements of the TSO to you because you obviously would not understand
> any of the concepts.
>

I can understand anything you can explain. Do you think you can explain the
hazard in the use of a handheld GPS during IFR enroute flight in US
controlled airspace? Nobody else could.


>
> You're trolling.
>

You bet I am. I'm trolling for someone, anyone, that can identify any risk
in the use of a handheld GPS during IFR enroute flight in US controlled
airspace. I've been doing that for several years without even a nibble.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

>If you believe there is a higher risk I think you should be able to identify
>that risk.

Steven, if I could prove to you that a Godzilla would rise up and
devour your airplane you would not believe it so further discussion on
this matter is pointless. Do as you see fit.

Ron Lee

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
>
> Steven, if I could prove to you that a Godzilla would rise up and
> devour your airplane you would not believe it so further discussion on
> this matter is pointless. Do as you see fit.
>

Wrong. I will believe anything that you can prove. Why are you unwilling to
simply state what the risk is?

In article t>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "Jose" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > To you, I'm unable to explain.
> >
>
> No, you're unable to explain at all.

The following quote seems apropos here:

"A non-idiot doesn't need an explanation and an idiot wouldn't
understand one."

Can't remember just now who said it.

(FWIW, I understood the point Jose was making even without an
explanation.)

rg

"Ron Garret" > wrote in message
...
>
> The following quote seems apropos here:
>
> "A non-idiot doesn't need an explanation and an idiot wouldn't
> understand one."
>
> Can't remember just now who said it.
>

It was I that said it, and it's not appropriate here. Jose is not going to
explain it because he has since learned that "Cumulo Granite" is not a
hazard.


>
> (FWIW, I understood the point Jose was making even without an
> explanation.)
>

Did you? Perhaps you'd like to explain why "Cumulo Granite" is a hazard to
IFR enroute navigation by handheld GPS in US controlled airspace then?

In article >,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "Ron Garret" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > The following quote seems apropos here:
> >
> > "A non-idiot doesn't need an explanation and an idiot wouldn't
> > understand one."
> >
> > Can't remember just now who said it.
> >
>
> It was I that said it,

Yes, I knew that actually. I see that subtlety is lost on you.

> and it's not appropriate here.

You are mistaken.

> Jose is not going to
> explain it because he has since learned that "Cumulo Granite" is not a
> hazard.

Really? How do you know that? I see no indication in the discussion
that Jose has changed his position. Have you been having an off-line
discussion with him? Or perhaps you are psychic?

> > (FWIW, I understood the point Jose was making even without an
> > explanation.)
> >
> Did you? Perhaps you'd like to explain why "Cumulo Granite" is a hazard to
> IFR enroute navigation by handheld GPS in US controlled airspace then?

Why would I want to do that?

rg

"Ron Garret" > wrote in message
...
>
> Yes, I knew that actually. I see that subtlety is lost on you.
>

I see you're a poor judge of character.


>
> You are mistaken.
>

I am completely correct.


>
> Really? How do you know that? I see no indication in the discussion
> that Jose has changed his position. Have you been having an off-line
> discussion with him? Or perhaps you are psychic?
>

Jose has a large ego and an aversion to admitting an error. If he could
show a hazard and thus prove me wrong he would do so.


>
> Why would I want to do that?
>

To establish a bit of credibility in this forum.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> > Primary navigation (the VFR GPS) is no longer reliable, the aircraft is
> > IMC, and the pilot is unaware that the unit is no longer reliable. Those
> > are not properties of a problem?
>
> I don't think so. If the aircraft drifts off course the controller will
> nudge it back and the pilot will then be aware that the unit is no longer
> reliable. No problem.

The controller's attention might be elsewhere (have you never been sent
right through a localizer?). That said, my Garmin 196 does warn me
when it loses reliable reception, though it's not proper RAIM.


All the best,


David

Ron Lee wrote:

> >That seems to be an overly broad statement. I have put "VFR GPS" in Remarks
> >when filing /U for an off-airways (random) route and had controllers
> >specifically refer to using my VFR GPS to proceed direct to an intersection.
> >Whether they should have done so is another issue. But is sure seemed to
> >make a difference.
> >
> Your non-IFR GPS has intersections in it? What model is it?

I didn't know there was any such thing as a VFR aviation GPS that
didn't have intersections. All of Garmin's certainly do. No airways,
though.


All the best,


David

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
> Jose has a large ego and an aversion to admitting an error.

"Hello, Pot? This is kettle."


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame >
## VP, Product Development
## MFM Software, Inc. (http://www.mfm.com/)
"Forget the Joneses, I keep us up with the Simpsons."

wrote:

> Interesting. Perhaps some Canadians reading can pipe in on this idea. This
> past summer while flying through Canada to Alaska, it certainly seemed like IFR was
> the vast minority. I'm sure some of it was that I was in the sticks for a lot of the
> time, but even in the relatively populated plains provinces, one didn't hear much
> about IFR traffic (or traffic at all for that matter). Perhaps the US just has more
> infrastructure so IFR is easier to do casually for PP?

I often file IFR in both central Canada and the northeastern U.S. in my
Warrior, and on long cross-country flights in both countries, I'll
often be the only light aircraft talking to ATC in the sector. The
main exception is when someone's doing practice approaches down below
me, though once in a while I'll hear a piston twin or another single
doing what I'm doing. You'll see a lot of IFR piston traffic (mostly
twins) into places like Toronto/City Centre, though.

In the late fall, winter, and early spring, IFR can be tricky because
of the risk of icing, but the same is true for the northern U.S. You
were flying across the northern Canada, where a lot of the traffic
still goes on floats -- as you know, float plane pilots get nosebleeds
above 1,000 feet AGL, so they can't usually make IFR altitudes and have
to skim the treetops.


All the best,


David

> wrote:
: I often file IFR in both central Canada and the northeastern U.S. in my
: Warrior, and on long cross-country flights in both countries, I'll
: often be the only light aircraft talking to ATC in the sector. The
: main exception is when someone's doing practice approaches down below
: me, though once in a while I'll hear a piston twin or another single
: doing what I'm doing. You'll see a lot of IFR piston traffic (mostly
: twins) into places like Toronto/City Centre, though.

Yes, I would believe that in the eastern side of Canada there's more traffic.
I was pretty much keeping to the relatively unpopulated areas during the flight
(Plains of SK, AB and further north by BC). Closest I got was Edmonton Center (40 nm
or so). There was some traffic on ATC, but they almost seemed surprised when I called
them up. Even though I was entering their airspace, they seemed to just figure I was
transitional VFR and weren't even looking for me.

: In the late fall, winter, and early spring, IFR can be tricky because
: of the risk of icing, but the same is true for the northern U.S. You
: were flying across the northern Canada, where a lot of the traffic
: still goes on floats -- as you know, float plane pilots get nosebleeds
: above 1,000 feet AGL, so they can't usually make IFR altitudes and have
: to skim the treetops.

Yeah, I guess that makes sense. For all the same reasons IFR in light GA
planes in the midwest/northeast US is often impassable (icing and embed CB) IFR in
even the populated areas of Canada are often difficult. Sure seemed like scud running
MVFR was the rule of the day when I was up there. As far as your float plane comment,
that's pretty true. Heck, when I filed a flight plan in MVFR going to follow the
road, the *briefer* said, "Oh, you want the route of flight to be follow highway 43 to
Lloydmindster... OK." I can say I got some pretty unusual looks fueling up my Cherokee
in northern BC and in the Yukon. Things like, "Did they put the wings on your plane
on upside down?" One guy told me he'd never *seen* a low-wing!

Different flying world. A lot like Alaska... stepping back in aviation time.

-Cory


--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

"Mark T. Dame" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Hello, Pot? This is kettle."
>

If you do a search on Google Groups you'll find I have admitted all of my
errors.

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> The controller's attention might be elsewhere (have you never been sent
> right through a localizer?).
>

There's no similarity. There's a window of a few seconds for the turn to
intercept the localizer. It would take at least several minutes for the
controller to notice an enroute aircraft drifting off course unless the GPS
was erroneously calling for a significant turn. If it did that the pilot
should notice the error before the controller.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message nk.net...
>
> "Mark T. Dame" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Hello, Pot? This is kettle."
>>
>
> If you do a search on Google Groups you'll find I have admitted all of my
> errors.
>

Instead of that, I did a Google search on "McNicoll errors".
It said it found "about 29,100" results.
:-)

In article >,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "Ron Garret" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Yes, I knew that actually. I see that subtlety is lost on you.
> >
>
> I see you're a poor judge of character.

I was not judging your character, I was stating an objectively
observable fact. Subtlety is, at least occasionally, lost on you (a
fact that you continue to demonstrate by failing to comprehend the point
that I am (subtly) making.)

> > You are mistaken.
> >
>
> I am completely correct.

When idiots say idiotic things do you think that they realize that they
are being idiots or do you think that they believe themselves to be
completely correct?

> > Really? How do you know that? I see no indication in the discussion
> > that Jose has changed his position. Have you been having an off-line
> > discussion with him? Or perhaps you are psychic?
> >
>
> Jose has a large ego and an aversion to admitting an error. If he could
> show a hazard and thus prove me wrong he would do so.

Just because you lack the imagination to think of another possible
reason for Jose's reluctance to engage you in debate is not proof that
he is incapable of doing so.

> > Why would I want to do that?
> >
>
> To establish a bit of credibility in this forum.

My credibility would matter if I were attempting to make an argument
from authority, but I am not. I prefer to let facts speak for
themselves.

rg

"John R. Copeland" > wrote in message
...
>
> Instead of that, I did a Google search on "McNicoll errors". It said it
> found
> "about 29,100" results.
>:-)
>

http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q27922B2C

"Ron Garret" > wrote in message
...
>
> I was not judging your character, I was stating an objectively
> observable fact. Subtlety is, at least occasionally, lost on you (a
> fact that you continue to demonstrate by failing to comprehend the point
> that I am (subtly) making.)
>

No, you only think you were stating an objectively observable fact.


>
> When idiots say idiotic things do you think that they realize that they
> are being idiots or do you think that they believe themselves to be
> completely correct?
>

Now you're touching on why your observation is incorrect. Peter R. said
something that was idiotic. He doesn't realize it was idiotic because he is
an idiot. I haven't said anything idiotic, everything I've said is
supported by facts and logic.


>
> Just because you lack the imagination to think of another possible
> reason for Jose's reluctance to engage you in debate is not proof that
> he is incapable of doing so.
>

Jose is incapable of showing Cumulo Granite to be a hazard because Cumulo
Granite is not a hazard.


>
> My credibility would matter if I were attempting to make an argument
> from authority, but I am not. I prefer to let facts speak for
> themselves.
>

As do I.

In article t>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> Peter R. said something that was idiotic. He doesn't realize it was
> idiotic because he is an idiot.

OK, but you didn't answer my question, which was, "When idiots say
idiotic things do you think that they realize that they are being idiots
or do you think that they believe themselves to be completely correct?"

> I haven't said anything idiotic

In the absence of an answer my question, your judgment on that
particular matter is suspect, particularly in light of:

> Cumulo Granite is not a hazard.

That seems pretty idiotic to me.

rg

"Ron Garret" > wrote in message
...
>
> OK, but you didn't answer my question, which was, "When idiots say
> idiotic things do you think that they realize that they are being idiots
> or do you think that they believe themselves to be completely correct?"
>

I think they believe themselves to be completeky correct.


>
> In the absence of an answer my question, your judgment on that
> particular matter is suspect, particularly in light of:
>
>> Cumulo Granite is not a hazard.
>
> That seems pretty idiotic to me.
>

Why?

In article >,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "Ron Garret" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > OK, but you didn't answer my question, which was, "When idiots say
> > idiotic things do you think that they realize that they are being idiots
> > or do you think that they believe themselves to be completely correct?"
> >
>
> I think they believe themselves to be completeky correct.

OK.

> >
> > In the absence of an answer my question, your judgment on that
> > particular matter is suspect, particularly in light of:
> >
> >> Cumulo Granite is not a hazard.
> >
> > That seems pretty idiotic to me.
> >
>
> Why?

Because if you hit terrain (you were aware that "cumulo granite" is a
euphemism for terrain, yes?) you are unlikely to survive. And if you
survive you are unlikely to escape serious injury. And your airplane is
likely to be totaled as well. That to my mind qualifies as a hazard.

Isn't that obvious?

rg

Ron Garret > wrote:

> Because if you hit terrain (you were aware that "cumulo granite" is a
> euphemism for terrain, yes?) you are unlikely to survive. And if you
> survive you are unlikely to escape serious injury. And your airplane is
> likely to be totaled as well. That to my mind qualifies as a hazard.
>
> Isn't that obvious?

Familiar with that saying about wrestling with a pig? Last week, I
wasn't.


--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Ron Garret" > wrote in message
...
>
> Because if you hit terrain (you were aware that "cumulo granite" is a
> euphemism for terrain, yes?) you are unlikely to survive. And if you
> survive you are unlikely to escape serious injury. And your airplane is
> likely to be totaled as well. That to my mind qualifies as a hazard.
>
> Isn't that obvious?
>

That's all true, but it's true of all flight. The use of a handheld GPS for
IFR enroute navigation in US controlled airspace is not going to cause a
mountain to appear in front of you or wrest control of the aircraft away
from you and dive it into the ground.

>
>The controller's attention might be elsewhere (have you never been sent
>right through a localizer?). That said, my Garmin 196 does warn me
>when it loses reliable reception, though it's not proper RAIM.

Reliable reception is not equivalent to integrity. You can have great
reception and one bad signal that drives your position off hundreds of
miles. And yes it is rare (10E-5/hour). BUt aviation integrity is at
the 10E-7 rate.

Ron Lee

> The use of a handheld GPS for
> IFR enroute navigation in US controlled
> airspace is not going to cause a
> mountain to appear in front of you

Well, actually it could. Any navigation system which tells the pilot he
is in one place when he is actually in another, which is used by a pilot
who is in IMC, could cause the pilot to place himself in a position from
which a collision with a mountainous surprise is unavoidable. While it
is true that the navigation system did not move the mountain, the effect
on the pilot is the same.

I suppose the real risk of using^H^H^H^H^Hrelying on a VFR GPS is not
one of collision (this is a risk inherent in any navigation system) but
one of paperwork. If a pilot uses an IFR GPS and it misleads him into a
mountain of granite (or sandstone, or shale), the dead pilot can claim
that the fault does not lie with him. OTOH, if relying on a VFR GPS
causes him meet the same fate, a mountain of paperwork sufficient to
delay his appearances at the pearly gates will appear before him.

It may be that a VFR GPS which is clipped to the right part of the yoke
will provide better guidance in and among ridges than an IFR ADF. But
there is a risk, not present with an IFR installation of anything, that
the highly accurate VFR GPS unit will fall off the yoke at the wrong
moment, perhaps while outside of radar coverage, or on an approach.
There is a risk (present in VFR and IFR units) that the data displayed
is incorrect - it has happened in our aircraft (Danbury moved four
hundred miles without giving any notice to Ridgefield); IFR units are
(presumably, though only the manufacturer really knows) tested to higher
standards. There is a risk that the pilot will be unable to maintain
the more challenging scan required by certain VFR GPS "installations"
and thus will end up elsewhere than where he thought he was. Outside of
a radar environment, in hostle terrain, this could activate the ELT.

As for relying on controllers to "nudge" the aircraft back on course in
a radar environment, this would be true primarily in airspace controlled
by Steven P. McNicoll, who mever nakes mistakes. Merely human
controllers might, for any number of reasons incomprehensible to Steven,
miss something, allowing the pilot's error to terminate the flight
prematurely.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

In article t>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "Ron Garret" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Because if you hit terrain (you were aware that "cumulo granite" is a
> > euphemism for terrain, yes?) you are unlikely to survive. And if you
> > survive you are unlikely to escape serious injury. And your airplane is
> > likely to be totaled as well. That to my mind qualifies as a hazard.
> >
> > Isn't that obvious?
> >
>
> That's all true, but it's true of all flight. The use of a handheld GPS for
> IFR enroute navigation in US controlled airspace is not going to cause a
> mountain to appear in front of you or wrest control of the aircraft away
> from you and dive it into the ground.

And there are no other possible ways to hit terrain?

rg

"Jose" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Well, actually it could. Any navigation system which tells the pilot he
> is in one place when he is actually in another, which is used by a pilot
> who is in IMC, could cause the pilot to place himself in a position from
> which a collision with a mountainous surprise is unavoidable. While it is
> true that the navigation system did not move the mountain, the effect on
> the pilot is the same.
>

The controller will alert the pilot to the navigational error. The use of a
handheld GPS for IFR enroute navigation in US controlled airspace is no more
hazardous than being vectored.


>
> It may be that a VFR GPS which is clipped to the right part of the yoke
> will provide better guidance in and among ridges than an IFR ADF. But
> there is a risk, not present with an IFR installation of anything, that
> the highly accurate VFR GPS unit will fall off the yoke at the wrong
> moment, perhaps while outside of radar coverage, or on an approach.
>

We're talking about enroute use, not approaches. If the aircraft is out of
radar contact it will be routed via airways or within the usable limits of
navaids. The pilot will be able to compare the GPS to his VOR or ADF to
verify it's accuracy. The use of a handheld GPS for IFR enroute navigation
in US controlled airspace is no more hazardous than use of VOR along
airways.


>
> There
> is a risk (present in VFR and IFR units) that the data displayed is
> incorrect - it has happened in our aircraft (Danbury moved four hundred
> miles without giving any notice to Ridgefield); IFR units are (presumably,
> though only the manufacturer really knows) tested to higher standards.
> There is a risk that the pilot will be unable to maintain the more
> challenging scan required by certain VFR GPS "installations" and thus will
> end up elsewhere than where he thought he was. Outside of a radar
> environment, in hostle terrain, this could activate the ELT.
>

The controller will alert the pilot to the navigational error. The use of a
handheld GPS for IFR enroute navigation in US controlled airspace is no more
hazardous than being vectored. If the aircraft is out of radar contact it
will be routed via airways or within the usable limits of navaids. The
pilot will be able to compare the GPS to his VOR or ADF to verify it's
accuracy. The use of a handheld GPS for IFR enroute navigation in US
controlled airspace is no more hazardous than use of VOR along airways.


>
> As for relying on controllers to "nudge" the aircraft back on course in a
> radar environment, this would be true primarily in airspace controlled by
> Steven P. McNicoll, who mever nakes mistakes. Merely human controllers
> might, for any number of reasons incomprehensible to Steven, miss
> something, allowing the pilot's error to terminate the flight prematurely.
>

It is not an option, it is required of all controllers. If you can't trust
the controller to perform his job as he is required to do you cannot operate
IFR in controlled airspace.

"Ron Garret" > wrote in message
...
>
> And there are no other possible ways to hit terrain?
>

None that are caused by use of a handheld GPS for IFR enroute navigation in
US controlled airspace.

I am talking about relying on a VFR GPS. You are talking about "using"
it, like using a tuna fish sandwich.

In a situation where primary navigation instruments (e.g. VOR) are
available to the pilot and his clearance, I see no problem =using= a VFR
GPS. In a situation where radar vectors are being provided, I also see
no problem =using= a VFR GPS.

In a situation where radar vectors could be available, but are not being
provided, one is relying on the controller to do something that the
controller may not be doing. I assume that there is a little more
monitoring of vectored aircraft than "own navigation" aircraft; the
controller is depending on the pilot to navigate if a vector is not
being provided.

In a situation where radar coverage does not exist, and navigation is
(therefore) via airways or within the usable limits of naviads, those
navaids do no good if the pilot does not tune them in. This is the
difference between =using= and =relying= on equipment which dominates so
many of these threads. I see no problem using the standard navaids
along with a VFR GPS. You probably agree here. I do see a problem
using a VFR GPS and =not= using any other navaids in this situation;
this is what I call "relying on" a VFR GPS. Your position on =this= is
unclear because of the way you conflate the concepts "use" and "rely on"
in your writing, and because of your statement

> The pilot will be able to compare the GPS
> to his VOR or ADF to verify it's accuracy.

in support. (btw, it's "its") This tells me we're talking about two
different things while pretending they are the same.

The FAA does not prohibit the use of a VFR GPS or a tuna fish sandwich
in IFR or IMC. It does prohibit relying on a VFR GPS, and it prohibits
relying on a tuna fish sandwich in the same situation.

Do you agree or disagree with the FAA's stance here?

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> I am talking about relying on a VFR GPS. You are talking about "using"
> it, like using a tuna fish sandwich.
>

Start a new thread. This discussion is about the use of a handheld GPS for
IFR enroute navigation in US controlled airspace.


>
> In a situation where radar vectors could be available, but are not being
> provided, one is relying on the controller to do something that the
> controller may not be doing. I assume that there is a little more
> monitoring of vectored aircraft than "own navigation" aircraft; the
> controller is depending on the pilot to navigate if a vector is not being
> provided.
>

One is relying on the controller to do his job as he is required to do. The
controller is required to provide radar monitoring and course guidance, if
necessary, if the route is not on airways or within the usable limits of
navaids.


>
> In a situation where radar coverage does not exist, and navigation is
> (therefore) via airways or within the usable limits of naviads, those
> navaids do no good if the pilot does not tune them in.

Careful, you're approaching idiocy.


>
> This is the difference between =using= and =relying= on equipment which
> dominates so many of these threads. I see no problem using the standard
> navaids along with a VFR GPS. You probably agree here. I do see a
> problem using a VFR GPS and =not= using any other navaids in this
> situation; this is what I call "relying on" a VFR GPS. Your position on
> =this= is unclear because of the way you conflate the concepts "use" and
> "rely on" in your writing, and because of your statement
>
>> The pilot will be able to compare the GPS to his VOR or ADF to verify
>> it's accuracy.
>
> in support. (btw, it's "its") This tells me we're talking about two
> different things while pretending they are the same.
>

No, we've been talking about use of handheld GPS for IFR enroute navigation
in US controlled airspace.


>
> The FAA does not prohibit the use of a VFR GPS or a tuna fish sandwich in
> IFR or IMC. It does prohibit relying on a VFR GPS, and it prohibits
> relying on a tuna fish sandwich in the same situation.
>
> Do you agree or disagree with the FAA's stance here?
>

Post the FAA's statement. I never suggested relying exclusively on VFR GPS,
it was I that pointed out one is NOT relying exclusively on a VFR GPS when
one is using a handheld GPS for IFR enroute navigation in US controlled
airspace.

>> I am talking about relying on a VFR GPS. You are talking about "using"
>> it, like using a tuna fish sandwich.
> Start a new thread. This discussion is about the use of a handheld GPS for
> IFR enroute navigation in US controlled airspace.

You sure you weren't a lawyer in a previous life? :)

> Careful, you're approaching idiocy.

It was necessary.

> No, we've been talking about use of handheld GPS for IFR enroute navigation
> in US controlled airspace.
> [...] I never suggested relying exclusively on VFR GPS

Ok. We are (and always have been) in agreement.

But really... you do better than Clinton.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

In article >,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "Ron Garret" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > And there are no other possible ways to hit terrain?
> >
>
> None that are caused by use of a handheld GPS for IFR enroute navigation in
> US controlled airspace.

What about the following scenario:

The pilot is holding the handheld in his hand (imagine that) and drops
it. While he is bending down to retrieve it he enters an unusual
attitude from which he is unable to recover.

Would that not be an accident that is caused (at least in part) by use
of a handheld GPS? It would not have occurred if the GPS were not being
used.

(For the record, I do not believe that the use of a handheld GPS
represents a significant risk, and in fact, IFR flight is almost
certainly safer with a handheld than without one, all else being equal.
But a yoke mount is advisable :-)

rg

"Ron Garret" > wrote in message
...
>
> What about the following scenario:
>
> The pilot is holding the handheld in his hand (imagine that) and drops
> it. While he is bending down to retrieve it he enters an unusual
> attitude from which he is unable to recover.
>
> Would that not be an accident that is caused (at least in part) by use
> of a handheld GPS?
>

No. The handheld GPS didn't cause the aircraft to enter an unrecoverable
unusual attitude.


>
> It would not have occurred if the GPS were not being used.
>

It wouldn't have occurred if the pilot had been competent. The lesson there
is to be competent.

In article >,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "Ron Garret" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > What about the following scenario:
> >
> > The pilot is holding the handheld in his hand (imagine that) and drops
> > it. While he is bending down to retrieve it he enters an unusual
> > attitude from which he is unable to recover.
> >
> > Would that not be an accident that is caused (at least in part) by use
> > of a handheld GPS?
> >
>
> No. The handheld GPS didn't cause the aircraft to enter an unrecoverable
> unusual attitude.

If an aircraft enters an unusual attitude following an AI failure, most
pilots would say that that accident was caused (at least in part) by the
AI failure despite the fact that the AI didn't (directly) cause the
plane to enter an unusual attitude.

But OK, have it your way: the pilot drops the GPS. Being a competent
pilot he does not attempt to retrieve it. It bounces around in the
turbulence and, unbeknownst to the pilot, it gets wedged under one of
the rudder pedals. The airplane spins and crashes turning base to final
because the now limited travel on the rudder pedal makes it impossible
to adequately compensate for adverse yaw (and the pilot doesn't realize
it until it's too late).

> > It would not have occurred if the GPS were not being used.
> >
>
> It wouldn't have occurred if the pilot had been competent. The lesson there
> is to be competent.

Most accidents, including this hypothetical one, are the result of long
causal chains of events, all of which are collectively necessary for the
accident to occur. It is true that the pilot in my first scenario was
incompetent, but in a way that would not have manifested itself but for
the need to retrieve the GPS from the floor of the plane. (And this, by
the way, is why it matters that it's a GPS that was dropped and not,
say, a granola bar. The perceived urgency of retrieving a granola bar
would probably be less than that of retrieving the GPS.)

It's a moot point since I have now provided a scenario involving a
competent pilot, but do you have a principled basis for assigning all of
the causality to one of many factors in the causal chain, or did you
simply choose to make this assignment arbitrarily in order to support
your untenable position?

rg

In article >,
Jose > wrote:

> >> I am talking about relying on a VFR GPS. You are talking about "using"
> >> it, like using a tuna fish sandwich.
> > Start a new thread. This discussion is about the use of a handheld GPS for
> > IFR enroute navigation in US controlled airspace.
>
> You sure you weren't a lawyer in a previous life? :)
>
> > Careful, you're approaching idiocy.
>
> It was necessary.
>
> > No, we've been talking about use of handheld GPS for IFR enroute navigation
> > in US controlled airspace.
> > [...] I never suggested relying exclusively on VFR GPS
>
> Ok. We are (and always have been) in agreement.

Oh, Jose, you're giving up too easily!

One of the (many) risks of UAHGPSFIFRENIUSCAS (you figure it out) is
that a pilot might become complacent about using his primary navaids,
particularly off-airways since the constant VOR twiddling required for
off-airway navigation is such a pain in the ass and the use of the GPS
is so effortless and (almost invariably) reliable.

Yes, complacency is a form of incompetence. But that does make it any
less of a risk. Pilot complacency, in all its many manifestations, is a
widely recognized risk. Furthermore (and this is the important part)
this particular form of complacency CANNOT MANIFEST ITSELF EXCEPT WHEN A
HANDHELD GPS IS IN USE. That makes it reasonable to assign at least
part of the causality to the use of the GPS.

rg

"Ron Garret" > wrote in message
...
>
> If an aircraft enters an unusual attitude following an AI failure, most
> pilots would say that that accident was caused (at least in part) by the
> AI failure despite the fact that the AI didn't (directly) cause the
> plane to enter an unusual attitude.
>

I think you're wrong about that. I think most pilots would say that
erroneous information provided by a failed AI would be a direct cause of an
unusual attitude. Are you a pilot?


>
> But OK, have it your way: the pilot drops the GPS. Being a competent
> pilot he does not attempt to retrieve it. It bounces around in the
> turbulence and, unbeknownst to the pilot, it gets wedged under one of
> the rudder pedals. The airplane spins and crashes turning base to final
> because the now limited travel on the rudder pedal makes it impossible
> to adequately compensate for adverse yaw (and the pilot doesn't realize
> it until it's too late).
>

So what you're saying is that loose objects in the cockpit can be hazardous.
That may very well be, but that's not the subject of this discussion.


>
> Most accidents, including this hypothetical one, are the result of long
> causal chains of events, all of which are collectively necessary for the
> accident to occur. It is true that the pilot in my first scenario was
> incompetent, but in a way that would not have manifested itself but for
> the need to retrieve the GPS from the floor of the plane. (And this, by
> the way, is why it matters that it's a GPS that was dropped and not,
> say, a granola bar. The perceived urgency of retrieving a granola bar
> would probably be less than that of retrieving the GPS.)
>

Why? The pilot can always ask ATC for navigational assistance, but they
can't provide an inflight snack.


>
> It's a moot point since I have now provided a scenario involving a
> competent pilot, but do you have a principled basis for assigning all of
> the causality to one of many factors in the causal chain, or did you
> simply choose to make this assignment arbitrarily in order to support
> your untenable position?
>

My untenable position? It is my position that use of a handheld GPS for IFR
enroute navigation in US controlled airspace is without hazard. Note that
nobody has identified any hazard from such usage.

"Ron Garret" > wrote in message
...
>
> Oh, Jose, you're giving up too easily!
>
> One of the (many) risks of UAHGPSFIFRENIUSCAS (you figure it out) is
> that a pilot might become complacent about using his primary navaids,
> particularly off-airways since the constant VOR twiddling required for
> off-airway navigation is such a pain in the ass and the use of the GPS
> is so effortless and (almost invariably) reliable.
>

But off-airways flight doesn't require any VOR twiddling. You don't have to
monitor your position with any other navaids if you don't want to. You can
rely on ATC for radar monitoring and, if necessary, course guidance.

You say there are many risks in UAHGPSFIFRENIUSCAS. Could you please
identify some of them? Even one would be nice, I've been asking this
question for nearly ten years now and nobody has identified one yet.


>
> Yes, complacency is a form of incompetence. But that does make it any
> less of a risk. Pilot complacency, in all its many manifestations, is a
> widely recognized risk. Furthermore (and this is the important part)
> this particular form of complacency CANNOT MANIFEST ITSELF EXCEPT WHEN A
> HANDHELD GPS IS IN USE. That makes it reasonable to assign at least
> part of the causality to the use of the GPS.
>

Why can't that particular form of complacency manifest itself when on a
long-range vector?

> The pilot can always ask ATC for navigational assistance, but they
> can't provide an inflight snack.

OTFL

> I've been asking this
> question for nearly ten years now and nobody has identified one yet.

Why do you keep asking this question? Surely it is not to acquire
information, or to dispense any. Rather, you seem to be pressing the
point that "use" and "rely on" are not the same.

Do you think this is a point not understood by other participants here?

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Ron Garret > wrote:

> One of the (many) risks of UAHGPSFIFRENIUSCAS (you figure it out) is
> that a pilot might become complacent about using his primary navaids,
> particularly off-airways since the constant VOR twiddling required for
> off-airway navigation is such a pain in the ass and the use of the GPS
> is so effortless and (almost invariably) reliable.

Exactly my point that got me labeled an idiot by McNicoll.

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

In article t>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "Ron Garret" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Oh, Jose, you're giving up too easily!
> >
> > One of the (many) risks of UAHGPSFIFRENIUSCAS (you figure it out) is
> > that a pilot might become complacent about using his primary navaids,
> > particularly off-airways since the constant VOR twiddling required for
> > off-airway navigation is such a pain in the ass and the use of the GPS
> > is so effortless and (almost invariably) reliable.
> >
>
> But off-airways flight doesn't require any VOR twiddling.

It does if you're out of radar coverage. So the essential elements of
the risk are:

1. No radar coverage (or a controller not paying attention, which has
also been known to happen)
2. Pilot decides to rely on GPS alone for guidance (complacency) and
3. GPS fails silently.

Granted, it's not a large risk. But it is possible, and it is possible
ONLY in the presence of a VFR-only GPS.

> You say there are many risks in UAHGPSFIFRENIUSCAS. Could you please
> identify some of them?

I just identified one. I identified another in another branch of this
this thread.

BTW, just because the risks are numerous does not mean that they are
significant. (But just because they are not significant does not mean
that they do not exist.)

> > Yes, complacency is a form of incompetence. But that does make it any
> > less of a risk. Pilot complacency, in all its many manifestations, is a
> > widely recognized risk. Furthermore (and this is the important part)
> > this particular form of complacency CANNOT MANIFEST ITSELF EXCEPT WHEN A
> > HANDHELD GPS IS IN USE. That makes it reasonable to assign at least
> > part of the causality to the use of the GPS.
> >
>
> Why can't that particular form of complacency manifest itself when on a
> long-range vector?

Because you can't decide to stop using your VORs and use your GPS
instead if you do not have a GPS. Isn't that obvious?

You are using up your quota of stupid questions.

rg

In article t>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "Ron Garret" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > If an aircraft enters an unusual attitude following an AI failure, most
> > pilots would say that that accident was caused (at least in part) by the
> > AI failure despite the fact that the AI didn't (directly) cause the
> > plane to enter an unusual attitude.
> >
>
> I think you're wrong about that. I think most pilots would say that
> erroneous information provided by a failed AI would be a direct cause of an
> unusual attitude.

I don't really want to quibble over terminology. The fact of the matter
is that a failed AI is neither necessary nor sufficient to produce an
unusual attitude. (To produce an unusual attitude you must have either
erroneous control input, extreme turbulence, or structural failure.) An
AI failure is nonetheless considered a risk. Likewise, a failed GPS is
neither necessary nor sufficient to produce CFIT. It is nonetheless a
risk. The two situations are exactly analogous. They differ only in
the degree of risk.

> Are you a pilot?

PPIASEL with just over 500 hours. I fly an SR22. I have also in the
past flown IFR in a 182RG/A both with and without a handheld GPS (yoke
mounted) and felt a lot safer on the whole when I had it than when I
didn't.

> > But OK, have it your way: the pilot drops the GPS. Being a competent
> > pilot he does not attempt to retrieve it. It bounces around in the
> > turbulence and, unbeknownst to the pilot, it gets wedged under one of
> > the rudder pedals. The airplane spins and crashes turning base to final
> > because the now limited travel on the rudder pedal makes it impossible
> > to adequately compensate for adverse yaw (and the pilot doesn't realize
> > it until it's too late).
> >
>
> So what you're saying is that loose objects in the cockpit can be hazardous.
> That may very well be, but that's not the subject of this discussion.

It is if the loose object in question was a handheld GPS being used for
enroute IFR navigation yada yada yada.

> > Most accidents, including this hypothetical one, are the result of long
> > causal chains of events, all of which are collectively necessary for the
> > accident to occur. It is true that the pilot in my first scenario was
> > incompetent, but in a way that would not have manifested itself but for
> > the need to retrieve the GPS from the floor of the plane. (And this, by
> > the way, is why it matters that it's a GPS that was dropped and not,
> > say, a granola bar. The perceived urgency of retrieving a granola bar
> > would probably be less than that of retrieving the GPS.)
> >
>
> Why? The pilot can always ask ATC for navigational assistance, but they
> can't provide an inflight snack.

That's why I hedged with "probably." Different pilots assess situations
differently. I can actually envision situations where retrieving a
granola bar might have a pretty high priority, but that, as you say, is
not the topic under discussion.

> > It's a moot point since I have now provided a scenario involving a
> > competent pilot, but do you have a principled basis for assigning all of
> > the causality to one of many factors in the causal chain, or did you
> > simply choose to make this assignment arbitrarily in order to support
> > your untenable position?
> >
>
> My untenable position? It is my position that use of a handheld GPS for IFR
> enroute navigation in US controlled airspace is without hazard. Note that
> nobody has identified any hazard from such usage.

You can keep insisting that, but the fact of the matter is that I have
now described two (or three depending on how you count) potential
hazards from such use. So yes, your position that such hazards do not
exist is untenable. You can argue that the risks are insignificant (and
I would agree, and so, I think, would everyone else) but you can no
longer argue that they do not exist without behaving like -- dare I say
it? -- an idiot.

rg

"Ron Garret" > wrote in message
...
>
> It does if you're out of radar coverage.
>

You're not going to be out of radar coverage. Haven't you been paying
attention? Routes off-airways or beyond normal navaid usable distances
require ATC to provide radar monitoring and course guidance if necessary.


>
> I just identified one. I identified another in another branch of this
> this thread.
>

You identified what you erroneously believed to be risks. You didn't
identify any actual risks.


>
> BTW, just because the risks are numerous does not mean that they are
> significant. (But just because they are not significant does not mean
> that they do not exist.)
>

Numerous risks? You cited only two, and they weren't actually risks.


>
> Because you can't decide to stop using your VORs and use your GPS
> instead if you do not have a GPS. Isn't that obvious?
>

But I can complacently decide to stop using my VORs if I'm on a long-range
vector. Isn't that similarity obvious?


>
> You are using up your quota of stupid questions.
>

Do you realize you haven't answered any of my questions correctly?

In article t>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "Ron Garret" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > It does if you're out of radar coverage.
> >
>
> You're not going to be out of radar coverage. Haven't you been paying
> attention? Routes off-airways or beyond normal navaid usable distances
> require ATC to provide radar monitoring and course guidance if necessary.

<shrug> So make the scenario on-airway. Or have the radar fail. Or
have the controller not paying attention. Or have the pilot file /G.
There are myriad possibilities.

> > I just identified one. I identified another in another branch of this
> > this thread.
> >
>
> You identified what you erroneously believed to be risks. You didn't
> identify any actual risks.

Yes I did, though as I suspected it hasn't done any good. You seem to
have a different definition of "risk" than most people.

If handheld GPS is not a risk then neither is AI failure. The two
differ only in their likelihoods; structurally the two situations are
identical. Both GPS and the AI provide information that can be wrong.
Both have backups that are supposed to kick in if the information is in
fact wrong. In both cases the backups can fail, or the pilot can fail
to use them properly. And in both cases if the pilot does realize that
the information is wrong and act accordingly the results can be
catastrophic. Does that constitute a risk? I think most people would
say yes. (We could take a poll.)

(There is actually one structural difference, and that is that the GPS
might not be rigidly attached to the airframe, whereas the AI
necessarily is. But that's just an additional source of risk for the
GPS in most cases.)

> > BTW, just because the risks are numerous does not mean that they are
> > significant. (But just because they are not significant does not mean
> > that they do not exist.)
> >
>
> Numerous risks? You cited only two, and they weren't actually risks.

I stopped at two because extrapolating from those two examples to many
others is an elementary exercise in applying some imagination (which you
seem to lack). Also because, as I suspected, it would be futile.
Additional examples will not convince you. You will simply dismiss them
as not being risks.

> > Because you can't decide to stop using your VORs and use your GPS
> > instead if you do not have a GPS. Isn't that obvious?
> >
>
> But I can complacently decide to stop using my VORs if I'm on a long-range
> vector. Isn't that similarity obvious?

Of course. But that is, as you yourself are so fond of pointing out,
not the topic under discussion. That there are many different possible
root causes of a catastrophic chain of events does not reduce the risk
associated with any one of those root causes. The risk associated with
AI failure is not reduced just because there are also other ways one
might get disoriented. Likewise for GPS.

> > You are using up your quota of stupid questions.
> >
>
> Do you realize you haven't answered any of my questions correctly?

No. Do you realize that that was another stupid question?

rg

"Jose" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Why do you keep asking this question? Surely it is not to acquire
> information, or to dispense any. Rather, you seem to be pressing the
> point that "use" and "rely on" are not the same.
>

When someone says that use of a handheld GPS for IFR enroute navigation in
US controlled airspace is either hazardous or illegal I ask them to identify
the hazard or the law that is being violated. I do that so that I may know
what they think the hazard to be or what law they believe is being violated.
If they respond I explain the error in their thinking and sometimes
information is dispersed that way.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>
> When someone says that use of a handheld GPS for IFR enroute navigation in
> US controlled airspace is either hazardous or illegal I ask them to identify
> the hazard or the law that is being violated. I do that so that I may know
> what they think the hazard to be or what law they believe is being violated.
> *If they respond I explain the error in their thinking and sometimes
> information is dispersed that way.*
>
>

So, then,

If they respond to your questioning of their post, you automatically
tell them they are in error, regardless of what they have to say.
That's good stuff, McNicoll, and tells us a lot about your character, at
least here on the newsgroups.

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

"Scott Skylane" > wrote in message
...
>
> So, then,
>
> If they respond to your questioning of their post, you automatically tell
> them they are in error, regardless of what they have to say. That's good
> stuff, McNicoll, and tells us a lot about your character, at least here on
> the newsgroups.
>

What does it tell you about my character?

"Ron Garret" > wrote in message
...
>
> I don't really want to quibble over terminology. The fact of the matter
> is that a failed AI is neither necessary nor sufficient to produce an
> unusual attitude. (To produce an unusual attitude you must have either
> erroneous control input, extreme turbulence, or structural failure.) An
> AI failure is nonetheless considered a risk. Likewise, a failed GPS is
> neither necessary nor sufficient to produce CFIT. It is nonetheless a
> risk. The two situations are exactly analogous. They differ only in
> the degree of risk.
>

Well, Ron, the fact of the matter is a failed AI is quite sufficient to
produce an unusual attitude.


>
> PPIASEL with just over 500 hours. I fly an SR22. I have also in the
> past flown IFR in a 182RG/A both with and without a handheld GPS (yoke
> mounted) and felt a lot safer on the whole when I had it than when I
> didn't.
>

Was any of it logged in the US? Was any of it logged outside of MSFS?


>
> It is if the loose object in question was a handheld GPS being used for
> enroute IFR navigation yada yada yada.
>

So you're saying the hazard presented by use of a handheld GPS for enroute
IFR navigation in US controlled airspace is loss of rudder control. Is that
correct?


>
> You can keep insisting that, but the fact of the matter is that I have
> now described two (or three depending on how you count) potential
> hazards from such use. So yes, your position that such hazards do not
> exist is untenable. You can argue that the risks are insignificant (and
> I would agree, and so, I think, would everyone else) but you can no
> longer argue that they do not exist without behaving like -- dare I say
> it? -- an idiot.
>

Right. You said use of a handheld GPS for IFR enroute navigation in US
controlled airspace is hazardous because it could compel the pilot to turn
off all his other avionics or jam the rudder pedals. And you think me an
idiot because I try to explain why that isn't so.

You're flying the airways of life with a couple of props feathered.

"Ron Garret" > wrote in message
...
>
> <shrug> So make the scenario on-airway.
>

On-airways flight doesn't require any VOR twiddling either.


>
> Or have the radar fail.
>

Then the controller will issue a route on-airways or within normal navaid
usable distances.


>
> Or have the controller not paying attention.
>

If you're not prepared to trust the controller to pay attention you're not
prepared to operate IFR in controlled airspace.


>
> Or have the pilot file /G.
>

Radar monitoring is still required.

Off-airways IFR flight was not made possible by the advent of GPS, it was
made possible by ATC radar.


>
> There are myriad possibilities.
>

It's clear there are many things which you believe are possibilities but
actually are not.


>
> Yes I did, though as I suspected it hasn't done any good. You seem to
> have a different definition of "risk" than most people.
>

Ya think? State your definition so we can compare it to the dictionary
definition.


>
> If handheld GPS is not a risk then neither is AI failure. The two
> differ only in their likelihoods; structurally the two situations are
> identical. Both GPS and the AI provide information that can be wrong.
> Both have backups that are supposed to kick in if the information is in
> fact wrong. In both cases the backups can fail, or the pilot can fail
> to use them properly.
>

I don't see a lot of similarity. The most difficult aspect of an AI failure
can be determining that it is the AI that has failed. If you're in solid
cloud and the AI and TC are providing conflicting information, how do you
determine which is incorrect? In a study done some years ago in a simulator
that situation resulted in a loss of control by most pilots in less than a
minute.

If your GPS fails and you drift off course the controller alerts you to the
situation, you don't have to figure out anything on your own.


>
> And in both cases if the pilot does realize that
> the information is wrong and act accordingly the results can be
> catastrophic. Does that constitute a risk? I think most people would
> say yes. (We could take a poll.)
>

We could, but if facts and logic wont sway you it seems unlikely that poll
results will.


>
> I stopped at two because extrapolating from those two examples to many
> others is an elementary exercise in applying some imagination (which you
> seem to lack). Also because, as I suspected, it would be futile.
> Additional examples will not convince you. You will simply dismiss them
> as not being risks.
>

Of course. I'd look pretty foolish if I didn't dismiss non-risks as not
being risks.


>>
>> Do you realize you haven't answered any of my questions correctly?
>>
>
> No.
>

No surprise there.


>
> Do you realize that that was another stupid question?
>

Not at all. It's purpose was to determine whether you were feigning
stupidity or if it was genuine. Assuming you answered it honestly, we now
know you're genuinely stupid.

In article >,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "Ron Garret" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > <shrug> So make the scenario on-airway.
> >
>
> On-airways flight doesn't require any VOR twiddling either.

Yes it does, just not as much. Are you a pilot?


> > Or have the radar fail.
> >
>
> Then the controller will issue a route on-airways or within normal navaid
> usable distances.

And how will you arrive at an airway if you are not already on one when
the radar fails? Will you use your teleporter?


> > Or have the controller not paying attention.
> >
>
> If you're not prepared to trust the controller to pay attention you're not
> prepared to operate IFR in controlled airspace.

It's an easy out to just assume that one of the components in the
failure chain is infallible. If that is the case then indeed there is
no risk. But it isn't, so there is.


> > Or have the pilot file /G.
> >
>
> Radar monitoring is still required.
>
> Off-airways IFR flight was not made possible by the advent of GPS, it was
> made possible by ATC radar.

I thought it was made possible by RNAV, but I confess I'm not an
authority. Do you have a reference?


> > Yes I did, though as I suspected it hasn't done any good. You seem to
> > have a different definition of "risk" than most people.
> >
>
> Ya think? State your definition so we can compare it to the dictionary
> definition.

Risk (n): The possibility of suffering harm or loss

Taken from dictionary.com.

And yours?

> > If handheld GPS is not a risk then neither is AI failure. The two
> > differ only in their likelihoods; structurally the two situations are
> > identical. Both GPS and the AI provide information that can be wrong.
> > Both have backups that are supposed to kick in if the information is in
> > fact wrong. In both cases the backups can fail, or the pilot can fail
> > to use them properly.
> >
>
> I don't see a lot of similarity. The most difficult aspect of an AI failure
> can be determining that it is the AI that has failed. If you're in solid
> cloud and the AI and TC are providing conflicting information, how do you
> determine which is incorrect? In a study done some years ago in a simulator
> that situation resulted in a loss of control by most pilots in less than a
> minute.
>
> If your GPS fails and you drift off course the controller alerts you to the
> situation, you don't have to figure out anything on your own.

Again, this assumes infallible controllers -- and infallible radar and
infallible communications equipment both on the ground and in the
airplane. If all these things were indeed infallible you would be
correct. But they aren't, so you're not.

I'm going to try to merge our two sub-threads here:

> Well, Ron, the fact of the matter is a failed AI is quite sufficient to
> produce an unusual attitude.

If that were true then every instance of a failed AI would necessarily
result in an unusual attitude. (That is what it means to be a
sufficient condition.) But that is clearly not the case.

> > PPIASEL with just over 500 hours. I fly an SR22. I have also in the
> > past flown IFR in a 182RG/A both with and without a handheld GPS (yoke
> > mounted) and felt a lot safer on the whole when I had it than when I
> > didn't.
> >
>
> Was any of it logged in the US?

All of it.

> Was any of it logged outside of MSFS?

I see that when logic and reasoning fail you, you revert to insulting
your opponent. So I guess I must be winning this argument.

> So you're saying the hazard presented by use of a handheld GPS for enroute
> IFR navigation in US controlled airspace is loss of rudder control. Is that
> correct?

Not *the*, *a*.

> You said use of a handheld GPS for IFR enroute navigation in US
> controlled airspace is hazardous because it could compel the pilot to turn
> off all his other avionics or jam the rudder pedals.

That is a caricature of my position.

> And you think me an
> idiot because I try to explain why that isn't so.

You have no basis for believing that I think you are an idiot other than
your own paranoia. I tend not to judge people so harshly. Very few
pilots are idiots (very few idiots have what it takes to fly a plane),
even though nearly all of them say and do idiotic things on occasion
(like calling their fellow pilots idiots) -- myself no doubt included.

Since you brought it up, this is my assessment of you:

On the surface you seem to be incapable (or unwilling) to grasp the
difference between a small or insignificant risk and a non-existent one.
But my guess is that deep down inside you do understand this, but your
ego simply won't let you admit it because you have dug your heels in so
deeply on this. The irony is that the difference between what you
actually say and the truth is only one little word. If you would merely
hedge your position a little bit by saying that there are no
*significant* risks associated with using a VFR GPS in IFR then everyone
will simply agree with you (or at least I will) and we can all stop this
silliness and go flying.

rg

> If you would merely
> hedge your position a little bit by saying that there are no
> *significant* risks associated with using a VFR GPS in IFR then everyone
> will simply agree with you (or at least I will) and we can all stop this
> silliness and go flying.

How about we all just do that anyway?

Jose wrote:
>
> The FAA does not prohibit the use of a VFR GPS or a tuna fish sandwich
> in IFR or IMC. It does prohibit relying on a VFR GPS, and it prohibits
> relying on a tuna fish sandwich in the same situation.

"N56789 cleared TUNA 36L"

I think I heard that in a Hot Shots movie...


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame >
## VP, Product Development
## MFM Software, Inc. (http://www.mfm.com/)
"There are always alternatives."
-- Star Trek: Spock, "The Galileo Seven"

Peter > writes:

> >[...] I'm sure it wasn't tested for aviation
> >purposes and therefore has no requirement to adhere to strict
> >aviation requirements [...]
>
> What are those "strict aviation requirements"?
>
> Can you give a reference to additional requirements for software
> quality, or build quality, for example?

See RTCA DO-178B.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avionics_software

- FChE

>> [the FAA] prohibits relying on a tuna fish sandwich in the same situation.
>
> "N56789 cleared TUNA 36L"

You can't fly a tuna fish approach unless you have a working ham
sandwich as a backup.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 20:32:01 -0600, A Lieberman >
wrote:

>On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 18:11:56 -0800, Bob Gardner wrote:
>
>> Tell them. Just as is the case with icing certification, the controllers are
>> not into law enforcement. Tell them you have a GPS and you will get all of
>> the benefits.
>
>Wouldn't it look odd if you file /a and request Direct?
>
>Doesn't the GPS have to be en route certified? Heck the Garmin 296 has all
>the approaches, but does not have the victor highways that I could see.

I always file /I

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>What would happen if your clearance got changed en route?
>
>Or does that not happen when you file direct and fly off the airways?
>
>Allen

Mark T. Dame wrote:
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
>>
>> Jose has a large ego and an aversion to admitting an error.
>
>
> "Hello, Pot? This is kettle."

Touche'

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>
> I always file /I
>

For GPS?

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 06:16:22 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> I always file /I
>>
>
>For GPS?

Well, I do fly by my hand held, but the airplane has RNAV.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>