I don't understand the strong objection(s) to the primary/supporting method.

But then again, I was on the unpopular side of the CANPA in GA planes debate
here as well...


"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Richard Hertz" wrote in message
...
I have never seen a POH that discusses instrument flight. (Note - my
experience is limited to GA, so maybe someone can tell me if the 777 POH
and
all other material discuss how to fly IFR. I doubt that they do, but I
could be mistaken. I don't doubt that there is a volume of information
that
uses the words primary, secondary, MTBF, etc - but that is not the same
as
what is being discussed here). While you, Mr. Tarver Engineering, may
be
the world's foremost expert on cool electronic gear for the big boys'
jets
and have the FAA knocking at your door to find all the answers to
everything, I don't think what you are discussing is the same thing as
the
original poster's (and most other replies) content. (Apparently you
hold
your ideas in very high regard. Technically you sound very competent,
but
you are consistently a bit off the subject that is being discussed on
this
thread.)

It is not my intent to say you have to listen to FAA. All I am doing is
providing information as to why the terms primary and secomndary are used
they way they are by FAA. It is not a bad idea to know which instrument
is
by FAA's thinking the primary instrument. The fact that in common use
that
thinking breaks down is not necessarily a bad thing either. Using
secondary
instrument, or even a "reference only" instrument, can make the operation
easier.