A bigger crime to be debated is the "psuedo" panel display afforded by some
of the handheld GPS units.
It derives bearing and attitude information from the apparant change in
flight path. I have heard folks speculate
that this could be used in instrument flight after failure of the AI/HI?

This, however, is something that is easy enough to try, and indeed, I
have done so. (under the hood, with a safety pilot). My unit, a Garmin
196, does not include any attitude information, but it does provide:

"airspeed" -- actually, groundspeed
"heading" -- actually, track (but hey, once you've gone track, you
don't go back)
"altitude" -- GPS derived, but with WAAS, not too bad when I
tried it
turn and bank -- based on rate of turn, see heading above.

My experience is partial panel with this was just as easy, if not
easier to fly than with the same panel of real instruments. Starting
in controlled, stable flight, I was able to perform all maneuvers
necessary for instrument flight (climbs, descents, turns) without any
trouble. It was no more fatiguing than normal partial panel.

Starting from a spin or something, I have my doubts.


-- dave j


I might open up a thread to see how that debate unfolds. It would certainly
be more interesting than the essays on tort reform and having your mom sew
epaulets on your Sport's pilot shirt that are all the rage on the other
forums.