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.