single pilot ifr trip tonight

In article , David Megginson
wrote:

You decide that you can afford to install *one* new permanent system
costing from USD 4K to USD 10K this year, and possibly one in each
following year (but not for certain). Arrange the following list in
the order that *you* think would make your IFR flying safest, putting
the highest priority item at the top. If you want, you can assume
that you already have some kind of backup vacuum system. These are
currently in alphabetical order:

Electric AI (backup)
Engine monitor (i.e. EDM 700)
HSI (slaved)
IFR GPS (non-moving-map, at this price)
Stormscope (or Strikefinder)
TPAS
Wing leveller (or other general single-axis AP)

my order of preference:

Stormscope (or Strikefinder) - handflying or not, thunderstorms are bad
Single-axis autopilot - reduce workload
HSI - reduce workload
Electric AI - redundancy
Engine monitor - gotta keep an eye on the engine
IFR GPS - yeah, whatever
TPAS - is this a poor man's TCAS?

--
Bob Noel

Bob Noel writes:

my order of preference:

Stormscope (or Strikefinder) - handflying or not, thunderstorms are bad
Single-axis autopilot - reduce workload
HSI - reduce workload
Electric AI - redundancy
Engine monitor - gotta keep an eye on the engine
IFR GPS - yeah, whatever
TPAS - is this a poor man's TCAS?

That's pretty close to my safety shopping list for future enhancements
to my IFR panel:

1. Stormscope (or Strikefinder)
2. Engine monitor
3. Single-axis autopilot
4. Electric AI
5. TPAS
6. IFR GPS
7. slaved HSI

For me, the Stormscope is the most obvious safety item -- there's
always that lingering chance of stumbling into unforecast CB in IMC,
and if that happens, you're in the hands of god. Right now, I don't
fly in IMC if there's any CB forecast in the TAFs or GFA anywhere near
my route, but I recognize that even that may be too large a risk. On
the downside, a Stormscope can encourage a pilot to go flying on days
when it's really better to stay on the ground (i.e. an approaching
squall line).

Since I fly single-engine IFR, the engine monitor comes next. If I
were flying a twin, it would be much further down the list, but from
what I have heard, modern engine monitors (properly used) can detect
some impending failures far enough in advance to give me a shot at a
precautionary landing. If that's true, it's a huge safety benefit,
flying single-engine in IMC. Of course, most forced landings happen
because people run out of gas, not because the engine fails.

All of the autopilot fans should be relieved to see that I consider
the AP the next most important item from a strict safety perspective,
for obvious reasons -- it gives me a panic button to hit in case of
severe vertigo and/or spatial-disorientation. In fact, it's very
close to the engine monitor, and the two could easily trade places.

The AI is next strictly from a safety perspective, in case of vacuum
failu I have trouble thinking of situations where an IFR GPS would
mean life or death, but in real life, I consider convenience as well
as safety so I'd probably buy the IFR GPS first to open up more
approaches and routings to me.

The TPAS is a marginal safety item for me, since I'm always in radar
coverage anyway -- it would be much more significant if I did any IFR
flying in northern Canada, where most low-level IFR happens in class G
outside of radar coverage.

The IFR GPS and HSI are not direct safety items -- properly used, they
can reduce workload, providing an indirect safety benefit (the same
way that a healthy breakfast and moderate exercise every day provide
an indirect safety benefit). Unlike the other items, though, they do
not directly help me to avoid accidents, though they can make
flying much more pleasant.


All the best,


David

"Bob Noel" wrote:

IFR GPS - yeah, whatever

Huh? I'd have to put that at the top of the list unless I flew in the
mountain west where IMC flying is rare or impossible in such an
airplane.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...
"Bob Noel" wrote:

IFR GPS - yeah, whatever

Huh? I'd have to put that at the top of the list unless I flew in the
mountain west where IMC flying is rare or impossible in such an
airplane.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

GPS is something I'd like to have since many airports only have a GPS
approach, and at my home airport (O17) the GPS approach has an MEA that's
272 above the tdze, vs. 1128 for the VOR. A greater chance for successfully
landing at the intended airport is a powerful incentive.

However, to my mind safety is a different issue and the reality may be that
GPS's do not actually increase safety, and some or all current GPS's could
actually decrease safety over traditional land based navaids. One particular
fatal accident that sticks in my mind as probably GPS related is this SR 20
inbound to RHV, which went haywire after passing the FAF:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...06X00175&key=1

I get most of the safety benefits (accurate ground track and speed,
situational awareness, nearest airport, ETA) of an IFR GPS by using a
handheld VFR "only" Garmin GPS 92, with a bonus of it being the only working
NAV device on the airplane if I have a failure of the aircraft electrical
system. In that emergency, the '92 is immediately blessed as an IFR device
and I'll be happy to use it and will wish I had a 196, but I'll live with
that small decrease of the margin of safety for now.

To my mind, the huge cost of installation and software maintenance of
currently available IFR GPS units is not justified by the very few times
that it would save me the inconvenience of landing 30 miles away at the
nearest civilian runway served by an ILS and rent a car or pester a friend
to come pick me up. Perhaps when some manufacturer decides to support the
raw FAA Digital Database (FAA/NACO claims availability in December), I'll
think about it again.

-Greg

"Greg Goodknight" wrote:
GPS is something I'd like to have since many airports only have
a GPS approach, and at my home airport (O17) the GPS
approach has an MEA that's 272 above the tdze, vs. 1128
for the VOR. A greater chance for successfully
landing at the intended airport is a powerful incentive.

Exactly why I'd put it #1.

However, to my mind safety is a different issue and the reality may be
that GPS's do not actually increase safety, and some or all current
GPS's could actually decrease safety over traditional land based
navaids. One particular fatal accident that sticks in my mind as
probably GPS related is this SR 20 inbound to RHV, which went
haywire after passing the FAF:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...06X00175&key=1

Well, no approach or equipment is "pilot proof." To conclude from this
that GPS's do not actually increase safety is a bit of a stretch, don't
you think? It was a GPS approach, so of course it was "GPS related" but
it sounds to me like the pilot became distracted while hand flying the
approach.

I get most of the safety benefits (accurate ground track and speed,
situational awareness, nearest airport, ETA) of an IFR GPS by
using a handheld VFR "only" Garmin GPS 92, with a bonus of it
being the only working NAV device on the airplane if I have a
failure of the aircraft electrical system.

Same here. I will not fly IFR without my 295.

To my mind, the huge cost of installation and software maintenance of
currently available IFR GPS units is not justified by the very few
times
that it would save me the inconvenience of landing 30 miles away at
the
nearest civilian runway served by an ILS and rent a car or pester a
friend
to come pick me up.

That's where we disagree -- except about the fact that the cost is huge!
Recent experience has taught me that a certified GPS is an absolute must
nowadays.

Perhaps when some manufacturer decides to support the
raw FAA Digital Database (FAA/NACO claims availability
in December), I'll think about it again.

Not familiar. What's that going to do for us?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Perhaps when some manufacturer decides to support the
raw FAA Digital Database (FAA/NACO claims availability
in December), I'll think about it again.

Not familiar. What's that going to do for us?


I believe it would free us from paying hundreds of dollars for a subscription
to data we've already paid for in taxes.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...
"Greg Goodknight" wrote:
GPS is something I'd like to have since many airports only have
a GPS approach, and at my home airport (O17) the GPS
approach has an MEA that's 272 above the tdze, vs. 1128
for the VOR. A greater chance for successfully
landing at the intended airport is a powerful incentive.

Exactly why I'd put it #1.

However, to my mind safety is a different issue and the reality may be
that GPS's do not actually increase safety, and some or all current
GPS's could actually decrease safety over traditional land based
navaids. One particular fatal accident that sticks in my mind as
probably GPS related is this SR 20 inbound to RHV, which went
haywire after passing the FAF:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...06X00175&key=1

Well, no approach or equipment is "pilot proof." To conclude from this
that GPS's do not actually increase safety is a bit of a stretch, don't
you think? It was a GPS approach, so of course it was "GPS related" but
it sounds to me like the pilot became distracted while hand flying the
approach.

I think it not a stretch at all to conclude the pilot was probably
distracted by the GPS. Pressed some button he shouldn't have after passing
the FAF (final approach fix), maybe. Maybe a power glitch, who knows. He
certainly wasn't focused on the directional gyro.

Just came from the airport here and mentioned this conversation with my
favorite CFII and Meridian charter operator. He doesn't think IFR GPSs add
any safety either, just utility. In fact they can be dangerous if the pilot
i fiddling with the unit and loses track of what is important. Like
altitude.

VOR/ILS/LOC may be crude but what they lack in utility they make up for (in
safety) by being a very robust technology with a very simple user interface
and an instantaneous reboot time



I get most of the safety benefits (accurate ground track and speed,
situational awareness, nearest airport, ETA) of an IFR GPS by
using a handheld VFR "only" Garmin GPS 92, with a bonus of it
being the only working NAV device on the airplane if I have a
failure of the aircraft electrical system.

Same here. I will not fly IFR without my 295.

To my mind, the huge cost of installation and software maintenance of
currently available IFR GPS units is not justified by the very few
times
that it would save me the inconvenience of landing 30 miles away at
the
nearest civilian runway served by an ILS and rent a car or pester a
friend
to come pick me up.

That's where we disagree -- except about the fact that the cost is huge!
Recent experience has taught me that a certified GPS is an absolute must
nowadays.

Perhaps when some manufacturer decides to support the
raw FAA Digital Database (FAA/NACO claims availability
in December), I'll think about it again.

Not familiar. What's that going to do for us?

Decrease the cash flow from you to Jeppessen. The Jepp prices dropped to the
current level when the FAA announced the project. Now it's being delivered.
I'm not buying a GPS that requires me to buy FAA data at a high price from a
third or fourth party.

-Greg

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

In article , "Dan Luke"
wrote:

"Bob Noel" wrote:

IFR GPS - yeah, whatever

Huh? I'd have to put that at the top of the list unless I flew in the
mountain west where IMC flying is rare or impossible in such an
airplane.

My panel is enough to fly IFR to most of the airports around
here (KBED). Until recently, it wouldn't provide any operational
advantage at all - especially a non-moving map model.

--
Bob Noel

"Bob Noel" wrote:
My panel is enough to fly IFR to most of the airports around
here (KBED). Until recently, it wouldn't provide any operational
advantage at all - especially a non-moving map model.

I would have been unable to complete two recent Angel Flights without an
IFR GPS. I don't know how it is in the Northeast, but down here
(Alabama), I'd be crippled without it. Mine's not a moving map model,
but that's not much of a factor in its utility since I have a moving map
portable on the yoke.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Dan Luke wrote:

I would have been unable to complete two recent Angel Flights without an
IFR GPS. I don't know how it is in the Northeast, but down here
(Alabama), I'd be crippled without it. Mine's not a moving map model,
but that's not much of a factor in its utility since I have a moving map
portable on the yoke.

What about the flights/GPS made the two flights possible? Airports with
nothing but GPS approaches?

I guess I'm spoiled. I *love* flying with an IFR GPS, and it was a part of
my IFR training. But my "home" airport has a localizer approach, so the
extra couple of hundred feet of a GPS approach can seem very limiting.
Hell, I even get annoyed with the extra couple of hundred feet I've lost by
not having a glideslope.

Last week, for example, I canceled a "for fun" flight because the ceilings
were too low for the GPS approach at the airport to which I'd have to
return. Had it been at my home airport (and had they not closed the runway
with the localizer for maintenance), I'd have gone and had some nice actual
time.

[Of course, we all expect the ceiling to go up as soon as the cancel
decision is made. This time, it went down. Nice feeling, in a weird way.]

I think if I'd the choice, I'd put something other than the IFR GPS at the
top of my list. It would probably be either the AI backup or a weather
device. I'd prefer something more "strategic" than a strikefinder, though.
That still permits...surprises of an unfortunate sort.

But I have to admit: most of my flights are for fun of one sort or another.
So I can usually choose a destination with the type of approach I want. I
very rarely "need" to be flying anywhere. If I were doing something (ie.
Angel Flights) which dictated airports, an IFR GPS might be a bigger deal.

- Andrew