If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#241
|
|||
|
|||
IFR with a VFR GPS
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 he 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 |
#242
|
|||
|
|||
IFR with a VFR GPS
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? |
#243
|
|||
|
|||
IFR with a VFR GPS
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" |
#244
|
|||
|
|||
IFR with a VFR GPS
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 |
#245
|
|||
|
|||
IFR with a VFR GPS
[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. |
#246
|
|||
|
|||
IFR with a VFR GPS
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 |
#247
|
|||
|
|||
IFR with a VFR GPS
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' |
#248
|
|||
|
|||
IFR with a VFR GPS
"Roger" wrote in message ... I always file /I For GPS? |
#249
|
|||
|
|||
IFR with a VFR 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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|