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 |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
IFR with a VFR GPS
Jonathan Goodish wrote:
Isn't this also true if you fly airways but DON'T use a VFR GPS? I am not sure what you are asking. Is what true? To use all information even when flying by VOR or that there is a risk of a failed VOR receiver on an airway? -- Peter ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
IFR with a VFR GPS
"Gerald Sylvester" wrote in message om... But chewing up TONS of radio time becomes a problem for all aircraft. Nudging aircraft back on course is done all the time, it doesn't chew up TONS of radio time. On another thread, you argued that saying the extra zero for runway zero-nine takes up time. I said that in response to someone that said saying the extra zero takes little time. But I didn't say the extra zero should be avoided in order to save time, I said it should be avoided because it is a source for potential confusion. The time saved is a small bonus. Now we're talking about taking up probably minutes of time. No we're not, we're talking about a few seconds. Aircraft wander off course from time to time and have been doing so since long before there was GPS. that I see as a problem especially if the controller then gives a clearance direct to a VOR/NDB that is not within range or is not in the database. That chews up serious amounts of more airtime. No, it doesn't. Where do you get these ideas? I've read many reports of controllers getting ****ed at pilots for not having waypoints in their certified GPS. Cite some of them. I can only imagine what happens when pilot has nothing in their "database" other than a few points. How is that pertinent to this discussion? For the pilot with the VFR GPS, your primary navigation becomes radar vectors. How so? I'd rather know where I am at ALL time rather than depending on a controller. Do you fly IFR with nothing but a GPS on board? I know of one pilot getting RV in IMC, controller forgot about him and augered it in (CFIT). Did that pilot have no nav radios on board? I can definitely see how a VFR GPS is useful when flying enroute and VMC with loads of VOR's for use as a backup (err, primary navigation). To do it, single pilot, in IMC, just has many single point failures or where you have backups but requires a lot of work to get positively established/stabilized again. So you're saying that having a GPS on board in IMC creates excessive workload on the pilot and adds many points of failure. I think most pilots would disagree with you, but no matter, your "problem" is remedied by simply not having the GPS on board. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
IFR with a VFR GPS
Thomas Borchert wrote:
Peter, Besides, what rule is broken by pointing the aircraft at the ground? 91.3, of course ;-) Do you mean 91.13, careless or reckless operation? -- Peter ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
IFR with a VFR GPS
"Peter R." wrote in message ... Besides, what rule is broken by pointing the aircraft at the ground? Under the conditions stated, probably 91.303. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
IFR with a VFR GPS
"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message ... 91.3, of course ;-) Methinks you meant some other regulation. § 91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command. (a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft. (b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency. (c) Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under paragraph (b) of this section shall, upon the request of the Administrator, send a written report of that deviation to the Administrator. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
IFR with a VFR GPS
Peter,
Yep, sorry. -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
IFR with a VFR GPS
Steven,
91.13. The 1 got lost. Sorry! -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
IFR with a VFR GPS
"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message ... 91.13. The 1 got lost. Sorry! Okay, but how is the life or property of another endangered by pointing the aircraft at the ground? |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
IFR with a VFR GPS
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message ... 91.13. The 1 got lost. Sorry! Okay, but how is the life or property of another endangered by pointing the aircraft at the ground? http://tinyurl.com/defvx -- Peter ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
IFR with a VFR GPS
Recall that the NTSB accident database has at least one recent C172 fatal
accident where the NTSB concluded that the pilot was flying a GPS approach with nothing but a VFR GPS. What was the cause of that crash? Was the VFR GPS giving erronious information? Was it hard to use, not being attached to the plane? Was the pilot unfamiliar with the device? Was the approach even in the database? Jose -- He who laughs, lasts. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|