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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
IFR with a VFR GPS
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|