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 |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
IFR with a VFR GPS
"Jose" wrote in message news 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? http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...23X05372&key=1 The NTSB determined the probable cause to be the failure of the pilot to follow the published instrument approach procedure resulting in an early descent into the tower. Why conclude the pilot believed he was someplace other than where he was? Why is that more likely than just a descent below the MDA? |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
IFR with a VFR GPS
Jose wrote:
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? Well, the official, sterile probable cause reads: "The failure of the pilot to follow the published instrument approach procedure, which resulted in an early descent into an antenna tower. A factor was the low ceiling" Of course, all of those factors you mentioned certainly are possible, too, but not provable. A clue to these other factors leading to this accident was that the aircraft was one mile to the right of course at the IAF. I recall reading an accident analysis article of this crash (I forgot which of my monthly periodicals it was in) a few months ago that went into more detail about the pilot flying an IFR approach with a VFR GPS. -- 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 =---- |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
IFR with a VFR GPS
"Peter R." wrote in message ... Well, the official, sterile probable cause reads: "The failure of the pilot to follow the published instrument approach procedure, which resulted in an early descent into an antenna tower. A factor was the low ceiling" Of course, all of those factors you mentioned certainly are possible, too, but not provable. Nor is the NTSB's probable cause. A clue to these other factors leading to this accident was that the aircraft was one mile to the right of course at the IAF. But "just slightly left of the approach course centerline" when it struck the tower. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
IFR with a VFR GPS
Gerald Sylvester wrote:
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. How does a handheld GPS have more SPOFs than a panel mount IFR certified GPS? I would submit it has less because with a handheld electric power is no longer a single point of failure like it is with a panel mount (assuming you have a power adapter to plug it in and fresh batteries in case you lose electric power). The only legitimate argument that can be made is that the panel mount GPS has an external antenna and the handheld relies on one mounted on the windscreen or the unit itself. I've been flying with a handheld GPS for almost ten years an have only lost signal once in flight. And that was only for less than a minute. Since I didn't do anything to get the signal back, I don't think it had anything to do with antenna placement. Now, if we're talking about precision GPS approaches, that's a different story. But enroute navigation (and possibly even non-precision GPS approaches) should be just as safe with a handheld as a panel mount. -m -- ## Mark T. Dame ## VP, Product Development ## MFM Software, Inc. (http://www.mfm.com/) "If you have to ask, you won't understand." |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
IFR with a VFR GPS
Peter R. wrote:
"Peter R." wrote: Yes, I am going to maintain that premise because even more unthinkable, someone was actually killed flying a GPS approach with nothing but a VFR GPS. Here's the accident report: http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...23X05372&key=1 According to the accident report the plane impacted a tower just left of the centerline but 450 below the published minimum height. Short of WAAS no GPS will keep you from trouble if you don't follow the altitude restrictions on the plate. I find it interesting that the report mentions that a GPS was found in the plane but makes no mention of charts on board. Could this have been a case of him not having the plate but trying to fly the approach from his VFR GPS? If this is the case the certification level of the GPS has no bearing in the crash. |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
IFR with a VFR GPS
Mark T. Dame wrote:
Now, if we're talking about precision GPS approaches, that's a different story. But enroute navigation (and possibly even non-precision GPS approaches) should be just as safe with a handheld as a panel mount. You will usually have as good of accuracy with a hand-held (with an external antenna, but you lack the interity because you don't have approach RAIM. Would this ever matter? It depends upon the volume of operations. For you personally, the RAIM-hole day may never occur when you're using your hand-held for an RNAV IAP. Since there aren't any precision RNAV IAPs, other than LPV (which requires WAAAS) I fail to see your distinction between precision and non-precision. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
IFR with a VFR GPS
John Theune wrote:
Peter R. wrote: "Peter R." wrote: Yes, I am going to maintain that premise because even more unthinkable, someone was actually killed flying a GPS approach with nothing but a VFR GPS. Here's the accident report: http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...23X05372&key=1 According to the accident report the plane impacted a tower just left of the centerline but 450 below the published minimum height. Short of WAAS no GPS will keep you from trouble if you don't follow the altitude restrictions on the plate. I find it interesting that the report mentions that a GPS was found in the plane but makes no mention of charts on board. Could this have been a case of him not having the plate but trying to fly the approach from his VFR GPS? If this is the case the certification level of the GPS has no bearing in the crash. That accident was the result of the pilot's failure to fly the correct altitude. It had nothing to do with the type of GPS being used. |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
IFR with a VFR GPS
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message news "Wizard of Draws" wrote in message news:BF96C057.43EB4%jeffbREMOVE@REMOVEwizardofdraw s.com... So...do I tell a briefer to note that I have a VFR GPS and will the controllers take note, sending me direct, off airways? Will it make any difference to them at all? Given the fact that nearly everyone has one nowadays, will they assume I have a GPS even if I don't indicate it? If you file off airways and if radar monitoring can be provided and if specific routing is not required for your departure/destination airport then you'll get direct routing. Indicating you have a VFR GPS makes no difference. That seems to be an overly broad statement. I have put "VFR GPS" in Remarks when filing /U for an off-airways (random) route and had controllers specifically refer to using my VFR GPS to proceed direct to an intersection. Whether they should have done so is another issue. But is sure seemed to make a difference. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
IFR with a VFR GPS
John Theune wrote:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...23X05372&key=1 According to the accident report the plane impacted a tower just left of the centerline but 450 below the published minimum height. Short of WAAS no GPS will keep you from trouble if you don't follow the altitude restrictions on the plate. I find it interesting that the report mentions that a GPS was found in the plane but makes no mention of charts on board. Could this have been a case of him not having the plate but trying to fly the approach from his VFR GPS? If this is the case the certification level of the GPS has no bearing in the crash. Baro is used for height. Ron Lee |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
IFR with a VFR GPS
"Peter R." wrote:
Ron Lee wrote: You should note that if you lose lock (too few satellites) then your display will start flashing (or portions of it). That is not RAIM which determines if you have a signal error. Just to clarify, are you saying that a *VFR* GPS's screen flashes when the GPS loses the required number of satellites for position calculation and that error is not a result of built-in RAIM? Portions do such as position. Take your favorite handheld and look at various displays. Note that some will flash until you get a solid GPS lock. Ron Lee |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|