IFR with a VFR GPS

Ron Garret wrote:

One of the (many) risks of UAHGPSFIFRENIUSCAS (you figure it out) is
that a pilot might become complacent about using his primary navaids,
particularly off-airways since the constant VOR twiddling required for
off-airway navigation is such a pain in the ass and the use of the GPS
is so effortless and (almost invariably) reliable.

Exactly my point that got me labeled an idiot by McNicoll.

--
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 =----

In article et,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...

Oh, Jose, you're giving up too easily!

One of the (many) risks of UAHGPSFIFRENIUSCAS (you figure it out) is
that a pilot might become complacent about using his primary navaids,
particularly off-airways since the constant VOR twiddling required for
off-airway navigation is such a pain in the ass and the use of the GPS
is so effortless and (almost invariably) reliable.


But off-airways flight doesn't require any VOR twiddling.

It does if you're out of radar coverage. So the essential elements of
the risk a

1. No radar coverage (or a controller not paying attention, which has
also been known to happen)
2. Pilot decides to rely on GPS alone for guidance (complacency) and
3. GPS fails silently.

Granted, it's not a large risk. But it is possible, and it is possible
ONLY in the presence of a VFR-only GPS.

You say there are many risks in UAHGPSFIFRENIUSCAS. Could you please
identify some of them?

I just identified one. I identified another in another branch of this
this thread.

BTW, just because the risks are numerous does not mean that they are
significant. (But just because they are not significant does not mean
that they do not exist.)

Yes, complacency is a form of incompetence. But that does make it any
less of a risk. Pilot complacency, in all its many manifestations, is a
widely recognized risk. Furthermore (and this is the important part)
this particular form of complacency CANNOT MANIFEST ITSELF EXCEPT WHEN A
HANDHELD GPS IS IN USE. That makes it reasonable to assign at least
part of the causality to the use of the GPS.


Why can't that particular form of complacency manifest itself when on a
long-range vector?

Because you can't decide to stop using your VORs and use your GPS
instead if you do not have a GPS. Isn't that obvious?

You are using up your quota of stupid questions.

rg

In article et,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...

If an aircraft enters an unusual attitude following an AI failure, most
pilots would say that that accident was caused (at least in part) by the
AI failure despite the fact that the AI didn't (directly) cause the
plane to enter an unusual attitude.


I think you're wrong about that. I think most pilots would say that
erroneous information provided by a failed AI would be a direct cause of an
unusual attitude.

I don't really want to quibble over terminology. The fact of the matter
is that a failed AI is neither necessary nor sufficient to produce an
unusual attitude. (To produce an unusual attitude you must have either
erroneous control input, extreme turbulence, or structural failure.) An
AI failure is nonetheless considered a risk. Likewise, a failed GPS is
neither necessary nor sufficient to produce CFIT. It is nonetheless a
risk. The two situations are exactly analogous. They differ only in
the degree of risk.

Are you a pilot?

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.

But OK, have it your way: the pilot drops the GPS. Being a competent
pilot he does not attempt to retrieve it. It bounces around in the
turbulence and, unbeknownst to the pilot, it gets wedged under one of
the rudder pedals. The airplane spins and crashes turning base to final
because the now limited travel on the rudder pedal makes it impossible
to adequately compensate for adverse yaw (and the pilot doesn't realize
it until it's too late).


So what you're saying is that loose objects in the cockpit can be hazardous.
That may very well be, but that's not the subject of this discussion.

It is if the loose object in question was a handheld GPS being used for
enroute IFR navigation yada yada yada.

Most accidents, including this hypothetical one, are the result of long
causal chains of events, all of which are collectively necessary for the
accident to occur. It is true that the pilot in my first scenario was
incompetent, but in a way that would not have manifested itself but for
the need to retrieve the GPS from the floor of the plane. (And this, by
the way, is why it matters that it's a GPS that was dropped and not,
say, a granola bar. The perceived urgency of retrieving a granola bar
would probably be less than that of retrieving the GPS.)


Why? The pilot can always ask ATC for navigational assistance, but they
can't provide an inflight snack.

That's why I hedged with "probably." Different pilots assess situations
differently. I can actually envision situations where retrieving a
granola bar might have a pretty high priority, but that, as you say, is
not the topic under discussion.

It's a moot point since I have now provided a scenario involving a
competent pilot, but do you have a principled basis for assigning all of
the causality to one of many factors in the causal chain, or did you
simply choose to make this assignment arbitrarily in order to support
your untenable position?


My untenable position? It is my position that use of a handheld GPS for IFR
enroute navigation in US controlled airspace is without hazard. Note that
nobody has identified any hazard from such usage.

You can keep insisting that, but the fact of the matter is that I have
now described two (or three depending on how you count) potential
hazards from such use. So yes, your position that such hazards do not
exist is untenable. You can argue that the risks are insignificant (and
I would agree, and so, I think, would everyone else) but you can no
longer argue that they do not exist without behaving like -- dare I say
it? -- an idiot.

rg

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...

It does if you're out of radar coverage.


You're not going to be out of radar coverage. Haven't you been paying
attention? Routes off-airways or beyond normal navaid usable distances
require ATC to provide radar monitoring and course guidance if necessary.



I just identified one. I identified another in another branch of this
this thread.


You identified what you erroneously believed to be risks. You didn't
identify any actual risks.



BTW, just because the risks are numerous does not mean that they are
significant. (But just because they are not significant does not mean
that they do not exist.)


Numerous risks? You cited only two, and they weren't actually risks.



Because you can't decide to stop using your VORs and use your GPS
instead if you do not have a GPS. Isn't that obvious?


But I can complacently decide to stop using my VORs if I'm on a long-range
vector. Isn't that similarity obvious?



You are using up your quota of stupid questions.


Do you realize you haven't answered any of my questions correctly?

In article et,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...

It does if you're out of radar coverage.


You're not going to be out of radar coverage. Haven't you been paying
attention? Routes off-airways or beyond normal navaid usable distances
require ATC to provide radar monitoring and course guidance if necessary.

shrug So make the scenario on-airway. Or have the radar fail. Or
have the controller not paying attention. Or have the pilot file /G.
There are myriad possibilities.

I just identified one. I identified another in another branch of this
this thread.


You identified what you erroneously believed to be risks. You didn't
identify any actual risks.

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.

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. And in both cases if the pilot does realize that
the information is wrong and act accordingly the results can be
catastrophic. Does that constitute a risk? I think most people would
say yes. (We could take a poll.)

(There is actually one structural difference, and that is that the GPS
might not be rigidly attached to the airframe, whereas the AI
necessarily is. But that's just an additional source of risk for the
GPS in most cases.)

BTW, just because the risks are numerous does not mean that they are
significant. (But just because they are not significant does not mean
that they do not exist.)


Numerous risks? You cited only two, and they weren't actually risks.

I stopped at two because extrapolating from those two examples to many
others is an elementary exercise in applying some imagination (which you
seem to lack). Also because, as I suspected, it would be futile.
Additional examples will not convince you. You will simply dismiss them
as not being risks.

Because you can't decide to stop using your VORs and use your GPS
instead if you do not have a GPS. Isn't that obvious?


But I can complacently decide to stop using my VORs if I'm on a long-range
vector. Isn't that similarity obvious?

Of course. But that is, as you yourself are so fond of pointing out,
not the topic under discussion. That there are many different possible
root causes of a catastrophic chain of events does not reduce the risk
associated with any one of those root causes. The risk associated with
AI failure is not reduced just because there are also other ways one
might get disoriented. Likewise for GPS.

You are using up your quota of stupid questions.


Do you realize you haven't answered any of my questions correctly?

No. Do you realize that that was another stupid question?

rg

"Jose" wrote in message
. ..

Why do you keep asking this question? Surely it is not to acquire
information, or to dispense any. Rather, you seem to be pressing the
point that "use" and "rely on" are not the same.


When someone says that use of a handheld GPS for IFR enroute navigation in
US controlled airspace is either hazardous or illegal I ask them to identify
the hazard or the law that is being violated. I do that so that I may know
what they think the hazard to be or what law they believe is being violated.
If they respond I explain the error in their thinking and sometimes
information is dispersed that way.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:


When someone says that use of a handheld GPS for IFR enroute navigation in
US controlled airspace is either hazardous or illegal I ask them to identify
the hazard or the law that is being violated. I do that so that I may know
what they think the hazard to be or what law they believe is being violated.
*If they respond I explain the error in their thinking and sometimes
information is dispersed that way.*



So, then,

If they respond to your questioning of their post, you automatically
tell them they are in error, regardless of what they have to say.
That's good stuff, McNicoll, and tells us a lot about your character, at
least here on the newsgroups.

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

"Scott Skylane" wrote in message
...

So, then,

If they respond to your questioning of their post, you automatically tell
them they are in error, regardless of what they have to say. That's good
stuff, McNicoll, and tells us a lot about your character, at least here on
the newsgroups.


What does it tell you about my character?

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...

I don't really want to quibble over terminology. The fact of the matter
is that a failed AI is neither necessary nor sufficient to produce an
unusual attitude. (To produce an unusual attitude you must have either
erroneous control input, extreme turbulence, or structural failure.) An
AI failure is nonetheless considered a risk. Likewise, a failed GPS is
neither necessary nor sufficient to produce CFIT. It is nonetheless a
risk. The two situations are exactly analogous. They differ only in
the degree of risk.


Well, Ron, the fact of the matter is a failed AI is quite sufficient to
produce an unusual attitude.



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? Was any of it logged outside of MSFS?



It is if the loose object in question was a handheld GPS being used for
enroute IFR navigation yada yada yada.


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?



You can keep insisting that, but the fact of the matter is that I have
now described two (or three depending on how you count) potential
hazards from such use. So yes, your position that such hazards do not
exist is untenable. You can argue that the risks are insignificant (and
I would agree, and so, I think, would everyone else) but you can no
longer argue that they do not exist without behaving like -- dare I say
it? -- an idiot.


Right. 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. And you think me an
idiot because I try to explain why that isn't so.

You're flying the airways of life with a couple of props feathered.

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...

shrug So make the scenario on-airway.


On-airways flight doesn't require any VOR twiddling either.



Or have the radar fail.


Then the controller will issue a route on-airways or within normal navaid
usable distances.



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.



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.



There are myriad possibilities.


It's clear there are many things which you believe are possibilities but
actually are not.



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.



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.



And in both cases if the pilot does realize that
the information is wrong and act accordingly the results can be
catastrophic. Does that constitute a risk? I think most people would
say yes. (We could take a poll.)


We could, but if facts and logic wont sway you it seems unlikely that poll
results will.



I stopped at two because extrapolating from those two examples to many
others is an elementary exercise in applying some imagination (which you
seem to lack). Also because, as I suspected, it would be futile.
Additional examples will not convince you. You will simply dismiss them
as not being risks.


Of course. I'd look pretty foolish if I didn't dismiss non-risks as not
being risks.



Do you realize you haven't answered any of my questions correctly?


No.


No surprise there.



Do you realize that that was another stupid question?


Not at all. It's purpose was to determine whether you were feigning
stupidity or if it was genuine. Assuming you answered it honestly, we now
know you're genuinely stupid.