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 |
#161
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS - everyone brace yourselves... herecomes Sam's foul mouth
Ted wrote:
"Sam Spade" wrote in message news:Pkp7g.175618$bm6.124940@fed1read04... And, it's Stevie's assertion. ...That is pure bull****.... ...You are either stupid or stubborn... Sam, does your mother wash your mouth out with soap when you try and use that language in front of her? Are you losing your grip, Sam? Perhaps you should take some valium and relax a bit before you attempt to continue this legal discussion as you are clearly overwhelmed by those who disagree with you? No, it's playing with Steve on his terms. |
#162
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS
"Sam Spade" wrote in message news:ZlJ7g.175941$bm6.31585@fed1read04... Bull****. Pottymouth. |
#163
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS
Travis Marlatte wrote:
No, it was yours, Sam. Whether you knew it or not. Steven simply picked up on your fairly inocent, but mistaken statement that ATC uses SERVICE VOLUMES to guide direct routing. You even referenced a table that is NOT based on service volumes. You both agree about the limitations on direct routing and Steven knows it. He just likes to nit pick the details. Those are the values derived from service volumes, so to call them service volumes in the context of the 7110.65 is not only reasonable, it is exactly what the authors of the 7110.65 do as follows: "4-1-4. VFR-ON-TOP Use a route not meeting service volume limitations only if an aircraft requests to operate "VFR-on-top" on this route." To attach precision to a patch-work document such as the 7110.65 is a fool's errand. |
#164
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS
"Sam Spade" wrote in message news:_NJ7g.175944$bm6.20748@fed1read04... For purposes of ATC handing as set forth in 7110.65, service volumes are stated in MSL values. Service volumes are always stated in AGL values and are not used for purposes of ATC handing as set forth in FAAO 7110.65. |
#165
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS - everyone brace yourselves... here comes Sam's foul mouth
"Sam Spade" wrote in message news:FOJ7g.175945$bm6.30359@fed1read04... No, it's playing with Steve on his terms. Steve's terms are to present a cogent argument supported by verifiable documentation. You don't play that way. |
#166
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS
On Mon, 08 May 2006 08:59:03 -0400, Roy Smith wrote:
While the AIM may not be regulatory, it also doesn't lie. When a simple declaratory statement is made such as, "hand-held GPS systems are not authorized for IFR navigation, instrument approaches, or as a principal instrument flight reference", it's a pretty good guess that there is some regulation, somewhere that backs that up. As Steven has so often pointed out, nobody has been able to cite that regulation. I applaud John Deakin and Steven for challenging commnonly held assumptions they believe to be wrong, even if they do it in their own particular style. It's one of the ways in which we learn. Anybody who feels confident enough that handheld GPS is good enough for IFR is welcome to invite an FSDO guy to ride along with you for an inspection with a handheld as your sole means of IFR navigation outside of DR, vectors, celestial, and a ham sandwich. See how far you get. Then please post about it so we can all share in your experience. Until that time, all this talk about how the AIM is not regulatory and how it's OK to fly IFR with a handheld is just a lot of masturbation. No it's not. Chances are that you'd get a FSDO guy who assumes that the AIM statement is based on a FAR. It's not worth the hassle or expense of an airplane flight to try to persuade this one guy otherwise. What you do in the real world is up to you. Personally, on reflection, I'd use the GPS to get the heading I want to fly, then ask ATC for that vector. I believe the Direct routing is legal, but I see no reason to stir up a possible hornet's nest in the air when the alternative is so simple. Tim. |
#167
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS
"Steven P. McNicoll" writes: The hand-held GPS is not included in 91.205 because it is not approved for IFR flight. If my aircraft contains all of the instruments and equipment specified in 14 CFR 91.205, then I am in compliance with that regulation. [...] Perhaps your scenario is self-contradictory. 91.205.d.2 appears to require "... navigational equipment appropriate to the ground facilities to be used ...". If you're filing to a far-away ground facility (far away airport or navaid) that you don't have appropriate nagivational equipment (super-duper VOR receiver or substitutable GPS) to guide yourself to, you may be in violation right there. It may be interesting to other readers that in other parts of the world, it is sometimes required to carry sufficient *extra* navigational equipment that would enable an instrument letdown to an alternate in the case of a failure of any one. - FChE |
#168
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS
"Frank Ch. Eigler" wrote in message ... Perhaps your scenario is self-contradictory. 91.205.d.2 appears to require "... navigational equipment appropriate to the ground facilities to be used ...". If you're filing to a far-away ground facility (far away airport or navaid) that you don't have appropriate nagivational equipment (super-duper VOR receiver or substitutable GPS) to guide yourself to, you may be in violation right there. I'm in full compliance with FAR 91.205 in that regard, I have two fully functional VOR receivers aboard. |
#169
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
"Ron Lee" wrote in message ... A primary reason that handheld/VFR GPS units are not acceptable for VFR use is that they not not include an integrity capability. That is essential for IFR ops. Can you explain why that is so? Let me ask you a few things. 1) Are you aware that the clocks onboard a GPS satellite can malfunction? 2) Are you aware that when a malfunction occurs that the users' GPS unit derived position can drift off by hundreds or thousands of miles? 3) Are you aware that the pilot may well have ZERO indication of that failure without an integrity functionality in his user equipment? If your responses are "So," "So," and "So" then I have no desire to ever fly with you if you are a pilot. Ron Lee |
#170
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS
"Ron Lee" wrote in message ... "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote: "Ron Lee" wrote in message ... A primary reason that handheld/VFR GPS units are not acceptable for VFR use is that they not not include an integrity capability. That is essential for IFR ops. Can you explain why that is so? Let me ask you a few things. 1) Are you aware that the clocks onboard a GPS satellite can malfunction? 2) Are you aware that when a malfunction occurs that the users' GPS unit derived position can drift off by hundreds or thousands of miles? 3) Are you aware that the pilot may well have ZERO indication of that failure without an integrity functionality in his user equipment? If your responses are "So," "So," and "So" then I have no desire to ever fly with you if you are a pilot. I'm aware that anything can malfunction. I've answered your questions, it's time for you to answer mine. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
HANDHELD RADIO | [email protected] | Soaring | 22 | March 17th 16 03:16 PM |
Navcom - handheld VS panel ? | [email protected] | Home Built | 10 | October 31st 05 08:08 PM |
GPS Handheld | Kai Glaesner | Instrument Flight Rules | 2 | November 16th 04 04:01 PM |
Upgrade handheld GPS, or save for panel mount? | [email protected] | Owning | 7 | March 8th 04 03:33 PM |
Ext antenna connection for handheld radio | Ray Andraka | Owning | 7 | March 5th 04 01:10 PM |