"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...
"Greg Goodknight" wrote:
GPS is something I'd like to have since many airports only have
a GPS approach, and at my home airport (O17) the GPS
approach has an MEA that's 272 above the tdze, vs. 1128
for the VOR. A greater chance for successfully
landing at the intended airport is a powerful incentive.

Exactly why I'd put it #1.

However, to my mind safety is a different issue and the reality may be
that GPS's do not actually increase safety, and some or all current
GPS's could actually decrease safety over traditional land based
navaids. One particular fatal accident that sticks in my mind as
probably GPS related is this SR 20 inbound to RHV, which went
haywire after passing the FAF:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...06X00175&key=1

Well, no approach or equipment is "pilot proof." To conclude from this
that GPS's do not actually increase safety is a bit of a stretch, don't
you think? It was a GPS approach, so of course it was "GPS related" but
it sounds to me like the pilot became distracted while hand flying the
approach.

I think it not a stretch at all to conclude the pilot was probably
distracted by the GPS. Pressed some button he shouldn't have after passing
the FAF (final approach fix), maybe. Maybe a power glitch, who knows. He
certainly wasn't focused on the directional gyro.

Just came from the airport here and mentioned this conversation with my
favorite CFII and Meridian charter operator. He doesn't think IFR GPSs add
any safety either, just utility. In fact they can be dangerous if the pilot
i fiddling with the unit and loses track of what is important. Like
altitude.

VOR/ILS/LOC may be crude but what they lack in utility they make up for (in
safety) by being a very robust technology with a very simple user interface
and an instantaneous reboot time



I get most of the safety benefits (accurate ground track and speed,
situational awareness, nearest airport, ETA) of an IFR GPS by
using a handheld VFR "only" Garmin GPS 92, with a bonus of it
being the only working NAV device on the airplane if I have a
failure of the aircraft electrical system.

Same here. I will not fly IFR without my 295.

To my mind, the huge cost of installation and software maintenance of
currently available IFR GPS units is not justified by the very few
times
that it would save me the inconvenience of landing 30 miles away at
the
nearest civilian runway served by an ILS and rent a car or pester a
friend
to come pick me up.

That's where we disagree -- except about the fact that the cost is huge!
Recent experience has taught me that a certified GPS is an absolute must
nowadays.

Perhaps when some manufacturer decides to support the
raw FAA Digital Database (FAA/NACO claims availability
in December), I'll think about it again.

Not familiar. What's that going to do for us?

Decrease the cash flow from you to Jeppessen. The Jepp prices dropped to the
current level when the FAA announced the project. Now it's being delivered.
I'm not buying a GPS that requires me to buy FAA data at a high price from a
third or fourth party.

-Greg

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM