wrote:

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?

Not really. As long as your hand held can tell you when you when it
doesn't have enough satellites for 2D navigation. In which case, you go
missed just like you would with a panel mount.


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.

Which is my point: if you have a panel mount without WAAS, it's no
better than a handheld. So why shouldn't you be allowed to use a
handheld for the same operations as a panel mount IFR approved GPS?

It really comes down to not being able to control the installation. But
the installation is all about signal reception. If the FAA (or other
nations' equivalents) sets a reception standard for IFR operations, the
GPS manufactures can update the software to tell you when you are not
receiving IFR quality signal (just like at least some do for 2D and 3D
navigation). So technically it's completely plausible to have an IFR
certified handheld.

Bureaucratically is a different story.


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame
## VP, Product Development
## MFM Software, Inc. (http://www.mfm.com/)
"And so it was only with the advent of pocket computers that the
startling truth became finally apparent, and it was this:

Numbers written on restaurant checks within the confines of
restaurants do not follow the same mathematical laws as numbers
written on any other pieces of paper in any other parts of the
Universe."
-- Life, the Universe, and Everything, Douglas Adams