"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.