"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.