Will wrote:
As the lawyers like to say in court "evidence not in the record." There
is no proof at all for the claim that some straightforward math calculations
in any GPS software is going to to double the cost of the GPS. What I was
describing doesn't require any new hardware, and it's just a matter of
calculating some accuracy numbers and representing them in the standard UI.

If it prevents one death that results in a multi-million dollar lawsuit, it
would payback the one man-month of work it might take to do those
calculations in software 100 fold or more.


How would the use of the GPS be responsible for someone's death?

For VFR work, handeld or otherwise, GPS is an advisory system only, and
not guaranteed. User beware. Have alternative nav sources, like people
did for decades before GPS came on the scene. Did you read the
dislaimers on your GPS's packaging when you got it? Didn't read em? Too
bad.. Didn't buy it new and have the original packaging? Still your
problem. And being in VFR.. you shouldnt have to worry about conditions
bad enough to require an approach.

For IFR work, either you have a good signal, or you do NOT have a good
signal (as calculated by your reciever, and displayed in the form of a
RAIM integrity warning). No shades of gray here.

Based on the past few days worth of posts.. I'm guessing you haven't
done much in the way of actual IFR approaches to minimums.. and I am
also predicting you've not done any of it behind IFR approved GPS
devices, after having thoroughly read the manual and recieved training
in such... workload and workload reduction is crucial. What you propose
is to add workload, unnecesarily, to give quanititative data (percentage
points/errors) regarding something that is already addressed in a
qualitative manner (RAIM OK or NOT OK).

Now you try to justify its cost/benefit by a hypothetical lawsuit over
the lack of something that is not mandated, not needed and not justified?

Sorry... doesn't add up.
Dave