On 28 Jan 2007 05:09:48 -0800, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:

It's interesting that people tend to be distrustful of new technology,
unless they find it entertaining and interesting, in which case they
often become suddenly willing to overlook the risks.

I think you're forgetting that it takes forever for all the old stuff
to go away -- at least not in America. Even though I rarely turn them
on, I've got dual VORs in the panel, with dual glide-slope indicators,
and (until last month) I still had DME, too. (I yanked it out, and
gained 10 pounds of useful load...)

Relying on GPS for VFR flying is only a "risk" if you believe that
everything else fails, too. IFR flying, flying an approach to
minimums in ice, now THAT is a different story.

I trust no one sorce of navigation.
I fly by the GPS, but I have both VORs (oneis RNAV) and the NDB on and
in use.

Sure the GPS gives me a course I couldn't come near following on any
of the other pieces of equipment, but the GPS system has been known to
fail. Only twice that I've heard of and I wasn't flying at the time,
but no piece of equipment is fail proof, nor is any specific mode of
navigation.

That is why the government decided to keep the VORs around for a
while.

GPS needs a back up.

However, even with IFR the situational awareness and accuracy of GPS
is so markedly improved that I really don't know any "hard" IFR pilots
who *don't* rely on GPS anymore. Every one of the pilots I know who
routinely fly IFR relies heavily on GPS technology now -- and that's
only proper.

I'd say I choose to use the technology, but not to rely on it. As in
any flight always have a "way out" and always have a back up.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com