![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Peter R." wrote in message ... Primary navigation (the VFR GPS) is no longer reliable, the aircraft is IMC, and the pilot is unaware that the unit is no longer reliable. Those are not properties of a problem? I don't think so. If the aircraft drifts off course the controller will nudge it back and the pilot will then be aware that the unit is no longer reliable. No problem. But chewing up TONS of radio time becomes a problem for all aircraft. On another thread, you argued that saying the extra zero for runway zero-nine takes up time. Now we're talking about taking up probably minutes of time. that I see as a problem especially if the controller then gives a clearance direct to a VOR/NDB that is not within range or is not in the database. That chews up serious amounts of more airtime. I've read many reports of controllers getting ****ed at pilots for not having waypoints in their certified GPS. I can only imagine what happens when pilot has nothing in their "database" other than a few points. For the pilot with the VFR GPS, your primary navigation becomes radar vectors. I'd rather know where I am at ALL time rather than depending on a controller. I know of one pilot getting RV in IMC, controller forgot about him and augered it in (CFIT). I can definitely see how a VFR GPS is useful when flying enroute and VMC with loads of VOR's for use as a backup (err, primary navigation). To do it, single pilot, in IMC, just has many single point failures or where you have backups but requires a lot of work to get positively established/stabilized again. Gerald Sylvester |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|