IFR with a VFR GPS

Thomas Borchert wrote:

Then he doesn't adhere to the rules. That's like asking: What if the pilots
points the airplane at the ground?

Apples and oranges. Pointing the aircraft at the ground is not analogous
to using a VFR GPS to navigate.

Besides, what rule is broken by pointing the aircraft at the ground?

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Peter R." wrote in message
...

Assuming the aircraft is in controlled airspace. What if it isn't?


We're not assuming the aircraft is in controlled airspace, we know it is.
That was established in the original message.

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

"Gerald Sylvester" wrote:

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.

??

What waypoints are found in my certified KLN 90-B that aren't found in
my 396?

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Gerald Sylvester" wrote in message
om...

But chewing up TONS of radio time becomes a problem for all aircraft.


Nudging aircraft back on course is done all the time, it doesn't chew up
TONS of radio time.



On another thread, you argued that saying the extra zero for runway
zero-nine takes up time.


I said that in response to someone that said saying the extra zero takes
little time. But I didn't say the extra zero should be avoided in order to
save time, I said it should be avoided because it is a source for potential
confusion. The time saved is a small bonus.



Now we're talking about taking up probably
minutes of time.


No we're not, we're talking about a few seconds. Aircraft wander off course
from time to time and have been doing so since long before there was GPS.



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.


No, it doesn't. Where do you get these ideas?



I've read many reports of controllers getting ****ed at pilots for
not having waypoints in their certified GPS.


Cite some of them.



I can only imagine
what happens when pilot has nothing in their "database" other than a few
points.


How is that pertinent to this discussion?



For the pilot with the VFR GPS, your primary navigation
becomes radar vectors.


How so?



I'd rather know where I am at ALL time rather
than depending on a controller.


Do you fly IFR with nothing but a GPS on board?



I know of one pilot getting RV in IMC,
controller forgot about him and augered it in (CFIT).


Did that pilot have no nav radios on board?



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.


So you're saying that having a GPS on board in IMC creates excessive
workload on the pilot and adds many points of failure. I think most pilots
would disagree with you, but no matter, your "problem" is remedied by simply
not having the GPS on board.

Gerald Sylvester wrote:

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.

How does a handheld GPS have more SPOFs than a panel mount IFR certified
GPS? I would submit it has less because with a handheld electric power
is no longer a single point of failure like it is with a panel mount
(assuming you have a power adapter to plug it in and fresh batteries in
case you lose electric power).

The only legitimate argument that can be made is that the panel mount
GPS has an external antenna and the handheld relies on one mounted on
the windscreen or the unit itself.

I've been flying with a handheld GPS for almost ten years an have only
lost signal once in flight. And that was only for less than a minute.
Since I didn't do anything to get the signal back, I don't think it had
anything to do with antenna placement.

Now, if we're talking about precision GPS approaches, that's a different
story. But enroute navigation (and possibly even non-precision GPS
approaches) should be just as safe with a handheld as a panel mount.


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame
## VP, Product Development
## MFM Software, Inc. (http://www.mfm.com/)
"If you have to ask, you won't understand."

Mark T. Dame wrote:


Now, if we're talking about precision GPS approaches, that's a different
story. But enroute navigation (and possibly even non-precision GPS
approaches) should be just as safe with a handheld as a panel mount.

You will usually have as good of accuracy with a hand-held (with an
external antenna, but you lack the interity because you don't have
approach RAIM.

Would this ever matter?

It depends upon the volume of operations. For you personally, the
RAIM-hole day may never occur when you're using your hand-held for an
RNAV IAP.

Since there aren't any precision RNAV IAPs, other than LPV (which
requires WAAAS) I fail to see your distinction between precision and
non-precision.

wrote:
Now, if we're talking about precision GPS approaches, that's a different
story. But enroute navigation (and possibly even non-precision GPS
approaches) should be just as safe with a handheld as a panel mount.

You will usually have as good of accuracy with a hand-held (with an
external antenna, but you lack the interity because you don't have
approach RAIM.

Would this ever matter?

It depends upon the volume of operations. For you personally, the
RAIM-hole day may never occur when you're using your hand-held for an
RNAV IAP.

A RAIM hole would not affect position accuracy as long as there is no
GPS signal error...which are rare.

Ron Lee

Ron Lee wrote:
wrote:

A RAIM hole would not affect position accuracy as long as there is no
GPS signal error...which are rare.

Ron Lee

True, but that isn't the FAA or ICAO certification view of it all. The
folks who drive those standards are pretty sharp industry engineers, not
just FAA autocrats.

wrote:

Mark T. Dame wrote:

Now, if we're talking about precision GPS approaches, that's a
different story. But enroute navigation (and possibly even
non-precision GPS approaches) should be just as safe with a handheld
as a panel mount.

You will usually have as good of accuracy with a hand-held (with an
external antenna, but you lack the interity because you don't have
approach RAIM.

Would this ever matter?

Not really. As long as your hand held can tell you when you when it
doesn't have enough satellites for 2D navigation. In which case, you go
missed just like you would with a panel mount.


Since there aren't any precision RNAV IAPs, other than LPV (which
requires WAAAS) I fail to see your distinction between precision and
non-precision.

Which is my point: if you have a panel mount without WAAS, it's no
better than a handheld. So why shouldn't you be allowed to use a
handheld for the same operations as a panel mount IFR approved GPS?

It really comes down to not being able to control the installation. But
the installation is all about signal reception. If the FAA (or other
nations' equivalents) sets a reception standard for IFR operations, the
GPS manufactures can update the software to tell you when you are not
receiving IFR quality signal (just like at least some do for 2D and 3D
navigation). So technically it's completely plausible to have an IFR
certified handheld.

Bureaucratically is a different story.


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame
## VP, Product Development
## MFM Software, Inc. (http://www.mfm.com/)
"And so it was only with the advent of pocket computers that the
startling truth became finally apparent, and it was this:

Numbers written on restaurant checks within the confines of
restaurants do not follow the same mathematical laws as numbers
written on any other pieces of paper in any other parts of the
Universe."
-- Life, the Universe, and Everything, Douglas Adams