IFR with a VFR GPS

If he had asked for the Tuna Fish approach to his destination I would agree. He asked for the GPS approach and the only GPS on board his aircraft was the hand held.

Oh.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"John Theune" wrote in message
news:qP5df.115$9T4.18@trnddc04...

If he had asked for the Tuna Fish approach to his destination I would
agree. He asked for the GPS approach and the only GPS on board his
aircraft was the hand held.


Which appears worked just fine, as the aircraft impacted a tower that was
virtually on the FAC centerline.

"Peter R." wrote in message
...

Perhaps, but the reason for my reference to the accident in this thread
was
to support my point that the possibility exists for instrument-rated
pilots
to use a VFR GPS as the only means of navigation. It is unquestionable
that this accident pilot did.


That's unquestionable only if the VFR GPS was the only nav gear aboard the
airplane. I think that unlikely. Since the aircraft struck a tower which
was only slightly off the FAC there's no reason to believe a navigational
error contributed to this accident.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

That's unquestionable only if the VFR GPS was the only nav gear aboard the
airplane. I think that unlikely.

The pilot was cleared to fly a GPS approach in an aircraft without an IFR
certified GPS. How else is he going to navigate the approach course?

--
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
...

The pilot was cleared to fly a GPS approach in an aircraft without an IFR
certified GPS. How else is he going to navigate the approach course?


Irrelevant. The presence of a VFR GPS does not preclude the use of any
other navigational systems. Given that the aircraft struck a tower that was
very nearly on the FAC centerline it appears that navigating the approach
course was not a problem.

Peter R. wrote:
wrote:


That accident was the result of the pilot's failure to fly the correct
altitude. It had nothing to do with the type of GPS being used.


Perhaps, but the reason for my reference to the accident in this thread was
to support my point that the possibility exists for instrument-rated pilots
to use a VFR GPS as the only means of navigation. It is unquestionable
that this accident pilot did.


Perhaps? Perhaps the VFR GPS shoved the yoke forward, causing him to
bust the altitude?

John Theune wrote:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...23X05372&key=1

According to the accident report the plane impacted a tower just left of
the centerline but 450 below the published minimum height. Short of
WAAS no GPS will keep you from trouble if you don't follow the altitude
restrictions on the plate. I find it interesting that the report
mentions that a GPS was found in the plane but makes no mention of
charts on board. Could this have been a case of him not having the
plate but trying to fly the approach from his VFR GPS? If this is the
case the certification level of the GPS has no bearing in the crash.

Baro is used for height.

Ron Lee