IFR with a VFR GPS

Jonathan Goodish wrote:
Feature implementations should be readily apparent.

it certainly is but everything behind the scenes is not.
This includes product design and stability, product
serialization (product tracking), documentation for
installation and servicing, etc. For instance, a certified
IFR GPS will definitely require more testing during
the design and release as well as during the installation
than a non-certified unit. Is this apparent to the user,
no, it is not.

Gerald Sylvester

In article ,
Gerald Sylvester wrote:
installation and servicing, etc. For instance, a certified
IFR GPS will definitely require more testing during
the design and release as well as during the installation
than a non-certified unit. Is this apparent to the user,
no, it is not.


I would be willing to bet that Garmin shares a significant amount of
code between their panels and their handhelds, at least when it comes to
the 396. And, the Jepp data is the Jepp data. Sure, there is no
certification document with which handhelds must comply, but I just
don't think it's worth losing any sleep over, or even giving much though
to, for enroute navigation. I just don't care. In almost 10 years of
using various hand held GPS units in the airplane for enroute
navigation, I have never ended up in the wrong place. That's certainly
more than I can say for my ADF.



JKG

In article ,
Jonathan Goodish wrote:

In almost 10 years of using various hand held GPS units in the airplane
for enroute navigation, I have never ended up in the wrong place.
That's certainly more than I can say for my ADF.

Be careful who hears you say that. You're using logic. The FAA doesn't
like it when you do that.

"Jonathan Goodish" wrote:

I would be willing to bet that Garmin shares a significant amount of
code between their panels and their handhelds, at least when it comes
to
the 396. And, the Jepp data is the Jepp data. Sure, there is no
certification document with which handhelds must comply, but I just
don't think it's worth losing any sleep over, or even giving much
though
to, for enroute navigation. I just don't care. In almost 10 years of
using various hand held GPS units in the airplane for enroute
navigation, I have never ended up in the wrong place. That's
certainly
more than I can say for my ADF.

Bingo.

Jonathan Goodish wrote:
In article ,
Gerald Sylvester wrote
I would be willing to bet that Garmin shares a significant amount of
code between their panels and their handhelds, at least when it comes to
the 396.

Handhelds like the Garmin Forerunner? As I said, the big difference
between certified and non-certified is the behind the scenese design
and testing. If it isn't tested, it leaves a LOT of room for
potential problems that Garmin might know about but doesn't
want to spend $$$$ and additional testing to fix.

For the 396, yes, I agree. 90% of the code is the same but that
doesn't guarantee that it works nor is compatible with the hardware.
Your system yes through trial and error. For the one manufactured
next week with the different chipset (I'm completely making this up
and have no inside knowledge at all....I could have named any
handheld GPS unit), maybe not.

Sure, there is no
certification document with which handhelds must comply, but I just
don't think it's worth losing any sleep over, or even giving much though
to, for enroute navigation. I just don't care.

would you care if a handheld you are using decides to improperly
calculate the route to all waypoints 200 or more miles away?
I'm sure you would. What about if the manufacturer knows about this
and doesn't tell you about it? I'm sure you would.

Ever wonder why US Part 121 and 135 operators spend hundreds of
thousands and more to get certified GPS systems when the $25 00
Garmin 396 can do the same. All comes down to liability.

I wish I could afford the 396 as it seems to be a great unit.

Gerald

Gerald Sylvester wrote:
Jonathan Goodish wrote:

In article ,
Gerald Sylvester wrote
Handhelds like the Garmin Forerunner? As I said, the big difference
between certified and non-certified is the behind the scenese design
and testing. If it isn't tested, it leaves a LOT of room for
potential problems that Garmin might know about but doesn't
want to spend $$$$ and additional testing to fix.

Before I **** off the Garmin lawyers, I was referring to the
Forerunner used as a mission-critical aviation GPS rather
than its intended use. I'm sure it wasn't tested for aviation
purposes and therefore has no requirement to adhere to strict
aviation requirements hence their no desire to spend money
and time testing it to those requirements.

Gerald