IFR with a VFR GPS

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...

I was not judging your character, I was stating an objectively
observable fact. Subtlety is, at least occasionally, lost on you (a
fact that you continue to demonstrate by failing to comprehend the point
that I am (subtly) making.)


No, you only think you were stating an objectively observable fact.



When idiots say idiotic things do you think that they realize that they
are being idiots or do you think that they believe themselves to be
completely correct?


Now you're touching on why your observation is incorrect. Peter R. said
something that was idiotic. He doesn't realize it was idiotic because he is
an idiot. I haven't said anything idiotic, everything I've said is
supported by facts and logic.



Just because you lack the imagination to think of another possible
reason for Jose's reluctance to engage you in debate is not proof that
he is incapable of doing so.


Jose is incapable of showing Cumulo Granite to be a hazard because Cumulo
Granite is not a hazard.



My credibility would matter if I were attempting to make an argument
from authority, but I am not. I prefer to let facts speak for
themselves.


As do I.

In article et,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

Peter R. said something that was idiotic. He doesn't realize it was
idiotic because he is an idiot.

OK, but you didn't answer my question, which was, "When idiots say
idiotic things do you think that they realize that they are being idiots
or do you think that they believe themselves to be completely correct?"

I haven't said anything idiotic

In the absence of an answer my question, your judgment on that
particular matter is suspect, particularly in light of:

Cumulo Granite is not a hazard.

That seems pretty idiotic to me.

rg

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...

OK, but you didn't answer my question, which was, "When idiots say
idiotic things do you think that they realize that they are being idiots
or do you think that they believe themselves to be completely correct?"


I think they believe themselves to be completeky correct.



In the absence of an answer my question, your judgment on that
particular matter is suspect, particularly in light of:

Cumulo Granite is not a hazard.

That seems pretty idiotic to me.


Why?

In article t,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...

OK, but you didn't answer my question, which was, "When idiots say
idiotic things do you think that they realize that they are being idiots
or do you think that they believe themselves to be completely correct?"


I think they believe themselves to be completeky correct.

OK.


In the absence of an answer my question, your judgment on that
particular matter is suspect, particularly in light of:

Cumulo Granite is not a hazard.

That seems pretty idiotic to me.


Why?

Because if you hit terrain (you were aware that "cumulo granite" is a
euphemism for terrain, yes?) you are unlikely to survive. And if you
survive you are unlikely to escape serious injury. And your airplane is
likely to be totaled as well. That to my mind qualifies as a hazard.

Isn't that obvious?

rg

Ron Garret wrote:

Because if you hit terrain (you were aware that "cumulo granite" is a
euphemism for terrain, yes?) you are unlikely to survive. And if you
survive you are unlikely to escape serious injury. And your airplane is
likely to be totaled as well. That to my mind qualifies as a hazard.

Isn't that obvious?

Familiar with that saying about wrestling with a pig? Last week, I
wasn't.


--
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 =----

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...

Because if you hit terrain (you were aware that "cumulo granite" is a
euphemism for terrain, yes?) you are unlikely to survive. And if you
survive you are unlikely to escape serious injury. And your airplane is
likely to be totaled as well. That to my mind qualifies as a hazard.

Isn't that obvious?


That's all true, but it's true of all flight. The use of a handheld GPS for
IFR enroute navigation in US controlled airspace is not going to cause a
mountain to appear in front of you or wrest control of the aircraft away
from you and dive it into the ground.

The use of a handheld GPS for
IFR enroute navigation in US controlled
airspace is not going to cause a
mountain to appear in front of you

Well, actually it could. Any navigation system which tells the pilot he
is in one place when he is actually in another, which is used by a pilot
who is in IMC, could cause the pilot to place himself in a position from
which a collision with a mountainous surprise is unavoidable. While it
is true that the navigation system did not move the mountain, the effect
on the pilot is the same.

I suppose the real risk of using^H^H^H^H^Hrelying on a VFR GPS is not
one of collision (this is a risk inherent in any navigation system) but
one of paperwork. If a pilot uses an IFR GPS and it misleads him into a
mountain of granite (or sandstone, or shale), the dead pilot can claim
that the fault does not lie with him. OTOH, if relying on a VFR GPS
causes him meet the same fate, a mountain of paperwork sufficient to
delay his appearances at the pearly gates will appear before him.

It may be that a VFR GPS which is clipped to the right part of the yoke
will provide better guidance in and among ridges than an IFR ADF. But
there is a risk, not present with an IFR installation of anything, that
the highly accurate VFR GPS unit will fall off the yoke at the wrong
moment, perhaps while outside of radar coverage, or on an approach.
There is a risk (present in VFR and IFR units) that the data displayed
is incorrect - it has happened in our aircraft (Danbury moved four
hundred miles without giving any notice to Ridgefield); IFR units are
(presumably, though only the manufacturer really knows) tested to higher
standards. There is a risk that the pilot will be unable to maintain
the more challenging scan required by certain VFR GPS "installations"
and thus will end up elsewhere than where he thought he was. Outside of
a radar environment, in hostle terrain, this could activate the ELT.

As for relying on controllers to "nudge" the aircraft back on course in
a radar environment, this would be true primarily in airspace controlled
by Steven P. McNicoll, who mever nakes mistakes. Merely human
controllers might, for any number of reasons incomprehensible to Steven,
miss something, allowing the pilot's error to terminate the flight
prematurely.

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

"Jose" wrote in message
news

Well, actually it could. Any navigation system which tells the pilot he
is in one place when he is actually in another, which is used by a pilot
who is in IMC, could cause the pilot to place himself in a position from
which a collision with a mountainous surprise is unavoidable. While it is
true that the navigation system did not move the mountain, the effect on
the pilot is the same.


The controller will alert the pilot to the navigational error. The use of a
handheld GPS for IFR enroute navigation in US controlled airspace is no more
hazardous than being vectored.



It may be that a VFR GPS which is clipped to the right part of the yoke
will provide better guidance in and among ridges than an IFR ADF. But
there is a risk, not present with an IFR installation of anything, that
the highly accurate VFR GPS unit will fall off the yoke at the wrong
moment, perhaps while outside of radar coverage, or on an approach.


We're talking about enroute use, not approaches. If the aircraft is out of
radar contact it will be routed via airways or within the usable limits of
navaids. The pilot will be able to compare the GPS to his VOR or ADF to
verify it's accuracy. The use of a handheld GPS for IFR enroute navigation
in US controlled airspace is no more hazardous than use of VOR along
airways.



There
is a risk (present in VFR and IFR units) that the data displayed is
incorrect - it has happened in our aircraft (Danbury moved four hundred
miles without giving any notice to Ridgefield); IFR units are (presumably,
though only the manufacturer really knows) tested to higher standards.
There is a risk that the pilot will be unable to maintain the more
challenging scan required by certain VFR GPS "installations" and thus will
end up elsewhere than where he thought he was. Outside of a radar
environment, in hostle terrain, this could activate the ELT.


The controller will alert the pilot to the navigational error. The use of a
handheld GPS for IFR enroute navigation in US controlled airspace is no more
hazardous than being vectored. If the aircraft is out of radar contact it
will be routed via airways or within the usable limits of navaids. The
pilot will be able to compare the GPS to his VOR or ADF to verify it's
accuracy. The use of a handheld GPS for IFR enroute navigation in US
controlled airspace is no more hazardous than use of VOR along airways.



As for relying on controllers to "nudge" the aircraft back on course in a
radar environment, this would be true primarily in airspace controlled by
Steven P. McNicoll, who mever nakes mistakes. Merely human controllers
might, for any number of reasons incomprehensible to Steven, miss
something, allowing the pilot's error to terminate the flight prematurely.


It is not an option, it is required of all controllers. If you can't trust
the controller to perform his job as he is required to do you cannot operate
IFR in controlled airspace.

In article et,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...

Because if you hit terrain (you were aware that "cumulo granite" is a
euphemism for terrain, yes?) you are unlikely to survive. And if you
survive you are unlikely to escape serious injury. And your airplane is
likely to be totaled as well. That to my mind qualifies as a hazard.

Isn't that obvious?


That's all true, but it's true of all flight. The use of a handheld GPS for
IFR enroute navigation in US controlled airspace is not going to cause a
mountain to appear in front of you or wrest control of the aircraft away
from you and dive it into the ground.

And there are no other possible ways to hit terrain?

rg

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...

And there are no other possible ways to hit terrain?


None that are caused by use of a handheld GPS for IFR enroute navigation in
US controlled airspace.