IFR with a VFR GPS

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...

Oh, Jose, you're giving up too easily!

One of the (many) risks of UAHGPSFIFRENIUSCAS (you figure it out) is
that a pilot might become complacent about using his primary navaids,
particularly off-airways since the constant VOR twiddling required for
off-airway navigation is such a pain in the ass and the use of the GPS
is so effortless and (almost invariably) reliable.


But off-airways flight doesn't require any VOR twiddling. You don't have to
monitor your position with any other navaids if you don't want to. You can
rely on ATC for radar monitoring and, if necessary, course guidance.

You say there are many risks in UAHGPSFIFRENIUSCAS. Could you please
identify some of them? Even one would be nice, I've been asking this
question for nearly ten years now and nobody has identified one yet.



Yes, complacency is a form of incompetence. But that does make it any
less of a risk. Pilot complacency, in all its many manifestations, is a
widely recognized risk. Furthermore (and this is the important part)
this particular form of complacency CANNOT MANIFEST ITSELF EXCEPT WHEN A
HANDHELD GPS IS IN USE. That makes it reasonable to assign at least
part of the causality to the use of the GPS.


Why can't that particular form of complacency manifest itself when on a
long-range vector?

The pilot can always ask ATC for navigational assistance, but they
can't provide an inflight snack.

OTFL

I've been asking this
question for nearly ten years now and nobody has identified one yet.

Why do you keep asking this question? Surely it is not to acquire
information, or to dispense any. Rather, you seem to be pressing the
point that "use" and "rely on" are not the same.

Do you think this is a point not understood by other participants here?

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

"Jose" wrote in message
. ..

Why do you keep asking this question? Surely it is not to acquire
information, or to dispense any. Rather, you seem to be pressing the
point that "use" and "rely on" are not the same.


When someone says that use of a handheld GPS for IFR enroute navigation in
US controlled airspace is either hazardous or illegal I ask them to identify
the hazard or the law that is being violated. I do that so that I may know
what they think the hazard to be or what law they believe is being violated.
If they respond I explain the error in their thinking and sometimes
information is dispersed that way.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:


When someone says that use of a handheld GPS for IFR enroute navigation in
US controlled airspace is either hazardous or illegal I ask them to identify
the hazard or the law that is being violated. I do that so that I may know
what they think the hazard to be or what law they believe is being violated.
*If they respond I explain the error in their thinking and sometimes
information is dispersed that way.*



So, then,

If they respond to your questioning of their post, you automatically
tell them they are in error, regardless of what they have to say.
That's good stuff, McNicoll, and tells us a lot about your character, at
least here on the newsgroups.

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

"Scott Skylane" wrote in message
...

So, then,

If they respond to your questioning of their post, you automatically tell
them they are in error, regardless of what they have to say. That's good
stuff, McNicoll, and tells us a lot about your character, at least here on
the newsgroups.


What does it tell you about my character?

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

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...

Oh, Jose, you're giving up too easily!

One of the (many) risks of UAHGPSFIFRENIUSCAS (you figure it out) is
that a pilot might become complacent about using his primary navaids,
particularly off-airways since the constant VOR twiddling required for
off-airway navigation is such a pain in the ass and the use of the GPS
is so effortless and (almost invariably) reliable.


But off-airways flight doesn't require any VOR twiddling.

It does if you're out of radar coverage. So the essential elements of
the risk a

1. No radar coverage (or a controller not paying attention, which has
also been known to happen)
2. Pilot decides to rely on GPS alone for guidance (complacency) and
3. GPS fails silently.

Granted, it's not a large risk. But it is possible, and it is possible
ONLY in the presence of a VFR-only GPS.

You say there are many risks in UAHGPSFIFRENIUSCAS. Could you please
identify some of them?

I just identified one. I identified another in another branch of this
this thread.

BTW, just because the risks are numerous does not mean that they are
significant. (But just because they are not significant does not mean
that they do not exist.)

Yes, complacency is a form of incompetence. But that does make it any
less of a risk. Pilot complacency, in all its many manifestations, is a
widely recognized risk. Furthermore (and this is the important part)
this particular form of complacency CANNOT MANIFEST ITSELF EXCEPT WHEN A
HANDHELD GPS IS IN USE. That makes it reasonable to assign at least
part of the causality to the use of the GPS.


Why can't that particular form of complacency manifest itself when on a
long-range vector?

Because you can't decide to stop using your VORs and use your GPS
instead if you do not have a GPS. Isn't that obvious?

You are using up your quota of stupid questions.

rg

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...

It does if you're out of radar coverage.


You're not going to be out of radar coverage. Haven't you been paying
attention? Routes off-airways or beyond normal navaid usable distances
require ATC to provide radar monitoring and course guidance if necessary.



I just identified one. I identified another in another branch of this
this thread.


You identified what you erroneously believed to be risks. You didn't
identify any actual risks.



BTW, just because the risks are numerous does not mean that they are
significant. (But just because they are not significant does not mean
that they do not exist.)


Numerous risks? You cited only two, and they weren't actually risks.



Because you can't decide to stop using your VORs and use your GPS
instead if you do not have a GPS. Isn't that obvious?


But I can complacently decide to stop using my VORs if I'm on a long-range
vector. Isn't that similarity obvious?



You are using up your quota of stupid questions.


Do you realize you haven't answered any of my questions correctly?

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

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...

It does if you're out of radar coverage.


You're not going to be out of radar coverage. Haven't you been paying
attention? Routes off-airways or beyond normal navaid usable distances
require ATC to provide radar monitoring and course guidance if necessary.

shrug So make the scenario on-airway. Or have the radar fail. Or
have the controller not paying attention. Or have the pilot file /G.
There are myriad possibilities.

I just identified one. I identified another in another branch of this
this thread.


You identified what you erroneously believed to be risks. You didn't
identify any actual risks.

Yes I did, though as I suspected it hasn't done any good. You seem to
have a different definition of "risk" than most people.

If handheld GPS is not a risk then neither is AI failure. The two
differ only in their likelihoods; structurally the two situations are
identical. Both GPS and the AI provide information that can be wrong.
Both have backups that are supposed to kick in if the information is in
fact wrong. In both cases the backups can fail, or the pilot can fail
to use them properly. And in both cases if the pilot does realize that
the information is wrong and act accordingly the results can be
catastrophic. Does that constitute a risk? I think most people would
say yes. (We could take a poll.)

(There is actually one structural difference, and that is that the GPS
might not be rigidly attached to the airframe, whereas the AI
necessarily is. But that's just an additional source of risk for the
GPS in most cases.)

BTW, just because the risks are numerous does not mean that they are
significant. (But just because they are not significant does not mean
that they do not exist.)


Numerous risks? You cited only two, and they weren't actually risks.

I stopped at two because extrapolating from those two examples to many
others is an elementary exercise in applying some imagination (which you
seem to lack). Also because, as I suspected, it would be futile.
Additional examples will not convince you. You will simply dismiss them
as not being risks.

Because you can't decide to stop using your VORs and use your GPS
instead if you do not have a GPS. Isn't that obvious?


But I can complacently decide to stop using my VORs if I'm on a long-range
vector. Isn't that similarity obvious?

Of course. But that is, as you yourself are so fond of pointing out,
not the topic under discussion. That there are many different possible
root causes of a catastrophic chain of events does not reduce the risk
associated with any one of those root causes. The risk associated with
AI failure is not reduced just because there are also other ways one
might get disoriented. Likewise for GPS.

You are using up your quota of stupid questions.


Do you realize you haven't answered any of my questions correctly?

No. Do you realize that that was another stupid question?

rg

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...

shrug So make the scenario on-airway.


On-airways flight doesn't require any VOR twiddling either.



Or have the radar fail.


Then the controller will issue a route on-airways or within normal navaid
usable distances.



Or have the controller not paying attention.


If you're not prepared to trust the controller to pay attention you're not
prepared to operate IFR in controlled airspace.



Or have the pilot file /G.


Radar monitoring is still required.

Off-airways IFR flight was not made possible by the advent of GPS, it was
made possible by ATC radar.



There are myriad possibilities.


It's clear there are many things which you believe are possibilities but
actually are not.



Yes I did, though as I suspected it hasn't done any good. You seem to
have a different definition of "risk" than most people.


Ya think? State your definition so we can compare it to the dictionary
definition.



If handheld GPS is not a risk then neither is AI failure. The two
differ only in their likelihoods; structurally the two situations are
identical. Both GPS and the AI provide information that can be wrong.
Both have backups that are supposed to kick in if the information is in
fact wrong. In both cases the backups can fail, or the pilot can fail
to use them properly.


I don't see a lot of similarity. The most difficult aspect of an AI failure
can be determining that it is the AI that has failed. If you're in solid
cloud and the AI and TC are providing conflicting information, how do you
determine which is incorrect? In a study done some years ago in a simulator
that situation resulted in a loss of control by most pilots in less than a
minute.

If your GPS fails and you drift off course the controller alerts you to the
situation, you don't have to figure out anything on your own.



And in both cases if the pilot does realize that
the information is wrong and act accordingly the results can be
catastrophic. Does that constitute a risk? I think most people would
say yes. (We could take a poll.)


We could, but if facts and logic wont sway you it seems unlikely that poll
results will.



I stopped at two because extrapolating from those two examples to many
others is an elementary exercise in applying some imagination (which you
seem to lack). Also because, as I suspected, it would be futile.
Additional examples will not convince you. You will simply dismiss them
as not being risks.


Of course. I'd look pretty foolish if I didn't dismiss non-risks as not
being risks.



Do you realize you haven't answered any of my questions correctly?


No.


No surprise there.



Do you realize that that was another stupid question?


Not at all. It's purpose was to determine whether you were feigning
stupidity or if it was genuine. Assuming you answered it honestly, we now
know you're genuinely stupid.

In article ,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...

shrug So make the scenario on-airway.


On-airways flight doesn't require any VOR twiddling either.

Yes it does, just not as much. Are you a pilot?


Or have the radar fail.


Then the controller will issue a route on-airways or within normal navaid
usable distances.

And how will you arrive at an airway if you are not already on one when
the radar fails? Will you use your teleporter?


Or have the controller not paying attention.


If you're not prepared to trust the controller to pay attention you're not
prepared to operate IFR in controlled airspace.

It's an easy out to just assume that one of the components in the
failure chain is infallible. If that is the case then indeed there is
no risk. But it isn't, so there is.


Or have the pilot file /G.


Radar monitoring is still required.

Off-airways IFR flight was not made possible by the advent of GPS, it was
made possible by ATC radar.

I thought it was made possible by RNAV, but I confess I'm not an
authority. Do you have a reference?


Yes I did, though as I suspected it hasn't done any good. You seem to
have a different definition of "risk" than most people.


Ya think? State your definition so we can compare it to the dictionary
definition.

Risk (n): The possibility of suffering harm or loss

Taken from dictionary.com.

And yours?

If handheld GPS is not a risk then neither is AI failure. The two
differ only in their likelihoods; structurally the two situations are
identical. Both GPS and the AI provide information that can be wrong.
Both have backups that are supposed to kick in if the information is in
fact wrong. In both cases the backups can fail, or the pilot can fail
to use them properly.


I don't see a lot of similarity. The most difficult aspect of an AI failure
can be determining that it is the AI that has failed. If you're in solid
cloud and the AI and TC are providing conflicting information, how do you
determine which is incorrect? In a study done some years ago in a simulator
that situation resulted in a loss of control by most pilots in less than a
minute.

If your GPS fails and you drift off course the controller alerts you to the
situation, you don't have to figure out anything on your own.

Again, this assumes infallible controllers -- and infallible radar and
infallible communications equipment both on the ground and in the
airplane. If all these things were indeed infallible you would be
correct. But they aren't, so you're not.

I'm going to try to merge our two sub-threads he

Well, Ron, the fact of the matter is a failed AI is quite sufficient to
produce an unusual attitude.

If that were true then every instance of a failed AI would necessarily
result in an unusual attitude. (That is what it means to be a
sufficient condition.) But that is clearly not the case.

PPIASEL with just over 500 hours. I fly an SR22. I have also in the
past flown IFR in a 182RG/A both with and without a handheld GPS (yoke
mounted) and felt a lot safer on the whole when I had it than when I
didn't.


Was any of it logged in the US?

All of it.

Was any of it logged outside of MSFS?

I see that when logic and reasoning fail you, you revert to insulting
your opponent. So I guess I must be winning this argument.

So you're saying the hazard presented by use of a handheld GPS for enroute
IFR navigation in US controlled airspace is loss of rudder control. Is that
correct?

Not *the*, *a*.

You said use of a handheld GPS for IFR enroute navigation in US
controlled airspace is hazardous because it could compel the pilot to turn
off all his other avionics or jam the rudder pedals.

That is a caricature of my position.

And you think me an
idiot because I try to explain why that isn't so.

You have no basis for believing that I think you are an idiot other than
your own paranoia. I tend not to judge people so harshly. Very few
pilots are idiots (very few idiots have what it takes to fly a plane),
even though nearly all of them say and do idiotic things on occasion
(like calling their fellow pilots idiots) -- myself no doubt included.

Since you brought it up, this is my assessment of you:

On the surface you seem to be incapable (or unwilling) to grasp the
difference between a small or insignificant risk and a non-existent one.
But my guess is that deep down inside you do understand this, but your
ego simply won't let you admit it because you have dug your heels in so
deeply on this. The irony is that the difference between what you
actually say and the truth is only one little word. If you would merely
hedge your position a little bit by saying that there are no
*significant* risks associated with using a VFR GPS in IFR then everyone
will simply agree with you (or at least I will) and we can all stop this
silliness and go flying.

rg