IFR use of handheld GPS

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:


"Ron Lee" wrote in message
...

You have neither answered my questions nor done what I suggested. Why
not?


Your "questions" were actually one question. I answered them when I said
anything can malfunction. I'll do what you suggested after you send me
money to pay for the flight.

I'm left to conclude you cannot answer my question.

I'm left to conclude that you are not a pilot to entrust with anyone's
life. Do you need a reg to tell you not to fly into thunderstorms?
Do you need a reg to tell you not to fly into known icing conditions
with an aircraft not approved for it?

Do as you wish. Just don't take anyone with you should you fall prey
to Darwinism.

Ron Lee

"Ron Lee" wrote in message
...

I'm left to conclude that you are not a pilot to entrust with anyone's
life.


Upon what do you base that conclusion?



Do you need a reg to tell you not to fly into thunderstorms?


Nope. Do you?



Do you need a reg to tell you not to fly into known icing conditions
with an aircraft not approved for it?


Nope do you?



Do as you wish. Just don't take anyone with you should you fall prey
to Darwinism.


Do you see any similarity at all between flying into thunderstorms or flying
into known icing conditions with an aircraft not approved for it and
enroute IFR navigation by handheld GPS in US controlled airspace?

Ron Lee wrote:

I'm left to conclude that you are not a pilot to entrust with anyone's
life. Do you need a reg to tell you not to fly into thunderstorms?
Do you need a reg to tell you not to fly into known icing conditions
with an aircraft not approved for it?

Do as you wish. Just don't take anyone with you should you fall prey
to Darwinism.

Ron Lee

So you now assume that navigating direct with a handheld GPS is
dangerous? Why is that? I can understand why people disagree whether
its "legal" or not, but safety? And pushing RAIM won't convince me.
I've seen almost as many IFR panel mount units give unreliable data or
drop out unexpectedly as I have seen that happen in handhelds. And
just a couple of days ago someone related the story in another thread
regarding his glideslope instrumentation going bad and causing the
autopilot, on a coupled ILS, to reach DH some two miles early. I'd
call that a safety issue.

In article .com,
wrote:

So you now assume that navigating direct with a handheld GPS is
dangerous? Why is that? I can understand why people disagree whether
its "legal" or not, but safety? And pushing RAIM won't convince me.

If you don't understand RAIM, then why bother asking about safety?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Bob Noel wrote:
If you don't understand RAIM, then why bother asking about safety?

I didn't say I didn't understand RAIM. I just don't care. I am not
convinced that it is necessary for enroute navigation that can be
"safely" accomplished with 30-year old VOR receivers.

My question is how is using a handheld GPS while in radar contact
unsafe? Or more to the point, how is it less safe than using a
combination of radar vectors and VORs? Is "fly heading 320, direct XYZ
VOR when able" any safer?

Sure a panel-mount TSOed IFR approved GPS is supposed to tell you when
its got an inconsistent solution of your position, and therefore it is
more reliable than a handheld, but we're not comparing panel mounts
with handhelds. We're comparing ADF/VOR navigation with handheld GPS.

Peter

In article . com,
wrote:

Bob Noel wrote:
If you don't understand RAIM, then why bother asking about safety?

I didn't say I didn't understand RAIM. I just don't care. I am not
convinced that it is necessary for enroute navigation that can be
"safely" accomplished with 30-year old VOR receivers.

It seems to me that you've already made up your mind wrt safety.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Bob Noel wrote:

It seems to me that you've already made up your mind wrt safety.

I have an opinion. That's not the same as being closed-minded. I'm
happy to hear the other side of the argument if you'd care to write it
down instead of just snapping back at me with one-liners.

wrote:

Bob Noel wrote:


It seems to me that you've already made up your mind wrt safety.


I have an opinion. That's not the same as being closed-minded. I'm
happy to hear the other side of the argument if you'd care to write it
down instead of just snapping back at me with one-liners.

It is perfectly safe to use a good handheld for en route in most
circumstances, provided the antenna is located correctly, and so forth.

En route RAIM is a very loose spec, compared to approach RAIM.

But, the issue here is legality.

Then, there is the question of having a current database, more for
safety than legality in this case.

In article . com,
wrote:

Bob Noel wrote:

It seems to me that you've already made up your mind wrt safety.

I have an opinion. That's not the same as being closed-minded. I'm
happy to hear the other side of the argument if you'd care to write it
down instead of just snapping back at me with one-liners.

Do you think that we should look for improvements in safety or are you
of the opinion that the level of safety of, say, 1950 is sufficient today?
(this isn't a one-liner - just starting the dialog).

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...

If you don't understand RAIM, then why bother asking about safety?


Nothing in his message suggested he doesn't understand RAIM.