IFR use of handheld GPS

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.

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
newseb8g.176055$bm6.60789@fed1read04...

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.


Legality isn't an issue either. Since use of a handheld GPS during IFR
enroute flight in US controlled airspace does not by itself violate any FAR
it is perfectly legal.

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:
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

Yeah, I agree. Safety improvements are great. So how is safety
improved by telling people with perfectly good handheld GPSs that they
must stay on the airways and navigate with their VORs?

In article .com,
wrote:

Yeah, I agree. Safety improvements are great.

The tone of your reply makes me wonder...

So how is safety
improved by telling people with perfectly good handheld GPSs

How do you KNOW that the handheld GPS is "perfectly good"?




that they
must stay on the airways and navigate with their VORs?

Who said they have to?

--
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.