If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#191
|
|||
|
|||
IFR with a VFR GPS
Doug wrote: I think the lack of certified mounting is what makes VFR GPS a backup for flight in IMC, rather than a primary. It's not the mounting that makes it legal it's the testing of the unit after it is installed. |
#192
|
|||
|
|||
IFR with a VFR GPS
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message nk.net... "Marco Leon" mmleon(at)yahoo.com wrote in message ... Have you ever read either TSO-c146a or TSO-c129? One of the requirements specifies that the database in an IFR-certified box adhere to a higher tolerance of corruptibility. Are you sure the VFR portable's database was built to the same specifications? If not--higher risk. How so? If you really don't see the increased risk in using a database that is not safeguarded from being corrupted to a level that another one that is, then your ability to comprehend the subject matter at hand is far below the rest of the thread's participants. It would be useless to explain the other requirements of the TSO to you because you obviously would not understand any of the concepts. I can go on and list each item-by-item but you seem to be literate so you can read the TSOs at your leisure. Bottom line is as I stated in my previous post that you don't personally believe the requirements outlined in these documents reduce risk in any way, shape, or form. If that's the case, I'm glad you don't help the FAA develop these standards. If you believe there is a higher risk I think you should be able to identify that risk. You're trolling. |
#193
|
|||
|
|||
IFR with a VFR GPS
"Marco Leon" mmleon(at)yahoo.com wrote in message ... If you really don't see the increased risk in using a database that is not safeguarded from being corrupted to a level that another one that is, then your ability to comprehend the subject matter at hand is far below the rest of the thread's participants. It would be useless to explain the other requirements of the TSO to you because you obviously would not understand any of the concepts. I can understand anything you can explain. Do you think you can explain the hazard in the use of a handheld GPS during IFR enroute flight in US controlled airspace? Nobody else could. You're trolling. You bet I am. I'm trolling for someone, anyone, that can identify any risk in the use of a handheld GPS during IFR enroute flight in US controlled airspace. I've been doing that for several years without even a nibble. |
#194
|
|||
|
|||
IFR with a VFR GPS
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
If you believe there is a higher risk I think you should be able to identify that risk. Steven, if I could prove to you that a Godzilla would rise up and devour your airplane you would not believe it so further discussion on this matter is pointless. Do as you see fit. Ron Lee |
#195
|
|||
|
|||
IFR with a VFR GPS
"Ron Lee" wrote in message ... Steven, if I could prove to you that a Godzilla would rise up and devour your airplane you would not believe it so further discussion on this matter is pointless. Do as you see fit. Wrong. I will believe anything that you can prove. Why are you unwilling to simply state what the risk is? |
#196
|
|||
|
|||
IFR with a VFR GPS
In article et,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote: "Jose" wrote in message ... To you, I'm unable to explain. No, you're unable to explain at all. The following quote seems apropos he "A non-idiot doesn't need an explanation and an idiot wouldn't understand one." Can't remember just now who said it. (FWIW, I understood the point Jose was making even without an explanation.) rg |
#197
|
|||
|
|||
IFR with a VFR GPS
"Ron Garret" wrote in message ... The following quote seems apropos he "A non-idiot doesn't need an explanation and an idiot wouldn't understand one." Can't remember just now who said it. It was I that said it, and it's not appropriate here. Jose is not going to explain it because he has since learned that "Cumulo Granite" is not a hazard. (FWIW, I understood the point Jose was making even without an explanation.) Did you? Perhaps you'd like to explain why "Cumulo Granite" is a hazard to IFR enroute navigation by handheld GPS in US controlled airspace then? |
#198
|
|||
|
|||
IFR with a VFR GPS
In article t,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote: "Ron Garret" wrote in message ... The following quote seems apropos he "A non-idiot doesn't need an explanation and an idiot wouldn't understand one." Can't remember just now who said it. It was I that said it, Yes, I knew that actually. I see that subtlety is lost on you. and it's not appropriate here. You are mistaken. Jose is not going to explain it because he has since learned that "Cumulo Granite" is not a hazard. Really? How do you know that? I see no indication in the discussion that Jose has changed his position. Have you been having an off-line discussion with him? Or perhaps you are psychic? (FWIW, I understood the point Jose was making even without an explanation.) Did you? Perhaps you'd like to explain why "Cumulo Granite" is a hazard to IFR enroute navigation by handheld GPS in US controlled airspace then? Why would I want to do that? rg |
#199
|
|||
|
|||
IFR with a VFR GPS
"Ron Garret" wrote in message ... Yes, I knew that actually. I see that subtlety is lost on you. I see you're a poor judge of character. You are mistaken. I am completely correct. Really? How do you know that? I see no indication in the discussion that Jose has changed his position. Have you been having an off-line discussion with him? Or perhaps you are psychic? Jose has a large ego and an aversion to admitting an error. If he could show a hazard and thus prove me wrong he would do so. Why would I want to do that? To establish a bit of credibility in this forum. |
#200
|
|||
|
|||
IFR with a VFR GPS
Steven P. McNicoll wrote: Primary navigation (the VFR GPS) is no longer reliable, the aircraft is IMC, and the pilot is unaware that the unit is no longer reliable. Those are not properties of a problem? I don't think so. If the aircraft drifts off course the controller will nudge it back and the pilot will then be aware that the unit is no longer reliable. No problem. The controller's attention might be elsewhere (have you never been sent right through a localizer?). That said, my Garmin 196 does warn me when it loses reliable reception, though it's not proper RAIM. All the best, David |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|