IFR with a VFR GPS

In article ,
Thomas Borchert wrote:

The air carriers are not really major users of GPS, AFAIK.

This will change as more and more airliners become capable of at
least RNP-4. Not many nav systems are capable of RNP-4 over
the ocean.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

"Greg Farris" wrote:

The way things are SUPPOSED to work is that end users and common
citizens are
supposed to pay high user fees for everything, to support windfall
profits
for a few "sweetheart" companies, who in turn support political
parties.

The way it works in the U. S, we put the payoffs in the Transportation
Bill. Everyone helps pad the Raytheon, Lockheed, Boeing et al. bottom
lines and the national credit card rockets into unexplored galaxies of
debt.

Regulations to make this a de facto requirement will be forthcoming as
soon
as Galileo shows signs of becoming operational.

Exactly. Watch for international carriers to be forced to install two
different systems as the U. S./Euro ****ing contest goes on and on.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Jonathan Goodish" wrote:

I would be willing to bet that Garmin shares a significant amount of
code between their panels and their handhelds, at least when it comes
to
the 396. And, the Jepp data is the Jepp data. Sure, there is no
certification document with which handhelds must comply, but I just
don't think it's worth losing any sleep over, or even giving much
though
to, for enroute navigation. I just don't care. In almost 10 years of
using various hand held GPS units in the airplane for enroute
navigation, I have never ended up in the wrong place. That's
certainly
more than I can say for my ADF.

Bingo.

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

Exactly. Watch for international carriers to be forced to install two
different systems as the U. S./Euro ****ing contest goes on and on.


A one-sided ****ing contest?

Peter R. wrote:
wrote:


Folks over there simply should refuse to use the U.S. system and build
their own.


They are. It's called "Galileo."

I'll believe it when I see it. And, will it have the spares and support
that the US system has?

Peter wrote:

"Peter R." wrote

Since the free signal from the USA is plenty good enough for en-route
navigation of cars, boats, and planes, it is pretty obvious that any
attempt to raise money from planes would have to involve authorised
GPS approaches being conditional on the carriage of a prepaid decoder
for the "better" signal.

The US system is good enough to support RNP 0.10 instrument approach
procedures when combined with redundant FMSes, EGPWS, and Baro VNAV.
It's already being done by the Aussies and Canadians using the US system.

Thomas Borchert wrote:

Bush, as bad as he is, would create major havoc with the U.S. air
carriers if he shut down the system.



The air carriers are not really major users of GPS, AFAIK.


Not so. Although the US air carrier fleet has less than 50% GPS
equippage, virutally all international flights are with GPS-equipped
aircraft.

And, some carriers, like ALaska, have GPS and the other goodies for
advanced RNP, performance-based instrument approach procedures. By
year's end KPSP will be added to the short list of new RNP SAAAR RNAV
IAPs (KDCA and KSUN already being published).

Starting next year the U.S. should see an additional 25 RNP SAAAR RNAV
IAPs each year.

Jonathan Goodish wrote:
In article ,
Gerald Sylvester wrote
I would be willing to bet that Garmin shares a significant amount of
code between their panels and their handhelds, at least when it comes to
the 396.

Handhelds like the Garmin Forerunner? As I said, the big difference
between certified and non-certified is the behind the scenese design
and testing. If it isn't tested, it leaves a LOT of room for
potential problems that Garmin might know about but doesn't
want to spend $$$$ and additional testing to fix.

For the 396, yes, I agree. 90% of the code is the same but that
doesn't guarantee that it works nor is compatible with the hardware.
Your system yes through trial and error. For the one manufactured
next week with the different chipset (I'm completely making this up
and have no inside knowledge at all....I could have named any
handheld GPS unit), maybe not.

Sure, there is no
certification document with which handhelds must comply, but I just
don't think it's worth losing any sleep over, or even giving much though
to, for enroute navigation. I just don't care.

would you care if a handheld you are using decides to improperly
calculate the route to all waypoints 200 or more miles away?
I'm sure you would. What about if the manufacturer knows about this
and doesn't tell you about it? I'm sure you would.

Ever wonder why US Part 121 and 135 operators spend hundreds of
thousands and more to get certified GPS systems when the $25 00
Garmin 396 can do the same. All comes down to liability.

I wish I could afford the 396 as it seems to be a great unit.

Gerald

Gerald Sylvester wrote:
Jonathan Goodish wrote:

In article ,
Gerald Sylvester wrote
Handhelds like the Garmin Forerunner? As I said, the big difference
between certified and non-certified is the behind the scenese design
and testing. If it isn't tested, it leaves a LOT of room for
potential problems that Garmin might know about but doesn't
want to spend $$$$ and additional testing to fix.

Before I **** off the Garmin lawyers, I was referring to the
Forerunner used as a mission-critical aviation GPS rather
than its intended use. I'm sure it wasn't tested for aviation
purposes and therefore has no requirement to adhere to strict
aviation requirements hence their no desire to spend money
and time testing it to those requirements.

Gerald

Originally Posted by

Thomas Borchert wrote:

Bush, as bad as he is, would create major havoc with the U.S. air
carriers if he shut down the system.



The air carriers are not really major users of GPS, AFAIK.


Not so. Although the US air carrier fleet has less than 50% GPS
equippage, virutally all international flights are with GPS-equipped
aircraft.

And, some carriers, like ALaska, have GPS and the other goodies for
advanced RNP, performance-based instrument approach procedures. By
year's end KPSP will be added to the short list of new RNP SAAAR RNAV
IAPs (KDCA and KSUN already being published).

Starting next year the U.S. should see an additional 25 RNP SAAAR RNAV
IAPs each year.

indeed - in addition, the capstone project (ADS-B) in Alaska (used prominently by commercial ops) requires GPS data to operate. NAT MNPS ops also specifies that a certified GPS can satisfy part of the minimum required equipment to navigate the north atlantic (at a much much lower cost than traditional inertial nav). while many of the older 737's that do the same 5 airport milkrun every day may still have conventional VHF nav equipment, new commercial aircraft and those navigating certain areas already depend on GPS for their daily ops.

IIRC, the number of US and Canadian LPV approaches is supposed to increase this year to over 500, a number of airports will benefit from much lower minimums with no additional ground-based nav equipment. i'm guessing that feeder airlines will increasingly equip themselves with lateral and vertical guidance GPS to reduce cancellations and improve service (and profitability).

francois