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 |
#201
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS
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. |
#202
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS
|
#203
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS
|
#204
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS
|
#205
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS
I have argued with Ron before that, given reasonable, personal integrety
checks, I would be safer flying a VOR overlay approach with my Garmin 296 than with a light tin VOR receiver. I won't disagree that when each system is working properly, an approach with GPS (especially a moving map), is easier (thus perhaps safer) than a VOR approach. But the point is that if a GPS satellite malfunctions all bets are off. Hence the need for RAIM or equivalent. Ron Lee |
#206
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS
"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. |
#207
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS
"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. |
#208
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS
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? |
#209
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS
|
#210
|
|||
|
|||
IFR use of handheld GPS
Bob Noel wrote:
In article .com, wrote: Yeah, I agree. Safety improvements are great. The tone of your reply makes me wonder... The tone is there because I'm still waiting to see why you think using handhelds is unsafe. In many ways they add tremendously to safety, especially the newer incarnations that depict terrain and weather. And you probably agree that they are a great aid to situational awareness. Why not, then, use them to help in certain navigation tasks as well? Do you have data that shows that handheld GPS units are not more reliable and dependable than the old VOR/DME/ADF system? So how is safety improved by telling people with perfectly good handheld GPSs How do you KNOW that the handheld GPS is "perfectly good"? Because the occasional failure is not a significant impact on safety. Between the pilot and controller monitoring the flight, errors will be caught. It doesn't have to be perfect to be "perfectly good", I guess that was a poor choice of adjectives on my part. How do you know any piece of avionics is working right? Some are more reliable than others, but all can fail. Even panel mount GPS units with RAIM. They can fail for various reasons that the RAIM algorithm will not predict. It is supposed to prevent the pilot from using erroneous data, and most of the time it probably does. But just because they are "safer" than handhelds doesn't make handhelds unsafe, doesn't it? I'll agree that a GPS with RAIM is better than one without. Now, I don't know the details, but I have read that WAAS has better fault monitoring than standard GPS+RAIM. Does that mean that all those poor sods out there flying IFR with their Garmin 430/530 units are being unsafe? And what about those handhelds that use WAAS? I don't know if they do, but if they did have the full fault-monitoring capabilities, would those be "safe" in your view? that they must stay on the airways and navigate with their VORs? Who said they have to? I was asking you a question. What is your view? If it is unsafe to use your handheld to navigate direct, what are the choices that you think are still "safe" for off-airway flights? Peter |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
HANDHELD RADIO | [email protected] | Soaring | 22 | March 17th 16 03:16 PM |
Navcom - handheld VS panel ? | [email protected] | Home Built | 10 | October 31st 05 08:08 PM |
GPS Handheld | Kai Glaesner | Instrument Flight Rules | 2 | November 16th 04 04:01 PM |
Upgrade handheld GPS, or save for panel mount? | [email protected] | Owning | 7 | March 8th 04 03:33 PM |
Ext antenna connection for handheld radio | Ray Andraka | Owning | 7 | March 5th 04 01:10 PM |