IFR use of handheld GPS

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news:FO%7g.176005$bm6.51757@fed1read04...


In your usual evasive style I noticed you ignored my post about service
volumnes and VFR on top.

Based on your post, he evaded EVERYTHING (i.e., original post is totally
blank).

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news:XSg7g.175495$bm6.14199@fed1read04...

And, we hope it is applied.



Application is not optional.


So long as no one forgets or makes a mistake.

"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?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

But those ordinary VOR receivers will do approximately nothing for
you, when flying direct to a faraway VOR they cannot pick up yet, thus
they are not "appropriate to the ground facilities to be used".

They're fully appropriate when I'm actually using them.

This rather Clintonian argument ("to be used" vs "I wish to use")
opens the door to kooky things like flying an ILS with a handheld GPS.
("Sure I have one on board, but the FARs don't say I have to USE it
...."), or ignoring monitoring instruments ("my engine oil temp may
have been at redline, but I don't have to LOOK at it").

A 91.13 citation would fit perfectly, should something go wrong.

- FChE

"Frank Ch. Eigler" wrote in message
...

Folks, take notice of the absurd lengths the true believers have to go to
justify their faith.




This rather Clintonian argument ("to be used" vs "I wish to use")
opens the door to kooky things like flying an ILS with a handheld GPS.
("Sure I have one on board, but the FARs don't say I have to USE it
..."), or ignoring monitoring instruments ("my engine oil temp may
have been at redline, but I don't have to LOOK at it").


How would it open that door? Why would anyone attempt to fly an ILS with a
GPS of any kind instead of the LOC and GS receivers? I've already pointed
out that I'm in full compliance with FAR 91.205, I have navigational
equipment appropriate to all the ground facilities that may be used.



A 91.13 citation would fit perfectly, should something go wrong.


Actually, it wouldn't fit at all. FAR 91.13 applies to operation of an
aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or
property of another.

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