IFR with a VFR GPS

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

That's not a personal attack. You took an idiotic position. I even asked
you to confirm your position, and you did. Idiotic positions are taken by
idiots.

Don't try to kiss and make up. We need time apart.

--
Peter
If you love someone, set him free.























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Peter R." wrote in message
...
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.

But chewing up TONS of radio time becomes a problem for all aircraft.
On another thread, you argued that saying the extra zero for runway
zero-nine takes up time. Now we're talking about taking up probably
minutes of time. that I see as a problem especially if the controller
then gives a clearance direct to a VOR/NDB that is not within range or
is not in the database. That chews up serious amounts of more airtime.
I've read many reports of controllers getting ****ed at pilots for
not having waypoints in their certified GPS. I can only imagine
what happens when pilot has nothing in their "database" other than a
few points. For the pilot with the VFR GPS, your primary navigation
becomes radar vectors. I'd rather know where I am at ALL time rather
than depending on a controller. I know of one pilot getting RV in IMC,
controller forgot about him and augered it in (CFIT).

I can definitely see how a VFR GPS is useful when flying enroute and VMC
with loads of VOR's for use as a backup (err, primary navigation). To
do it, single pilot, in IMC, just has many single point failures or
where you have backups but requires a lot of work to get positively
established/stabilized again.

Gerald Sylvester

Peter,

Assuming the pilot is continually tuning his traditional navigation radios,
then including those in his instrument scan. And what if he does not?


Then he doesn't adhere to the rules. That's like asking: What if the pilots
points the airplane at the ground?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Peter,

I am going to maintain that premise because even more unthinkable,
someone was actually killed flying a GPS approach with nothing but a VFR
GPS. I


So what does that show? People do stupid things in airplanes all the time.
Are you suggesting flying should be prohibited because of that?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Gerald Sylvester" wrote:

I've read many reports of controllers getting ****ed at pilots for
not having waypoints in their certified GPS. I can only imagine
what happens when pilot has nothing in their "database" other than a
few points.

??

What waypoints are found in my certified KLN 90-B that aren't found in
my 396?

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

In article ,
"Peter R." wrote:
Why wouldn't you use all available information? I never rely on any one
source if I have supplementary sources of information available, GPS or
no GPS.

I was merely identifying one risk of using a VFR GPS, not stating that
everyone who flies with a VFR GPS does not use all available information.


Isn't this also true if you fly airways but DON'T use a VFR GPS?


JKG

In article ,
"Peter R." wrote:

Ron Lee wrote:

You should note that if you lose lock (too few satellites) then your
display will start flashing (or portions of it). That is not RAIM
which determines if you have a signal error.

Just to clarify, are you saying that a *VFR* GPS's screen flashes when the
GPS loses the required number of satellites for position calculation and
that error is not a result of built-in RAIM?


When my hand held Garmin loses enough sats for position calculation, I
receive an alarm on the unit (both visual and audible).

I believe that RAIM performs a checksum to verify the integrity of the
data received from the sats. Hand held devices are indeed missing this
functionality, but it makes no difference for enroute, in my opinion.


JKG

Thomas Borchert wrote:

So what does that show? People do stupid things in airplanes all the time.

That was my point.

Are you suggesting flying should be prohibited because of that?

Come on, Tom. You come across to me as intelligent. Where did you
interpret that I was suggesting any such thing?


--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Thomas Borchert wrote:

Then he doesn't adhere to the rules. That's like asking: What if the pilots
points the airplane at the ground?

Apples and oranges. Pointing the aircraft at the ground is not analogous
to using a VFR GPS to navigate.

Besides, what rule is broken by pointing the aircraft at the ground?

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Peter,

Besides, what rule is broken by pointing the aircraft at the ground?


91.3, of course ;-)

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)