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.

"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.

"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.

"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

"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?

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

"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?

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

"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.

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