IFR with a VFR GPS

Ron Lee wrote:

That seems to be an overly broad statement. I have put "VFR GPS" in Remarks
when filing /U for an off-airways (random) route and had controllers
specifically refer to using my VFR GPS to proceed direct to an intersection.
Whether they should have done so is another issue. But is sure seemed to
make a difference.

Your non-IFR GPS has intersections in it? What model is it?

I didn't know there was any such thing as a VFR aviation GPS that
didn't have intersections. All of Garmin's certainly do. No airways,
though.


All the best,


David

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

Jose has a large ego and an aversion to admitting an error.

"Hello, Pot? This is kettle."


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame
## VP, Product Development
## MFM Software, Inc. (http://www.mfm.com/)
"Forget the Joneses, I keep us up with the Simpsons."

wrote:

Interesting. Perhaps some Canadians reading can pipe in on this idea. This
past summer while flying through Canada to Alaska, it certainly seemed like IFR was
the vast minority. I'm sure some of it was that I was in the sticks for a lot of the
time, but even in the relatively populated plains provinces, one didn't hear much
about IFR traffic (or traffic at all for that matter). Perhaps the US just has more
infrastructure so IFR is easier to do casually for PP?

I often file IFR in both central Canada and the northeastern U.S. in my
Warrior, and on long cross-country flights in both countries, I'll
often be the only light aircraft talking to ATC in the sector. The
main exception is when someone's doing practice approaches down below
me, though once in a while I'll hear a piston twin or another single
doing what I'm doing. You'll see a lot of IFR piston traffic (mostly
twins) into places like Toronto/City Centre, though.

In the late fall, winter, and early spring, IFR can be tricky because
of the risk of icing, but the same is true for the northern U.S. You
were flying across the northern Canada, where a lot of the traffic
still goes on floats -- as you know, float plane pilots get nosebleeds
above 1,000 feet AGL, so they can't usually make IFR altitudes and have
to skim the treetops.


All the best,


David

wrote:
: I often file IFR in both central Canada and the northeastern U.S. in my
: Warrior, and on long cross-country flights in both countries, I'll
: often be the only light aircraft talking to ATC in the sector. The
: main exception is when someone's doing practice approaches down below
: me, though once in a while I'll hear a piston twin or another single
: doing what I'm doing. You'll see a lot of IFR piston traffic (mostly
: twins) into places like Toronto/City Centre, though.

Yes, I would believe that in the eastern side of Canada there's more traffic.
I was pretty much keeping to the relatively unpopulated areas during the flight
(Plains of SK, AB and further north by BC). Closest I got was Edmonton Center (40 nm
or so). There was some traffic on ATC, but they almost seemed surprised when I called
them up. Even though I was entering their airspace, they seemed to just figure I was
transitional VFR and weren't even looking for me.

: In the late fall, winter, and early spring, IFR can be tricky because
: of the risk of icing, but the same is true for the northern U.S. You
: were flying across the northern Canada, where a lot of the traffic
: still goes on floats -- as you know, float plane pilots get nosebleeds
: above 1,000 feet AGL, so they can't usually make IFR altitudes and have
: to skim the treetops.

Yeah, I guess that makes sense. For all the same reasons IFR in light GA
planes in the midwest/northeast US is often impassable (icing and embed CB) IFR in
even the populated areas of Canada are often difficult. Sure seemed like scud running
MVFR was the rule of the day when I was up there. As far as your float plane comment,
that's pretty true. Heck, when I filed a flight plan in MVFR going to follow the
road, the *briefer* said, "Oh, you want the route of flight to be follow highway 43 to
Lloydmindster... OK." I can say I got some pretty unusual looks fueling up my Cherokee
in northern BC and in the Yukon. Things like, "Did they put the wings on your plane
on upside down?" One guy told me he'd never *seen* a low-wing!

Different flying world. A lot like Alaska... stepping back in aviation time.

-Cory


--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

"Mark T. Dame" wrote in message
...

"Hello, Pot? This is kettle."


If you do a search on Google Groups you'll find I have admitted all of my
errors.

wrote in message
oups.com...

The controller's attention might be elsewhere (have you never been sent
right through a localizer?).


There's no similarity. There's a window of a few seconds for the turn to
intercept the localizer. It would take at least several minutes for the
controller to notice an enroute aircraft drifting off course unless the GPS
was erroneously calling for a significant turn. If it did that the pilot
should notice the error before the controller.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message nk.net...

"Mark T. Dame" wrote in message
...

"Hello, Pot? This is kettle."


If you do a search on Google Groups you'll find I have admitted all of my
errors.


Instead of that, I did a Google search on "McNicoll errors".
It said it found "about 29,100" results.
:-)

In article t,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"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.

I was not judging your character, I was stating an objectively
observable fact. Subtlety is, at least occasionally, lost on you (a
fact that you continue to demonstrate by failing to comprehend the point
that I am (subtly) making.)

You are mistaken.


I am completely correct.

When idiots say idiotic things do you think that they realize that they
are being idiots or do you think that they believe themselves to be
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.

Just because you lack the imagination to think of another possible
reason for Jose's reluctance to engage you in debate is not proof that
he is incapable of doing so.

Why would I want to do that?


To establish a bit of credibility in this forum.

My credibility would matter if I were attempting to make an argument
from authority, but I am not. I prefer to let facts speak for
themselves.

rg

"John R. Copeland" wrote in message
...

Instead of that, I did a Google search on "McNicoll errors". It said it
found
"about 29,100" results.
:-)


http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q27922B2C

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...

I was not judging your character, I was stating an objectively
observable fact. Subtlety is, at least occasionally, lost on you (a
fact that you continue to demonstrate by failing to comprehend the point
that I am (subtly) making.)


No, you only think you were stating an objectively observable fact.



When idiots say idiotic things do you think that they realize that they
are being idiots or do you think that they believe themselves to be
completely correct?


Now you're touching on why your observation is incorrect. Peter R. said
something that was idiotic. He doesn't realize it was idiotic because he is
an idiot. I haven't said anything idiotic, everything I've said is
supported by facts and logic.



Just because you lack the imagination to think of another possible
reason for Jose's reluctance to engage you in debate is not proof that
he is incapable of doing so.


Jose is incapable of showing Cumulo Granite to be a hazard because Cumulo
Granite is not a hazard.



My credibility would matter if I were attempting to make an argument
from authority, but I am not. I prefer to let facts speak for
themselves.


As do I.