IFR with a VFR GPS

I am talking about relying on a VFR GPS. You are talking about "using"
it, like using a tuna fish sandwich.

In a situation where primary navigation instruments (e.g. VOR) are
available to the pilot and his clearance, I see no problem =using= a VFR
GPS. In a situation where radar vectors are being provided, I also see
no problem =using= a VFR GPS.

In a situation where radar vectors could be available, but are not being
provided, one is relying on the controller to do something that the
controller may not be doing. I assume that there is a little more
monitoring of vectored aircraft than "own navigation" aircraft; the
controller is depending on the pilot to navigate if a vector is not
being provided.

In a situation where radar coverage does not exist, and navigation is
(therefore) via airways or within the usable limits of naviads, those
navaids do no good if the pilot does not tune them in. This is the
difference between =using= and =relying= on equipment which dominates so
many of these threads. I see no problem using the standard navaids
along with a VFR GPS. You probably agree here. I do see a problem
using a VFR GPS and =not= using any other navaids in this situation;
this is what I call "relying on" a VFR GPS. Your position on =this= is
unclear because of the way you conflate the concepts "use" and "rely on"
in your writing, and because of your statement

The pilot will be able to compare the GPS
to his VOR or ADF to verify it's accuracy.

in support. (btw, it's "its") This tells me we're talking about two
different things while pretending they are the same.

The FAA does not prohibit the use of a VFR GPS or a tuna fish sandwich
in IFR or IMC. It does prohibit relying on a VFR GPS, and it prohibits
relying on a tuna fish sandwich in the same situation.

Do you agree or disagree with the FAA's stance here?

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
. ..

I am talking about relying on a VFR GPS. You are talking about "using"
it, like using a tuna fish sandwich.


Start a new thread. This discussion is about the use of a handheld GPS for
IFR enroute navigation in US controlled airspace.



In a situation where radar vectors could be available, but are not being
provided, one is relying on the controller to do something that the
controller may not be doing. I assume that there is a little more
monitoring of vectored aircraft than "own navigation" aircraft; the
controller is depending on the pilot to navigate if a vector is not being
provided.


One is relying on the controller to do his job as he is required to do. The
controller is required to provide radar monitoring and course guidance, if
necessary, if the route is not on airways or within the usable limits of
navaids.



In a situation where radar coverage does not exist, and navigation is
(therefore) via airways or within the usable limits of naviads, those
navaids do no good if the pilot does not tune them in.

Careful, you're approaching idiocy.



This is the difference between =using= and =relying= on equipment which
dominates so many of these threads. I see no problem using the standard
navaids along with a VFR GPS. You probably agree here. I do see a
problem using a VFR GPS and =not= using any other navaids in this
situation; this is what I call "relying on" a VFR GPS. Your position on
=this= is unclear because of the way you conflate the concepts "use" and
"rely on" in your writing, and because of your statement

The pilot will be able to compare the GPS to his VOR or ADF to verify
it's accuracy.

in support. (btw, it's "its") This tells me we're talking about two
different things while pretending they are the same.


No, we've been talking about use of handheld GPS for IFR enroute navigation
in US controlled airspace.



The FAA does not prohibit the use of a VFR GPS or a tuna fish sandwich in
IFR or IMC. It does prohibit relying on a VFR GPS, and it prohibits
relying on a tuna fish sandwich in the same situation.

Do you agree or disagree with the FAA's stance here?


Post the FAA's statement. I never suggested relying exclusively on VFR GPS,
it was I that pointed out one is NOT relying exclusively on a VFR GPS when
one is using a handheld GPS for IFR enroute navigation in US controlled
airspace.

I am talking about relying on a VFR GPS. You are talking about "using"
it, like using a tuna fish sandwich.
Start a new thread. This discussion is about the use of a handheld GPS for
IFR enroute navigation in US controlled airspace.

You sure you weren't a lawyer in a previous life?

Careful, you're approaching idiocy.

It was necessary.

No, we've been talking about use of handheld GPS for IFR enroute navigation
in US controlled airspace.
[...] I never suggested relying exclusively on VFR GPS

Ok. We are (and always have been) in agreement.

But really... you do better than Clinton.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

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

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...

And there are no other possible ways to hit terrain?


None that are caused by use of a handheld GPS for IFR enroute navigation in
US controlled airspace.

What about the following scenario:

The pilot is holding the handheld in his hand (imagine that) and drops
it. While he is bending down to retrieve it he enters an unusual
attitude from which he is unable to recover.

Would that not be an accident that is caused (at least in part) by use
of a handheld GPS? It would not have occurred if the GPS were not being
used.

(For the record, I do not believe that the use of a handheld GPS
represents a significant risk, and in fact, IFR flight is almost
certainly safer with a handheld than without one, all else being equal.
But a yoke mount is advisable :-)

rg

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...

What about the following scenario:

The pilot is holding the handheld in his hand (imagine that) and drops
it. While he is bending down to retrieve it he enters an unusual
attitude from which he is unable to recover.

Would that not be an accident that is caused (at least in part) by use
of a handheld GPS?


No. The handheld GPS didn't cause the aircraft to enter an unrecoverable
unusual attitude.



It would not have occurred if the GPS were not being used.


It wouldn't have occurred if the pilot had been competent. The lesson there
is to be competent.

In article ,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...

What about the following scenario:

The pilot is holding the handheld in his hand (imagine that) and drops
it. While he is bending down to retrieve it he enters an unusual
attitude from which he is unable to recover.

Would that not be an accident that is caused (at least in part) by use
of a handheld GPS?


No. The handheld GPS didn't cause the aircraft to enter an unrecoverable
unusual attitude.

If an aircraft enters an unusual attitude following an AI failure, most
pilots would say that that accident was caused (at least in part) by the
AI failure despite the fact that the AI didn't (directly) cause the
plane to enter an unusual attitude.

But OK, have it your way: the pilot drops the GPS. Being a competent
pilot he does not attempt to retrieve it. It bounces around in the
turbulence and, unbeknownst to the pilot, it gets wedged under one of
the rudder pedals. The airplane spins and crashes turning base to final
because the now limited travel on the rudder pedal makes it impossible
to adequately compensate for adverse yaw (and the pilot doesn't realize
it until it's too late).

It would not have occurred if the GPS were not being used.


It wouldn't have occurred if the pilot had been competent. The lesson there
is to be competent.

Most accidents, including this hypothetical one, are the result of long
causal chains of events, all of which are collectively necessary for the
accident to occur. It is true that the pilot in my first scenario was
incompetent, but in a way that would not have manifested itself but for
the need to retrieve the GPS from the floor of the plane. (And this, by
the way, is why it matters that it's a GPS that was dropped and not,
say, a granola bar. The perceived urgency of retrieving a granola bar
would probably be less than that of retrieving the GPS.)

It's a moot point since I have now provided a scenario involving a
competent pilot, but do you have a principled basis for assigning all of
the causality to one of many factors in the causal chain, or did you
simply choose to make this assignment arbitrarily in order to support
your untenable position?

rg

In article ,
Jose wrote:

I am talking about relying on a VFR GPS. You are talking about "using"
it, like using a tuna fish sandwich.
Start a new thread. This discussion is about the use of a handheld GPS for
IFR enroute navigation in US controlled airspace.

You sure you weren't a lawyer in a previous life?

Careful, you're approaching idiocy.

It was necessary.

No, we've been talking about use of handheld GPS for IFR enroute navigation
in US controlled airspace.
[...] I never suggested relying exclusively on VFR GPS

Ok. We are (and always have been) in agreement.

Oh, Jose, you're giving up too easily!

One of the (many) risks of UAHGPSFIFRENIUSCAS (you figure it out) is
that a pilot might become complacent about using his primary navaids,
particularly off-airways since the constant VOR twiddling required for
off-airway navigation is such a pain in the ass and the use of the GPS
is so effortless and (almost invariably) reliable.

Yes, complacency is a form of incompetence. But that does make it any
less of a risk. Pilot complacency, in all its many manifestations, is a
widely recognized risk. Furthermore (and this is the important part)
this particular form of complacency CANNOT MANIFEST ITSELF EXCEPT WHEN A
HANDHELD GPS IS IN USE. That makes it reasonable to assign at least
part of the causality to the use of the GPS.

rg

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...

If an aircraft enters an unusual attitude following an AI failure, most
pilots would say that that accident was caused (at least in part) by the
AI failure despite the fact that the AI didn't (directly) cause the
plane to enter an unusual attitude.


I think you're wrong about that. I think most pilots would say that
erroneous information provided by a failed AI would be a direct cause of an
unusual attitude. Are you a pilot?



But OK, have it your way: the pilot drops the GPS. Being a competent
pilot he does not attempt to retrieve it. It bounces around in the
turbulence and, unbeknownst to the pilot, it gets wedged under one of
the rudder pedals. The airplane spins and crashes turning base to final
because the now limited travel on the rudder pedal makes it impossible
to adequately compensate for adverse yaw (and the pilot doesn't realize
it until it's too late).


So what you're saying is that loose objects in the cockpit can be hazardous.
That may very well be, but that's not the subject of this discussion.



Most accidents, including this hypothetical one, are the result of long
causal chains of events, all of which are collectively necessary for the
accident to occur. It is true that the pilot in my first scenario was
incompetent, but in a way that would not have manifested itself but for
the need to retrieve the GPS from the floor of the plane. (And this, by
the way, is why it matters that it's a GPS that was dropped and not,
say, a granola bar. The perceived urgency of retrieving a granola bar
would probably be less than that of retrieving the GPS.)


Why? The pilot can always ask ATC for navigational assistance, but they
can't provide an inflight snack.



It's a moot point since I have now provided a scenario involving a
competent pilot, but do you have a principled basis for assigning all of
the causality to one of many factors in the causal chain, or did you
simply choose to make this assignment arbitrarily in order to support
your untenable position?


My untenable position? It is my position that use of a handheld GPS for IFR
enroute navigation in US controlled airspace is without hazard. Note that
nobody has identified any hazard from such usage.

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...

Oh, Jose, you're giving up too easily!

One of the (many) risks of UAHGPSFIFRENIUSCAS (you figure it out) is
that a pilot might become complacent about using his primary navaids,
particularly off-airways since the constant VOR twiddling required for
off-airway navigation is such a pain in the ass and the use of the GPS
is so effortless and (almost invariably) reliable.


But off-airways flight doesn't require any VOR twiddling. You don't have to
monitor your position with any other navaids if you don't want to. You can
rely on ATC for radar monitoring and, if necessary, course guidance.

You say there are many risks in UAHGPSFIFRENIUSCAS. Could you please
identify some of them? Even one would be nice, I've been asking this
question for nearly ten years now and nobody has identified one yet.



Yes, complacency is a form of incompetence. But that does make it any
less of a risk. Pilot complacency, in all its many manifestations, is a
widely recognized risk. Furthermore (and this is the important part)
this particular form of complacency CANNOT MANIFEST ITSELF EXCEPT WHEN A
HANDHELD GPS IS IN USE. That makes it reasonable to assign at least
part of the causality to the use of the GPS.


Why can't that particular form of complacency manifest itself when on a
long-range vector?

The pilot can always ask ATC for navigational assistance, but they
can't provide an inflight snack.

OTFL

I've been asking this
question for nearly ten years now and nobody has identified one yet.

Why do you keep asking this question? Surely it is not to acquire
information, or to dispense any. Rather, you seem to be pressing the
point that "use" and "rely on" are not the same.

Do you think this is a point not understood by other participants here?

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.