IFR with a VFR GPS

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
Yes there is. RAIM provided integrity. As long as no signal error
exists (vast majority of the time) then your assertion is basically
correct.


How does RAIM provided integrity make a practical difference?

In the event of a signal error that could cause a position error of
hundreds of miles you would be alerted. Otherwise you might
accurately follow a slowly drifting position from GPS into terra
firma.

Ron Lee

"Ron Lee" wrote in message
...

In the event of a signal error that could cause a position error of
hundreds of miles you would be alerted. Otherwise you might
accurately follow a slowly drifting position from GPS into terra
firma.


Nope. The controller will alert me to the error and nudge me back on
course.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
In the event of a signal error that could cause a position error of
hundreds of miles you would be alerted. Otherwise you might
accurately follow a slowly drifting position from GPS into terra
firma.


Nope. The controller will alert me to the error and nudge me back on
course.

Ok. You must be in an area with radar coverage everywhere.

Ron Lee

"Ron Lee" wrote in message
...

Ok. You must be in an area with radar coverage everywhere.


I'm in the US. If I'm on an off-airways route beyond usable navaid limits
then I'm definitely within radar coverage because radar monitoring is
required for such operations.

"Peter R." wrote in message
...

Why is it idiocy? You never explained your reasoning.


A non-idiot doesn't need an explanation and an idiot wouldn't understand
one.

Doug wrote:
One difference I have not seen mentioned is how the VFR GPS appears in
the scan and relates to the other instruments. I know having a
permanently mounted, cable free installation where everything is always
where it's supposed to be makes a difference in the usability of an
instrument. This is one reason why I don't think we will ever see IFR
certified handhelds. The installation is part of the certification.


The TSO for IFR certification of the avionics and the installation
requires RAIM, auto CDI scaling, panel mount, display on the CDI or HSI
in the primary field of view (your point), demonstration that other
installed avionics will not interfere with the performance of the GPS
avionics, and a switch to select conventional nav or GPS to the primary
display.

A hand-held does none of the above. ;-)

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"Peter R." wrote in message
...

Why is it idiocy? You never explained your reasoning.


A non-idiot doesn't need an explanation and an idiot wouldn't understand
one.

Reached the end of your intellectual limit, I see. Too bad, I used to have
some respect for you.

--
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 R." wrote in message
...

Reached the end of your intellectual limit, I see. Too bad, I used to
have
some respect for you.


An idiot has lost respect for me. I'm okay with that.

Peter wrote:

RAIM also requires an encoding altimeter input which is difficult to
do in a handheld.

Basic RAIM does not require this input. You may be right that TSO'd
implementations require it but that is to improve RAIM availability
since baro acts like another positioning input.

Ron Lee

Ron Lee wrote:
wrote:

A RAIM hole would not affect position accuracy as long as there is no
GPS signal error...which are rare.

Ron Lee

True, but that isn't the FAA or ICAO certification view of it all. The
folks who drive those standards are pretty sharp industry engineers, not
just FAA autocrats.