single pilot ifr trip tonight

"Greg Goodknight" wrote:
GPS is something I'd like to have since many airports only have
a GPS approach, and at my home airport (O17) the GPS
approach has an MEA that's 272 above the tdze, vs. 1128
for the VOR. A greater chance for successfully
landing at the intended airport is a powerful incentive.

Exactly why I'd put it #1.

However, to my mind safety is a different issue and the reality may be
that GPS's do not actually increase safety, and some or all current
GPS's could actually decrease safety over traditional land based
navaids. One particular fatal accident that sticks in my mind as
probably GPS related is this SR 20 inbound to RHV, which went
haywire after passing the FAF:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...06X00175&key=1

Well, no approach or equipment is "pilot proof." To conclude from this
that GPS's do not actually increase safety is a bit of a stretch, don't
you think? It was a GPS approach, so of course it was "GPS related" but
it sounds to me like the pilot became distracted while hand flying the
approach.

I get most of the safety benefits (accurate ground track and speed,
situational awareness, nearest airport, ETA) of an IFR GPS by
using a handheld VFR "only" Garmin GPS 92, with a bonus of it
being the only working NAV device on the airplane if I have a
failure of the aircraft electrical system.

Same here. I will not fly IFR without my 295.

To my mind, the huge cost of installation and software maintenance of
currently available IFR GPS units is not justified by the very few
times
that it would save me the inconvenience of landing 30 miles away at
the
nearest civilian runway served by an ILS and rent a car or pester a
friend
to come pick me up.

That's where we disagree -- except about the fact that the cost is huge!
Recent experience has taught me that a certified GPS is an absolute must
nowadays.

Perhaps when some manufacturer decides to support the
raw FAA Digital Database (FAA/NACO claims availability
in December), I'll think about it again.

Not familiar. What's that going to do for us?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Snowbird,

heard first-hand from someone who liked TPAS.


you just did (Monroy ATD). Wouldn't fly without it anymore.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Dan Luke wrote:

I would have been unable to complete two recent Angel Flights without an
IFR GPS. I don't know how it is in the Northeast, but down here
(Alabama), I'd be crippled without it. Mine's not a moving map model,
but that's not much of a factor in its utility since I have a moving map
portable on the yoke.

What about the flights/GPS made the two flights possible? Airports with
nothing but GPS approaches?

I guess I'm spoiled. I *love* flying with an IFR GPS, and it was a part of
my IFR training. But my "home" airport has a localizer approach, so the
extra couple of hundred feet of a GPS approach can seem very limiting.
Hell, I even get annoyed with the extra couple of hundred feet I've lost by
not having a glideslope.

Last week, for example, I canceled a "for fun" flight because the ceilings
were too low for the GPS approach at the airport to which I'd have to
return. Had it been at my home airport (and had they not closed the runway
with the localizer for maintenance), I'd have gone and had some nice actual
time.

[Of course, we all expect the ceiling to go up as soon as the cancel
decision is made. This time, it went down. Nice feeling, in a weird way.]

I think if I'd the choice, I'd put something other than the IFR GPS at the
top of my list. It would probably be either the AI backup or a weather
device. I'd prefer something more "strategic" than a strikefinder, though.
That still permits...surprises of an unfortunate sort.

But I have to admit: most of my flights are for fun of one sort or another.
So I can usually choose a destination with the type of approach I want. I
very rarely "need" to be flying anywhere. If I were doing something (ie.
Angel Flights) which dictated airports, an IFR GPS might be a bigger deal.

- Andrew

Perhaps when some manufacturer decides to support the
raw FAA Digital Database (FAA/NACO claims availability
in December), I'll think about it again.

Not familiar. What's that going to do for us?


I believe it would free us from paying hundreds of dollars for a subscription
to data we've already paid for in taxes.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

I think everyone is going to have a different priority. (There are 7!
solutions). Mine would be:

Engine Monitor (though it doesn't have to be an all cylinder one)
IFR GPS (very useful VFR and enroute IFR, I use the VOR/GS for most
approaches)
AutoPilot (all electric, covers me for vacuum failure that way)
Stormscope
Electric AI
HSI
TPAS


Bob Noel wrote in message ...
In article , David Megginson
wrote:

You decide that you can afford to install *one* new permanent system
costing from USD 4K to USD 10K this year, and possibly one in each
following year (but not for certain). Arrange the following list in
the order that *you* think would make your IFR flying safest, putting
the highest priority item at the top. If you want, you can assume
that you already have some kind of backup vacuum system. These are
currently in alphabetical order:

Electric AI (backup)
Engine monitor (i.e. EDM 700)
HSI (slaved)
IFR GPS (non-moving-map, at this price)
Stormscope (or Strikefinder)
TPAS
Wing leveller (or other general single-axis AP)

my order of preference:

Stormscope (or Strikefinder) - handflying or not, thunderstorms are bad
Single-axis autopilot - reduce workload
HSI - reduce workload
Electric AI - redundancy
Engine monitor - gotta keep an eye on the engine
IFR GPS - yeah, whatever
TPAS - is this a poor man's TCAS?

"Dan Luke" writes:

I would have been unable to complete two recent Angel Flights
without an IFR GPS. I don't know how it is in the Northeast, but
down here (Alabama), I'd be crippled without it. Mine's not a moving
map model, but that's not much of a factor in its utility since I
have a moving map portable on the yoke.

So far, most of the NDB approaches at Canadian airports seem to be
holding up, so I'm OK, but I imagine that five or ten years from now
I'll start having trouble getting into small airports in IMC without
an IFR GPS (especially when the current NDBs exist only for the
approach, rather than LF/MF airways).


All the best,


David

"Andrew Gideon" wrote:
I would have been unable to complete two recent Angel Flights
without an IFR GPS.

What about the flights/GPS made the two flights possible? Airports
with nothing but GPS approaches?

At the first one, the ceiling was below the MDA for the VOR-A approach
but ok for the straight in RNAV. At the second one the NDB is gone and
only GPS approaches serve the airport.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Andrew Gideon wrote in message gonline.com...
most of the main point snipped
I think if I'd the choice, I'd put something other than the IFR GPS at the
top of my list. It would probably be either the AI backup or a weather
device. I'd prefer something more "strategic" than a strikefinder, though.
That still permits...surprises of an unfortunate sort.

Andrew

Could you expand a bit upon this? What sort of surprises do you
feel sferics allow and in what circs?

What would you prefer for GA wx avoidance?

Thanks,
Sydney

Thomas Borchert wrote in message ...
heard first-hand from someone who liked TPAS.

you just did (Monroy ATD). Wouldn't fly without it anymore.

I'm sorry, I guess I should have chosen my language more
precisely. I've heard from several folks on the newsgroups
who really like it. What I meant by "first hand" was someone
I know personally and can chat with face to face or better yet
fly with, who flies in an area I'm familiar with, in order to
get a better idea what it could do for me.

Self centered git I guess ;}

But, given the limitations of this media and the fact that IIRC
you fly in a different country -- would you mind expanding a
bit upon what you like about TPAS and in what circs you find
it "don't leave home w/out it" useful?

Thanks!
Sydney

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...
"Greg Goodknight" wrote:
GPS is something I'd like to have since many airports only have
a GPS approach, and at my home airport (O17) the GPS
approach has an MEA that's 272 above the tdze, vs. 1128
for the VOR. A greater chance for successfully
landing at the intended airport is a powerful incentive.

Exactly why I'd put it #1.

However, to my mind safety is a different issue and the reality may be
that GPS's do not actually increase safety, and some or all current
GPS's could actually decrease safety over traditional land based
navaids. One particular fatal accident that sticks in my mind as
probably GPS related is this SR 20 inbound to RHV, which went
haywire after passing the FAF:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...06X00175&key=1

Well, no approach or equipment is "pilot proof." To conclude from this
that GPS's do not actually increase safety is a bit of a stretch, don't
you think? It was a GPS approach, so of course it was "GPS related" but
it sounds to me like the pilot became distracted while hand flying the
approach.

I think it not a stretch at all to conclude the pilot was probably
distracted by the GPS. Pressed some button he shouldn't have after passing
the FAF (final approach fix), maybe. Maybe a power glitch, who knows. He
certainly wasn't focused on the directional gyro.

Just came from the airport here and mentioned this conversation with my
favorite CFII and Meridian charter operator. He doesn't think IFR GPSs add
any safety either, just utility. In fact they can be dangerous if the pilot
i fiddling with the unit and loses track of what is important. Like
altitude.

VOR/ILS/LOC may be crude but what they lack in utility they make up for (in
safety) by being a very robust technology with a very simple user interface
and an instantaneous reboot time



I get most of the safety benefits (accurate ground track and speed,
situational awareness, nearest airport, ETA) of an IFR GPS by
using a handheld VFR "only" Garmin GPS 92, with a bonus of it
being the only working NAV device on the airplane if I have a
failure of the aircraft electrical system.

Same here. I will not fly IFR without my 295.

To my mind, the huge cost of installation and software maintenance of
currently available IFR GPS units is not justified by the very few
times
that it would save me the inconvenience of landing 30 miles away at
the
nearest civilian runway served by an ILS and rent a car or pester a
friend
to come pick me up.

That's where we disagree -- except about the fact that the cost is huge!
Recent experience has taught me that a certified GPS is an absolute must
nowadays.

Perhaps when some manufacturer decides to support the
raw FAA Digital Database (FAA/NACO claims availability
in December), I'll think about it again.

Not familiar. What's that going to do for us?

Decrease the cash flow from you to Jeppessen. The Jepp prices dropped to the
current level when the FAA announced the project. Now it's being delivered.
I'm not buying a GPS that requires me to buy FAA data at a high price from a
third or fourth party.

-Greg

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM