IFR with a VFR GPS

Jonathan Goodish wrote:

Isn't this also true if you fly airways but DON'T use a VFR GPS?

I am not sure what you are asking. Is what true? To use all information
even when flying by VOR or that there is a risk of a failed VOR receiver on
an airway?

--
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 =----

"Gerald Sylvester" wrote in message
om...

But chewing up TONS of radio time becomes a problem for all aircraft.


Nudging aircraft back on course is done all the time, it doesn't chew up
TONS of radio time.



On another thread, you argued that saying the extra zero for runway
zero-nine takes up time.


I said that in response to someone that said saying the extra zero takes
little time. But I didn't say the extra zero should be avoided in order to
save time, I said it should be avoided because it is a source for potential
confusion. The time saved is a small bonus.



Now we're talking about taking up probably
minutes of time.


No we're not, we're talking about a few seconds. Aircraft wander off course
from time to time and have been doing so since long before there was GPS.



that I see as a problem especially if the controller
then gives a clearance direct to a VOR/NDB that is not within range or
is not in the database. That chews up serious amounts of more airtime.


No, it doesn't. Where do you get these ideas?



I've read many reports of controllers getting ****ed at pilots for
not having waypoints in their certified GPS.


Cite some of them.



I can only imagine
what happens when pilot has nothing in their "database" other than a few
points.


How is that pertinent to this discussion?



For the pilot with the VFR GPS, your primary navigation
becomes radar vectors.


How so?



I'd rather know where I am at ALL time rather
than depending on a controller.


Do you fly IFR with nothing but a GPS on board?



I know of one pilot getting RV in IMC,
controller forgot about him and augered it in (CFIT).


Did that pilot have no nav radios on board?



I can definitely see how a VFR GPS is useful when flying enroute and VMC
with loads of VOR's for use as a backup (err, primary navigation). To do
it, single pilot, in IMC, just has many single point failures or
where you have backups but requires a lot of work to get positively
established/stabilized again.


So you're saying that having a GPS on board in IMC creates excessive
workload on the pilot and adds many points of failure. I think most pilots
would disagree with you, but no matter, your "problem" is remedied by simply
not having the GPS on board.

Thomas Borchert wrote:

Peter,

Besides, what rule is broken by pointing the aircraft at the ground?


91.3, of course ;-)

Do you mean 91.13, careless or reckless operation?

--
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
...

Besides, what rule is broken by pointing the aircraft at the ground?


Under the conditions stated, probably 91.303.

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...

91.3, of course ;-)


Methinks you meant some other regulation.


§ 91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.

(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is
the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.

(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in
command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to
meet that emergency.

(c) Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under paragraph (b) of
this section shall, upon the request of the Administrator, send a written
report of that deviation to the Administrator.

Peter,

Yep, sorry.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Steven,

91.13. The 1 got lost. Sorry!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...

91.13. The 1 got lost. Sorry!


Okay, but how is the life or property of another endangered by pointing the
aircraft at the ground?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...

91.13. The 1 got lost. Sorry!


Okay, but how is the life or property of another endangered by pointing the
aircraft at the ground?

http://tinyurl.com/defvx


--
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 =----

Recall that the NTSB accident database has at least one recent C172 fatal
accident where the NTSB concluded that the pilot was flying a GPS approach
with nothing but a VFR GPS.

What was the cause of that crash? Was the VFR GPS giving erronious
information? Was it hard to use, not being attached to the plane? Was
the pilot unfamiliar with the device? Was the approach even in the
database?

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