IFR with a VFR GPS

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

There is no risk. Anyone that says there is a risk in the use of a handheld
GPS for IFR enroute navigation in US controlled airspace is not a real
safety expert with actual knowledge of aviation.

Steven, when then are handheld GPS units not allowed to be used for
IFR navigation?

You can do as you wish. Darwinism works well in aviation as in other
endeavors.

Ron Lee

"Ron Lee" wrote in message
...

Steven, when then are handheld GPS units not allowed to be used for
IFR navigation?


There is no specific prohibition on them.



You can do as you wish. Darwinism works well in aviation as in other
endeavors.


That sounds like you do believe there is a risk in the use of a handheld GPS
for IFR enroute navigation in US controlled airspace. Please identify that
risk.

I think the lack of certified mounting is what makes VFR GPS a backup
for flight in IMC, rather than a primary. Note that an IFR GPS includes
installation in it's design. They are installed to be part of the scan.
There may be VFR installations that are indeed in the scan and
convenient enough to use, but the typical VFR installation is lacking
in this department.

I have a King KLN90B in the panel and a Garmin 195 handheld. I do use
the Garmin when in the clouds, as a backup and for overall situational
awareness. In my case, my VFR Garmin is not nearly as good as my panel
mount King. Installation is the primary difference. There is also the
issue of training and just what you are supposed to do when. The King
manual has written procedures for flight in IMC/IFR environment, the
VFR unit does not.

Cumulo Granite.
Explain.


If you require explanation, it would be useless.

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

Have you ever read either TSO-c146a or TSO-c129? One of the requirements
specifies that the database in an IFR-certified box adhere to a higher
tolerance of corruptibility. Are you sure the VFR portable's database was
built to the same specifications? If not--higher risk.

I can go on and list each item-by-item but you seem to be literate so you
can read the TSOs at your leisure. Bottom line is as I stated in my previous
post that you don't personally believe the requirements outlined in these
documents reduce risk in any way, shape, or form.

If that's the case, I'm glad you don't help the FAA develop these standards.

Marco Leon



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

"Ron Lee" wrote in message
...

Steven, when then are handheld GPS units not allowed to be used for
IFR navigation?


There is no specific prohibition on them.



You can do as you wish. Darwinism works well in aviation as in other
endeavors.


That sounds like you do believe there is a risk in the use of a handheld
GPS
for IFR enroute navigation in US controlled airspace. Please identify
that
risk.

"Jose" wrote in message
. ..

If you require explanation, it would be useless.


You mean you're unable to explain.

"Marco Leon" mmleon(at)yahoo.com wrote in message
...

Have you ever read either TSO-c146a or TSO-c129? One of the requirements
specifies that the database in an IFR-certified box adhere to a higher
tolerance of corruptibility. Are you sure the VFR portable's database was
built to the same specifications? If not--higher risk.


How so?



I can go on and list each item-by-item but you seem to be literate so you
can read the TSOs at your leisure. Bottom line is as I stated in my
previous
post that you don't personally believe the requirements outlined in these
documents reduce risk in any way, shape, or form.

If that's the case, I'm glad you don't help the FAA develop these
standards.


If you believe there is a higher risk I think you should be able to identify
that risk.

If you require explanation, it would be useless.
You mean you're unable to explain.


To you, I'm unable to explain.

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

"Jose" wrote in message
...

To you, I'm unable to explain.


No, you're unable to explain at all.

Jose wrote:

If you require explanation, it would be useless.
You mean you're unable to explain.


To you, I'm unable to explain.

LOL. You are holding a mirror to him and McNicoll is attacking his own
reflection like a junk yard dog.

Hilarious.



--
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 =----