IFR with a VFR GPS

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

No, I didn't. I didn't have to, as the the other navigation instruments are
required to be there.

Are they required to be used?

The bottom line is you haven't identified any risk
from flying IFR with a VFR GPS.

Yes I did. Just because your newsgroup pride won't let you recognize it
doesn't mean it didn't happen.

--
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
...

Yes I did. Just because your newsgroup pride won't let you recognize it
doesn't mean it didn't happen.


Are you seriously going to maintain that the risk in flying IFR with a VFR
GPS is that it will cause the pilot to leave his required nav radios off and
he will then not recognize if he has drifted off the assigned airway in a
nonradar environment?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

Are you seriously going to maintain that the risk in flying IFR with a VFR
GPS is that it will cause the pilot to leave his required nav radios off and
he will then not recognize if he has drifted off the assigned airway in a
nonradar environment?

Yes, I am going to maintain that premise because even more unthinkable,
someone was actually killed flying a GPS approach with nothing but a VFR
GPS. If someone was crazy enough to do that, then I certainly do not have
a problem believing that someone might attempt navigation on an assigned
airway with nothing but a VFR GPS.

--
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:

Yes, I am going to maintain that premise because even more unthinkable,
someone was actually killed flying a GPS approach with nothing but a VFR
GPS.

Here's the accident report:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...23X05372&key=1

--
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:
"Peter R." wrote:


Yes, I am going to maintain that premise because even more unthinkable,
someone was actually killed flying a GPS approach with nothing but a VFR
GPS.


Here's the accident report:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...23X05372&key=1

According to the accident report the plane impacted a tower just left of
the centerline but 450 below the published minimum height. Short of
WAAS no GPS will keep you from trouble if you don't follow the altitude
restrictions on the plate. I find it interesting that the report
mentions that a GPS was found in the plane but makes no mention of
charts on board. Could this have been a case of him not having the
plate but trying to fly the approach from his VFR GPS? If this is the
case the certification level of the GPS has no bearing in the crash.

John Theune wrote:

Peter R. wrote:

"Peter R." wrote:


Yes, I am going to maintain that premise because even more unthinkable,
someone was actually killed flying a GPS approach with nothing but a VFR
GPS.



Here's the accident report:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...23X05372&key=1

According to the accident report the plane impacted a tower just left of
the centerline but 450 below the published minimum height. Short of
WAAS no GPS will keep you from trouble if you don't follow the altitude
restrictions on the plate. I find it interesting that the report
mentions that a GPS was found in the plane but makes no mention of
charts on board. Could this have been a case of him not having the
plate but trying to fly the approach from his VFR GPS? If this is the
case the certification level of the GPS has no bearing in the crash.

That accident was the result of the pilot's failure to fly the correct
altitude. It had nothing to do with the type of GPS being used.

wrote:

That accident was the result of the pilot's failure to fly the correct
altitude. It had nothing to do with the type of GPS being used.

Perhaps, but the reason for my reference to the accident in this thread was
to support my point that the possibility exists for instrument-rated pilots
to use a VFR GPS as the only means of navigation. It is unquestionable
that this accident pilot did.


--
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 =----

John Theune wrote:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...23X05372&key=1

According to the accident report the plane impacted a tower just left of
the centerline but 450 below the published minimum height. Short of
WAAS no GPS will keep you from trouble if you don't follow the altitude
restrictions on the plate. I find it interesting that the report
mentions that a GPS was found in the plane but makes no mention of
charts on board. Could this have been a case of him not having the
plate but trying to fly the approach from his VFR GPS? If this is the
case the certification level of the GPS has no bearing in the crash.

Baro is used for height.

Ron Lee

"Peter R." wrote in message
...

Yes,


Then you have identified yourself as an idiot.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

Then you have identified yourself as an idiot.

A personal attack in place of a logical response to my evidence presented.

I expected more of 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 =----