mprather(at)spro.net
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 4:46 pm Post subject: FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION FOR PORTABL |
 |
|
Here's the report I mentioned below:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id 021023X05372&ntsbno=IAD03FA005&akey=1
This is an interesting one to me. If the pilot hadn't been described as
"very competent," I would have guessed that it was just sloppy flying that
caused the accident. In this case, however, I have to wonder whether the
pilot was getting bad information from his handheld, and whether a
certified install would have kept the airplane out of the rocks. He was
admittadly low for that section of the approach, and somewhat off course
when he hit a tower..
Link to a copy of the approach plate:
http://www.airnav.com/depart?http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0701/06224G21.PDF
Regards,
Matt-
[quote]
<mprather(at)spro.net>
I agree Randy.. In fact I recently read an NTSB report about a (I think)
172 that crashed in IFR conditions while executing an approach in (I
think) North Carolina. If I recall, the airplane actually did have the
required equipment on board but interviews with people not involved with
the crash indicated that the pilot was using some kind of PDA based
navigator.
Another possibility is that it would be obvious to assume that since the
average handheld GPS _usually_ works better* than the average ADF or NAV
receiver, people might start using handheld GPS's to navigate and shoot
approaches while in actual conditions and just forgoe the $pendy
equipment.
I suppose that the FAA might figure out what you were doing if you landed
out of the soup and an inspector ramp checked you and found that you
didn't have any legal nav equipment. "Hey, so, how did you just execute
that flight, sir?" I suspect this has happened at least once.
So, the FAA can read the NTSB reports, see what people are getting dinged
for on RAMP checks and guess what people might be doing based on what
capabilities certain devices have..
It sounds like your position is that something shouldn't be illegal unless
they can show that people are actually exhibiting a certain undesirable
behavior. I think I agree. In this case, I think the FAA can probably
show instances of the rule breakers.
Regards,
Matt-
* better in some ways and not others...
>
> <sales(at)6440autoparts.com>
>
> There are cops checking for speeders and know who they are.
> How
> does the FAA know who is using non certified equipment for flying vor
> radials ? And are they flying these radials with the gps just for
> situational awareness while using they're nav for primary, just as all
> the
> company's that sell these non cerified units reccomend ? If they are
> flying
> the non cert gps as primary how would these rule breakers be sought out
> ?
> The only way I can think of is by ntsb reports stating that as a cause.
> If
> there are no reports stating this how would the FAA get thier info ?
> Bill
> I'm not trying to raise an argument, but I don't see how these dreaded
> rebel
> "rule breakers", whoever they are, can be blamed for the FAA coming up
> with
> new rules against portable gps's. Please explain I am at a loss.
>
> Randy
>
> ---
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
