X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 10:45:42 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from bay0-omc3-s2.bay0.hotmail.com ([65.54.246.202] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.12) with ESMTP id 3517248 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 07:46:04 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=65.54.246.202; envelope-from=gt_phantom@hotmail.com Received: from hotmail.com ([10.12.232.163]) by bay0-omc3-s2.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 26 Feb 2009 04:45:30 -0800 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 04:45:09 -0800 X-Original-Message-ID: Received: from 68.215.140.200 by COL0-DAV25.phx.gbl with DAV; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 12:45:05 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [68.215.140.200] X-Originating-Email: [gt_phantom@hotmail.com] X-Sender: gt_phantom@hotmail.com X-Original-Message-ID: <49A68ED4.8010102@hotmail.com> X-Original-Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 07:45:08 -0500 From: GT Phantom Reply-To: gt_phantom@hotmail.com Organization: None User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-To: marv@lancair.net X-Original-CC: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: Re: Re: Are you WAAS ready? References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Feb 2009 12:45:09.0144 (UTC) FILETIME=[0EC4B180:01C99810] X-Original-Return-Path: gt_phantom@hotmail.com Nice post Chuck.  I wrote recently about this on the Van's forum.

I personally have flown a PAR down BELOW minimums in near-W0X0F conditions with 30 knot crosswinds and icy runways - because the only alternative was to go ditch in the icy waters around Iceland.

Could I do that today?  Maybe.  But I wouldn't consider filing to such a place knowingly, and wouldn't attempt it if I had fuel to go to an alternate.

Flying IFR "even a little" involves planning - and that plan had better include regular practice sufficient to your "personal minimums."  If your personal minimum is 1500' x 3 mi with a thin overcast, do NOT let anyone tell you you are a sissy for sticking to your guns.

Disagreement is a privilege of the living...

Cheers,

Bill Reister

marv@lancair.net wrote:

Posted for "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com>:

 I was curious.  A lot of money has been spent on WAAS capable or upgrading
GPS to WAAS.  So the GPS is ready to go to low minimums, but how many GA
pilots are actually capable of flying safely to WAAS minimums?  Or should I
say, THINK they are capable to flying to WAAS minimums safely?  I would ask
for a show of hands from the pilots that 'thought' they were capable of flying
to minimums, but I guess I won't get any responders there.
 
 Yes, I bought a CNX-80 a long time ago for that very reason, yet I find I
haven't changed my personal minimums one bit.  My personal minimums vary more
with flying frequency and practice than how much my GPS glitters with
capability.  An aged old question with a new twist.  Which is safer, a high
time pilot with a standard GPS with lots of current IFR hours and plenty of
simulated and actual approaches or a weekend airplane driver that has 30 hours
this year and shot one approach to 200' above minimums with his WAAS GPS 3
months ago.  
 
 I hope that we don't fall for the trap that even though the WAAS may make you
legal for lower, it doesn't really make you more capable for lower, so don't
hang your hat on WAAS.
 
 Chuck Jensen