Originally Posted by JohnBurke

There is absolutely no justification for initializing the IRU without verifying current position. Doing otherwise is poor airmanship.

One should verify what the former residual IRU performance was, if available, before bringing the system up, however, to get an idea of which unit might be the most efficient in the event of a fail down and a need to rely on one without other nav input. Again, just good airmanship to now which unit shows the strongest and most accurate, before starting the flight. I very seldom see anybody do this.

It's a bit like not verifying the fuel upload. I see most look at the fuel indication and if it matches what's wanted, the crew is happy. It seems to be a lost basic that one should look at the previous ending fuel, fuel upload, add them and note any discrepancy that isn't explained by APU burn, etc. Simply things, but important, and should be done every time.

As for jamming issues: while there may come a time when ground based navaids or gone, that time is not today. I've never been an advocate of an all-eggs-in-one-basket approach, and am not today. There are locations, of course, that rely only on RNAV and GPS for approaches, arrivals, departures, etc, but when operating IFR to such locations, good airmanship dictates having options that do use ground based navaids, including alternates in mind. It's been mentioned that these concerns are chiefly for general aviation aircraft. Again, good airmanship dictates having a plan B.

It's possible to paint one's self into a box. Don't do that.

I also fly general aviation, sometimes in aircraft with no nav systems; it's either charts or a handheld GPS (and charts); with loss of GPS, then it's pilotage and dead reckoning.

The latter two still work. If one insists on going IFR, and has only RNAV capability, then we're back to good airmanship, which means having a plan to get to VMC and to fly visually.