In Loving Memory Of
Founder of AVSIM Online
Hot Spots:Latest News & Homepage
File Library - What's New
Latest Product Reviews
FS9/FSX/P3D CTD Guide v3
Bargain Hunters Forum
Classified, Want, Swap Ads
News (1999 to 2012)
Product Reviews (2006-2012)
Advertise on AVSIM!
Sim Site Rankings
The AVSIM Staff
AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!
How do pilots typically set NAV1 and NAV2 radios?
62 replies to this topic
Inactive Member_Adverse Yawn_***
Posted 11 December 2005 - 03:52 AM
Gosh! I thought the first units were out in about 1996. As a general rule, within the commercial market, the US seems to be about 2 years ahead of the UK!How about my other points?
Posted 10 December 2005 - 07:40 PM
>You were using GPS in 1993??Yes, the Garmin moving map GPS95 came out in the summer of 1993, and I bought one. Upgraded to the Garmin 195Map in 1997. Use a Garmin 296 with terrain/ terrain warning these days. Plan to get a 396 with XM Satellite weather, soon. Satellite uplinked weather patterns in mountainous regions is extremely valuable.L.Adamson
Inactive Member_Adverse Yawn_***
Posted 10 December 2005 - 01:51 PM
You were using GPS in 1993??Regardless, with all due respect Adamson, you've missed the point. You don't have any problems because you sound like a 1st rate competent pilot. The real irony of technology is that those that can use it safely and don't what the fuss is about are those who don't need it!What Jim is saying, that for those who are struggling at the back of the cognative drag curve mid flight, technology won't change much. They'll still die. Some people make fatal mistakes and some people don't. All simplifying technology does is move the complexity somewhere else. That complexity still has to be dealt with one way or another.Often, that moved complexity is self-induced. Non-instrument rated pilot departing in marginal weather only because they have a GPS. Without the GPS they wouldn't have departed. The number of Controlled Airspace busts remains alomost the same in the UK, inspite of the common use of GPS. People are still getting it wrong on a regular basis. Maybe not you, but it happens.As for the loss of signal: Very infrequent, but inevitible. Wales is a common blackspot. Probably to do with military ops in the area. The UK CAA often conduct jamming tests. Surely the US mil do too? GPS signals are very very very weak. It doesn't take much. Not all GPS units are RAIM equiped so you may not be aware of your loss of accuracy as a result of losing satellites. Also, multi-path errors from mountainous terrain cause problems (as they do for VOR and ADF).Commercial aircraft don't use GPS in isolation. They cross reference the GPS position with the IRS, VOR/DME and DME/DME crosscuts (where available).GPS approaches are another kettle of fish. In the US, GPS precision appoaches are possible through the use of dGPS and WAAS correction systenms and ground based Psuedolites providing much stronger and extremely accurate signals.
Posted 10 December 2005 - 10:41 AM
All right guys..chill.Let me adjudicate this. ;)GPSs are not toys... they are real life savers and give an easy way to be situational aware.. and that is priceless in aviation.But for learning IFR, its wise not to be dependent on GPS. One should be able to navigate with precision on minimum equipment, which would mean... just flying on one VOR equipment and with a Gyro failure to boot (no attitude indicator and no directional gyro). or something similar.If you can't fly precisely without a GPS... you are no pilot.Edited to add: I am almost done with my IFR... From what I have seen... I plan to have a personal minimum that I would not fly single Pilot IFR without a GPS.And thats the last word.:)Manny
Posted 10 December 2005 - 08:39 AM
>>FINALLY, the ONE flaw in TIA aircraft that the manufacturers>and the FAA have officially recognized is OVER CONFIDENCE IN>THE BENEFITS which is EXACTLY the attitude that you are>conveying in this thread.>Bullsh***Support this....., as I read just the oppositeL.Adamson
Posted 10 December 2005 - 08:23 AM
I noticed, that in your reply to the Aspen incident, that you convienently left out the confusion part regarding the road and the runway. It's all in the report from the flight recorder. They were LOST.....You've harped on the "improper" planning comptency of pilots, although you admit it causes "death" to passengers. And then you dismiss a moving map GPS, which can go a LONG way in rectifying the pilots mistakes, as a TOY.....BTW---- At which point does the pilot become incompetant? 3000 hrs, 5000 hrs????And here is your REBA's band report...."The aircraft hit rising terrain near the top of Mt. Otay, 8 miles NE of Brown Field at an elevation of 3,300 feet shortly after taking off. Improper planning/decision by the pilot. Failure of the crew to maintain proper altitude and clearance over mountainous terrain and the failure of the copilot to adequately monitor the progress of the flight."Do you honestly believe a Garmin 1000 or Avidyne glass panel, would have made NO difference? If so, you certainly haven't been close to one....edit.......... or do we just say, "screw the passengers", and kill them along with the crew, because of the pilots mistakes. You've said over and over, that GPS and Glass isn't supported in NTSB reports. Then great, they must be WORKING!!!! NTSB reports deal with the aftermath of accidents, don't they?Are you also going to dismiss 3D synthetic vision, which is now coming on line with glass panels? If you were a Reba band member, wouldn't you have like to have had one of these devices in front of pilot or co-pilot's face?If using a Reba's band member as an example, since you knew one, bugs you, then we're on the same wave lenght. I had two close friends perish in a flight into terrain accident too. L.Adamson
Posted 10 December 2005 - 03:29 AM
>No YOU loose because you have literally "gone off" on this topic and have resorted to personal insults that are entirely unwelcome to me and I would assume the moderators of this forum.As I have stated repeatedly I have no problem with technolical advances in aviation. It's all cool but A) was so badly overtouted that the FAA found the need to issue rules concerning Technologically Advanced Aircraft because of a rash of accidents in which pilot misunderstanding of the technology was cited as a factor.Regarding the Aspen accident you are entirely and utter WRONG. They WERE NOT "lost" as you so incorrectly posted. Why don't you read the NTSB findings which state and I quote regarding probably causes:"The flight crew's operation of the airplane below the minimum descent altitude without an appropriate visual reference for the runway"Does your GPS enable essentially zero/zero approaches and landings sir? The GIII's did not. The NTSB also found:"Pressure from the customer on the captain to land..."and"The flight crew should have abandoned the approach because the airplane descended below the MDA. Also, the flight crew should have considered diverting to an alternate airport after receiving information about the deteriorating visibility...and the three reports of missed approaches."Taking 15 passangers to their death when flying an ILLEGAL, night approach in nearly zero/zero conditions in Aspen, Colorado is one of the most unconscionable acts of pilot misconduct in the history of General Aviation.Regarding Reba's band, I happen to be in the country music industry, sir, in a fairly significant fashion, and happen to have KNOWN one of her band members personally.But you continue to assign "life saving" benefits to glass instruments that you have NO evidence to support. Here are the NTSB findings on that one:"The aircraft hit rising terrain near the top of Mt. Otay, 8 miles NE of Brown Field at an elevation of 3,300 feet shortly after taking off. Improper planning/decision by the pilot. Failure of the crew to maintain proper altitude and clearance over mountainous terrain and the failure of the copilot to adequately monitor the progress of the flight."Are you telling me that you think that competent pilots need some glass toy to tell them that there is rising terrain at 3,300 SHORTLY AFTER TAKEOFF????? The NTSB says that the pilots planned improperly and that the co-pilot failed to adequately monitor the progress of the flight. But YOU know better. < >What in the WORLD does a pilot need a glass toy for to tell him that he is below the GLIDESLOPE???????? Aren't there little needles that kinda give you a clue about your position relative to the localizer and glideslope??? I seem to remember something about those things along the way to my Commercial, Instrument and M/E tickets. Are YOU an instructor??? I thought so from your past highly informed posts but now that you have gone bananas on this topic, I'm not so sure.FINALLY, the ONE flaw in TIA aircraft that the manufacturers and the FAA have officially recognized is OVER CONFIDENCE IN THE BENEFITS which is EXACTLY the attitude that you are conveying in this thread.Rant on bro. Over and out.Jim
Posted 10 December 2005 - 12:00 AM
>As GPS VFR example, if you switch off the GPS and learn to fly>eyes outside with a line on the chart and watch, you will be>very very rearely suprised. If you merely follow the GPS you>will, sooner or later, have an issue. Even if it is due to a>mis-entered way point, or botched last minute diversion>reprogramming, or just a plain and simple loss of signal.huh?....I've planned and programmed serious and "real" mountain flights into a GPS for over 12 years now. Thanks to the GPS, I could plan a more direct route, instead of hop-scothing/criss-crossing VOR to VOR which often meant an altitude change when criss-crossing 180 degrees south.Let's just say a lot of planning went into the flight beforehand, and it's more convienent than un-folding, re-folding various sectionals while the plane banks over into a dive, not to mention knowing exactly where you are, and where alternate/emergency airports, and highways are.........always to the second. In reality, you spend more time looking OUT the windscreen, than at the GPS "line" or sectional maps. With a sectional and other flight planning information, the whole route can be pre-planned with MEA's, mountain pass altitudes, fuel stops, etc. Then.................it's programmed into the GPS, and these day's, the auto-pilot will fly the GPS route if desired. BTW, I just happen to have an auto-pilot that displays the GPS derived heading and destination on it's own little screen. At least that way, you know that the A/P knows! Of course the A/P is using the GPS for heading information. Accuracy is within 50' of the track heading. Try that kind of accuracy by tracking VOR to VOR; it won't happen. The A/P also will fly a track between GPS VOR coordinates with offsets up to a mile, to avoid heavily traveled airways. Neat!I'm SO tired, of the non-knowing, always implying that the "stupid" pilot just merely follows the colored line with no thought to anything else, such as restricted and Class airspaces, towers, terrain, weather, etc that can be displayed on better moving maps.OH...................and ALL those loss of signals???? Seems to happen much less these days, than out of commission VORS and NDB's. Well, at least here in the U.S.edit: Europe is still behind, when it comes to GPS navigation.......sorry. NDB's are relics from the Dynosuar era, as far as I'm concerned. We have a nice one around here. Screw up though, and you'll hit the mountain behind it. Some already have.L.Adamson
Posted 09 December 2005 - 10:53 PM
>>Just nearly HALF of CFIT accidents were over FLAT terrain! So,>only 7.6% of CFIT accidents had anything to do with the>existence or lack thereof, of vertical terrain warning devises>of ANY kind.You loose again........Once again, pilots have simply flown into flat ground, while loosing track of altitude, while trying to regain a sense of heading during a missed approach, or while on the ILS itself.And once again, a flashing terrain device or audible warning device can make a difference, or certainly has the potential to do so. Let's go back to the American Airlines 757 "fatal" crash. Here we have last second audible terrain warnings, thank's to the airplanes radar altimeter. But.... too late, as once again, the pilots were "lost". They didn't have the BIG PICTURE which a GPS moving map "toy" as you have called it, could have made a wopping difference....L.Adamson
Posted 09 December 2005 - 10:40 PM
>>>Oh c'mon man. The now FAMOUS Aspen accident involving a GIII>was caused by the pilots giving in to the rich charter>customer's CEO who DEMANDED that they go inot ASE IN SPITE OF>near zero viz and IN SPITE OF landing AFTER a known landing>cerfew time having passed.>>Do you think that the pilots were somehow surprised about the>rising terrain in and around the ASE airport?>I've re-read, what you've wrote, and shake my head in amazement! When it get's to the heart of the subject, the pilots confused a highway & the runway location. This would have been very obvious with today's moving map technolgy..............but you totally discount the facts, and harp on the CEO & curfew side of things. But when it get's right down to it..................they were LOST!!!! A moving map "toy" as you call it, could have again, made all the difference! A paper sectional map...............not hardly...L.Adamson
Posted 09 December 2005 - 10:23 PM
>I agree completely with Jim's sentiments. Technology does not>remove the dangers. Technology can simplify and hide the>dangers which in itself can be dangerous. Technology tends to>encourage a more reative than proactive approach to flying. >Like I said to Jim,Ask Frank Sinatra's mother.....Or Reba McEntire's band .......What they might think, if they were still around......Pitiful....L.Adamson
Posted 09 December 2005 - 10:20 PM
>>So, YES, a sectional, a working altimiter and a 180 degree>turn WILL save A LOT more lives...if they were USED...then any>terrain avoidance device that ever has been invented and>conversely, no terrain avoidance device will save ANYONE who>doesn't use it or gets themselves into situations where using>it will not and cannot save them.Ask Frank Sinatra's mother.....Or Reba McEntire's band .......Both aircraft hit rising terrain after departure, where the airplanes symbol on a moving map, would have most likley, have made a he## of a difference in the outcome. But hey............ pass this technology off as a "toy"!!!I'm now totally convinced; you sound like the type of guy, who really hasn't used glass, or moving maps to any real degree. Too many that have, think differently. Those that "have not" tend to claim, exactly what you're saying, and go all out to make a very convincingly, but "weak" point. Are you aware, that a board of investigation recommended moving map GPS after investigating the Ron Brown 737 and Columbian 757 crashes? Or do we just play stupid, when much better technology exist's for someone who just happens to need it? You seem to be the type, who believes it will always happen to the "other" guy! Remember the Navy handing out hand-held GPS's to F-18 pilots? Ever see the research program that compared beginning "glass" students to basic "steam guage" students? You loose!I side with Richard Collins of Flying Magazine, myself. He's about as pro GPS as it gets these days. Farthermore, I don't believe I agree with anything you've said. Quite frankly, you're behind the times, IMO! Your not flight instructor, are you? If so, I'd recommend students get another. Your train of thought is in the past, and getting passed by quickly!......................................................Okay.................. next subject...XM Satellite Weather overlays on a moving map GPS screen. Worth it or not?I don't know "one " pilot, who has really used the system that would now want to do without it. And I personally know, or have heard from many. But hey, it's a GPS screen and not a paper sectional. Best thing since GPS, they say! But then, you don't care much for GPS.... So what if it does a much better job than most commercial aircraft's radar systems for providing a much more accurate picture of active weather for hundreds of miles in all directions, not to mention the display of a lot more information such as current weather patterns, TFR's etc.L.Adamson
Posted 09 December 2005 - 01:08 PM
>Thanks for that, Manny, that's just the kind of IFR book I'm>looking for. >>>edit: holy smokes Amazon has a link for it for $100 >Luckily it looks like it can be obtained from Skyroamers>Publication directly for $35.00. JMR. Yeah, it is a little pricy.. but for a real IFR pilot or student. Its worth every penny. the book or manual is nothing much to look at. no color pictures or anything. But the focus there is the "HOW to" part rather than the "What" are the various procuedures that you get in other books$35 = 1 hr IFR instuction. ;)
Inactive Member_Adverse Yawn_***
Posted 09 December 2005 - 11:00 AM
An source of stella information is RANT (www.oddsoft.co.uk). The staple diet of many JAA IR students. It is a fabulous peice of software.