The GPS/NAV switch in Carenado 182RG

[jfri 42]

I have the Carenado 182RG andhave seen a gps/nav switch for the autopilot. Also My impression is that the GPS looks like a handheld unit. If so I suppose thegps/nav switch shouldn't work (but it does)Question if I wan't to strive for realism should I always use the nav position for this switch?

[Manny 1,293]

>I have the Carenado 182RG andhave seen a gps/nav switch for>the autopilot. Also My impression is that the GPS looks like a>handheld unit. If so I suppose thegps/nav switch shouldn't>work (but it does)>Question if I wan't to strive for realism should I always use>the nav position for this switch?Ha ha,,,, That was funny, You betcha.:)Manny

[LAdamson 240]

In a certified aircraft such as this, chances are, that a Navomatic auto-pilot won't be coupled with a hand-held GPS. Yet, hand-held GPS's are coupled with auto-pilots, as that's what I have. My Garmin 296 has an output that drives a solid state gyro auto-pilot. It will follow a complete flight plan, with exception of altitude changes.I suppose the Carenado A/P setup is a conveniance without being an exact realistic model, and I wouldn't have a second thought on using it.L.Adamson

[jfri 42]

>In a certified aircraft such as this, chances are, that a>Navomatic auto-pilot won't be coupled with a hand-held GPS.>Yet, hand-held GPS's are coupled with auto-pilots, as that's>what I have. My Garmin 296 has an output that drives a solid>state gyro auto-pilot. It will follow a complete flight plan,>with exception of altitude changes.>I suppose you are talking about real flying now? And that the garmin has a wireless connection like bluetooth.>I suppose the Carenado A/P setup is a conveniance without>being an exact realistic model, and I wouldn't have a second>thought on using it.>If you got GPS are there any need for the VOR recievers except maybe for ILS approaches? IS VOR to VOR navigation a thing of the past in real life? Or maybe it's cheaper to equip the planeswith VOR instead of GPS?

[RobdeVries 28]

Official navigation is done with charts and radio/nav (ie VOR navigation), GPS can serve as companion and backup but never a replacement for VOR (radio) navigation. Of course a lot of pilots use it the other way around :)Rob "Holland&Holland" de Vries http://fool.exler.ru/sm/fly2.gif"To go up, pull the stick back. To go down, pull the stick back harder"

[LAdamson 240]

>Official navigation is done with charts and radio/nav (ie VOR>navigation), GPS can serve as companion and backup but never a>replacement for VOR (radio) navigation. Of course a lot of>pilots use it the other way around :)>And someday, VOR navigation will be a thing of the past, as VOR's at least in the U.S. will be phased out.L.Adamson

[LAdamson 240]

>I suppose you are talking about real flying now? And that the>garmin has a wireless connection like bluetooth.>>>If you got GPS are there any need for the VOR recievers except>maybe for ILS approaches? IS VOR to VOR navigation a thing of>the past in real life? Or maybe it's cheaper to equip the>planeswith VOR instead of GPS?>The GPS is hard wired, but easily disconnected with a 5 wire plug, that also supplies 12 volt aircraft power instead of waisting the battery. VOR nav WILL be a thing of the past (in the U.S.), although the ILS will be sticking around for a while, and for many, tuning in a VOR (if equipped) is just something to do while humming along on auto-pilot and listening to XM radio. :)I'm in the experimental/kitbuilt/homebuilt area of aviation. Nav radios, and especially combined with DME are more expensive than a good GPS setup. For legal IFR, you still have to have certified NAV radios with or without GPS combinations. For VFR, a NAV radio capable of tuning in VOR's is a waste, as a backup handheld nav/com will tune in a VOR if really needed. Having a second GPS along with it's batteries for backup is no problem either.Panels in experimentals can range from simplicity, to spending $60,000 for setups that include a version of the Garmin 1000. There are lots of high tech glass systems for the experimental market.L.Adamson

[DaryllB25840 1]

GPS navigation is not legal because the government can, because of national security, degrade the signal from the satelites if they see fit. This was the case before Clinton allowed the satelite signal to be upgraded for accuracy in GPS navigation. ATC knows everyone is using GPS from the radar plots, probably by the straight line flight paths. Prior to GPS, RNAV was the thing for straight line navigation.Daryll

[Manny 1,293]

Daryll.This is the reason/rationale thaat Europe used for their GPS system (Galileo). The Europe GPS is either as accurate or more accurate than the US and they have said that it would not be downgraded. They were not too keen on depending on the US GPS system thats linked to the Miltary. They wanted a pure civilian systemQuote:Galileo will be Europe 's own global navigation satellite system, providing a highly accurate, guaranteed global positioning service under civilian control. It will be inter-operable with GPS and GLONASS (interner Link) , the two other global satellite navigation systems. A user will be able to take a position with the same receiver from any of the satellites in any combination. By offering dual frequencies as standard, however, Galileo will deliver real-time positioning accuracy down to the metre range, which is unprecedented for a publicly available system. It will guarantee availability of the service under all but the most extreme circumstances and will inform users within seconds of a failure of any satellite. This will make it suitable for applications where safety is crucial, such as running trains, guiding cars and landing aircraft. The fully deployed Galileo system consists of 30 satellites (27 operational + 3 active spares), positioned in three circular Medium Earth Orbit (MEO) planes in 23616 km altitude above the Earth, and at an inclination of the orbital planes of 56 degrees with reference to the equatorial plane. Once this is achieved, the Galileo navigation signals will provide a good coverage even at latitudes up to 75 degrees north, which corresponds to the North Cape , and beyond. The large number of satellites together with the optimisation of the constellation, and the availability of the three active spare satellites, will ensure that the loss of one satellite has no discernible effect on the user.http://www.sbf.admin.ch/htm/international/...nication-e.html

[LAdamson 240]

>>GPS navigation is not legal because the government can,>because of national security, degrade the signal from the>satelites if they see fit. This was the case before Clinton>allowed the satelite signal to be upgraded for accuracy in GPS>navigation. ATC knows everyone is using GPS from the radar>plots, probably by the straight line flight paths. Prior to>GPS, RNAV was the thing for straight line navigation.>GPS actually can be used for an IFR flight plan, if it's an IFR certified reciever. You can file a "direct to" flight plan, although you might not get the clearence. It's also legal to use the GPS as the primary form of navigation to fly airways in an IFR flight plan.GPS is also the primary instrument for GPS certified approaches. There are specific rules on alternate airports, where use of VOR's might be required.As to VFR, if you want to use VOR's as waypoints on the GPS, that is fine. Fly direct, and skip all the zigzagging (with exceptions for restricted airspaces) is legal too.As a note: These days, GPS recievers using WAAS, are actually more reliable for altitude than a altimeter might be. You can also expect to stay within about three feet of a centerline, versus somewhere within four miles when some distance from a VOR, using typical NAV recievers. The type of GPS operated auto-pilot that I have, allows you to fly up to a mile offset on airways to avoid traffic.L.Adamson

[razorseal 0]

I gotta say, i love GPS... i fly planes with no on board GPSs, so I've learned to fly on radio nav, but I have a 496 now, and it makes life so much easier, and also safer...I have a sp-200 radio which is very good at following VORs even from decent distances, i have a GPS that can run totally on its own if something critical happened to the plane, and lastly I have the plane's navigation radios... and a current chart if i'm really screwed somehow...so I feel pretty safe up there, and I trust my GPS pretty well :)