What we're mostly talking about here, is VFR, recreational flying.. There would BE no arguing if this thread, if it were centered around instrument flight, and had postings from only instrument pilots, who regulalry fly to get someplace, with people counting on him to get them there, too. If a VFR pilot gets himself into a position where he truly needed the GPS (or the VORs).. he's tempting fate, and is a statistic looking for a place to be published.. Heck, in VFR conditions.. you had better be able to find your way around by sectional and compass, else stay in the pattern and practice area with your instructor, until you can.In other words...The pilot planning to fly from Salt Lake City, to Page through overcast conditions, a little rain, and low visibility (if that ever even happens out there..lol).. would not have to be convinced by argument, how important radio navitagtion is, and how important it is to stay proficient.. And, if the GPS , or XM weather, or VORs for that matter, are anything more than a safety buffer, peace of mind, and convenience, to a recreational VFR pilot.. he's probably flying on borrowed time.

Spot on.

Surely there are still pilots we consider safe that operate on radio alone. (i'm not sure :( )

Hi, nice to meet you. I'd put my money on "RyanB and Geofa are safe pilots too"

I just wondered why airlines couldn't do the same as a temporary measure

Easy: If we were trained to fly without one in a SAFE (and CAA approved) way, why start now? You all have been pulling out accidents and Mr Adamson has stated infinite times how a GPS would have changed the outcome. I'll say it again: Those accidents where a GPS would have made a difference happened because the very basics of flying were dismissed at some time. You mentioned AAL965 near Cali, Colombia; cause of crash? Over-reliance on a single system and not reverting to basic navigation methods when things were not going as they should.Anyone who makes themselves a CFIT statistic is because the basic concepts of flying and airmanship were violated, dismissed, forgotten. I think someone already said it before: GPS just screams at you when you broke practically every concept you were taught not to.I agree, GPS is a nice tool, but is just one. I've found that the GPS on a GA aircraft is the equivalent of an FMS in an airliner. But even then, if the FMS is flying it is advisable to dial in the heading in the autopilot window, just in case. And if you don't have auto-tune (as in the 767), you are advised to tune VOR's along (or at least close to) the route. Doesn't matter if the FMS has its distances and ETA's all worked up, you do your own job!So yes, use it for the XM Weather (since you people don't have ACARS nor a company frequency to call to); yes, use it to have your flight plan all set up; yes, use it to give you a reference; but don't stop tuning VOR's and dialing courses, don't stop doing your own fuel and time calculations!Geez! :(

Hi Geof and everyone.>A statement of nothing is reliable so you should have a backup-doubt anyone disagrees with that? <That is the one thing that, at least in my messages, am trying to convey I've had and used GPSs since they were first available for civilians. I purchased what I recall to be Ser. Nr. 0000021 from Magellan and had many conversations with their Engineers about the problems and how to overcome / fix them. I also gave Safety seminars at CAP about the operation, and use and tried to encourage their use, before they were accepted by FAA. As a matter of fact I've tried to talk to everyone I knew at the FAA about the benefits of GPS and SIMs, specifically PC sims. I recall a Mission that I flew to establish a search grid where I used the Location coordinates from the Magellan. That made things so much easier and faster. But the bottom line is that they have flaws and must Not be relied upon blindly.>Me-I don't know why the faa did away with loran which is what I was using very nicely before gps took over..<Coast Guard gave up on it because of Funding issues, the same problem that puts in jeopardy the GPS system. They, Politicians, are trying to cut cost by undermining a system that everyone uses, so that they can build a bridge going to nowhere. But they do it for their constituents?, and make sure they get reelected.Because of cost cuts the new sats. will have lower resolution and making the system less reliable, assuming we can keep all 24 running. They could / should have kept the Loran, interface it with the GPS and we would have had the best system in the World. Now it's iffy if we will have sufficient sats. in the future, and it's very likely that we will lose our position as leaders in the Space exploration / navigation. We have people that make decisions and are complete inepts. Best be ready to become a 3rd World Country.TV

Hi Geof and everyone.>A statement of nothing is reliable so you should have a backup-doubt anyone disagrees with that? <That is the one thing that, at least in my messages, am trying to convey I've had and used GPSs since they were first available for civilians. I purchased what I recall to be Ser. Nr. 0000021 from Magellan and had many conversations with their Engineers about the problems and how to overcome / fix them. I also gave Safety seminars at CAP about the operation, and use and tried to encourage their use, before they were accepted by FAA. As a matter of fact I've tried to talk to everyone I knew at the FAA about the benefits of GPS and SIMs, specifically PC sims. I recall a Mission that I flew to establish a search grid where I used the Location coordinates from the Magellan. That made things so much easier and faster. But the bottom line is that they have flaws and must Not be relied upon blindly.>Me-I don't know why the faa did away with loran which is what I was using very nicely before gps took over..<Coast Guard gave up on it because of Funding issues, the same problem that puts in jeopardy the GPS system. They, Politicians, are trying to cut cost by undermining a system that everyone uses, so that they can build a bridge going to nowhere. But they do it for their constituents?, and make sure they get reelected.Because of cost cuts the new sats. will have lower resolution and making the system less reliable, assuming we can keep all 24 running. They could / should have kept the Loran, interface it with the GPS and we would have had the best system in the World. Now it's iffy if we will have sufficient sats. in the future, and it's very likely that we will lose our position as leaders in the Space exploration / navigation. We have people that make decisions and are complete inepts. Best be ready to become a 3rd World Country.TV

It is nice to see we agree..finally...

The Military would definitely be freaked out by it, they'd lose their JDAM capability just like that, but no it would not be like "911"VFR Pilots still have the mark 1 eyeball (Which is of utmost importance) and the VOR Network.IFR Pilots........Well lets just say neither boeing nor airbus makes an airplane that "Requires GPS" . Infact, the FAR's do not mention "GPS" as a requirement for VFR or IFR Flight - They are not a requirement, and airline flights can be conducted just as safely.Infact, probably the only consequence of such an event for civil aviation in the U.S.?Certain RNP, and GPS approaches would be unusable.Airlines would have no difficulty continuing operating on many RNAV approaches through use of IRS/VOR/DME. as equipped. GA Pilots would just have to tough it out and dial in the OBS.Hardly a national catastrophie, and I personally do not respect referencing the loss of 3,000 innocent people in comparison to the loss of a Nav-aid. (Which wouldn't cause a single death if pilots are following the FAR's and operating their airplanes safely).

Kevin, There are many other commercial airline pilots who give GPS the top notch for navigation. These are people who regularly fly FMC systems that include all three nav systems. I don't know what your GPS experience is, but I've heard from plenty of others. I know because I ask a lot. And yes, I do put much more trust into it, than previous radio nav systems. On the other hand, it's VFR, so it doesn't really matter. However, it hasn't failed since the early ninties (was less than a minute), and it hasn't yet screwed a coordinate. That's a pretty decent statistic if you ask me.If the GPS system goes down, I doubt we'll see much GA flight as well as commercial. It would be like 911. In the meantime, I have the two GPS's that act as a backup. It's VFR, it's day time, but best of all is the XM weather. It allows me to make intelligent decisions, that's always been somewhat of a guessing game in the past. And I'm far from being alone, when it comes to this weather advantage. Pilots who frequently use it, don't leave home without it.......as the saying goes. L.Adamson

If the GPS system goes down, I doubt we'll see much GA flight as well as commercial.......................L.Adamson

Nonsense. GPS is not a requirement for GA and VFR Flight - it is a very valuable tool and benefit but it is not a 'need'. I would rather have it in aircrafts than not but still it is not truly vital or flawless. However did people manage it for decades before. It shouldn't impact Airliner operations too much either as they also do not 'require' use of GPS, they have INS and VOR (as well as a bunch of NDBs) that can continue to be used for navigation purposes. Not to mention that should GPS fail there's aways the EU Galileo, the Russian GLONASS, and the Chinese Beidou and future COMPASS (which are both still being developed).Ofcourse the loss of GPS (if it should ever happen) would not be something to be taken lightly and will cause problems but it will hardly put a stop to GA and commercial aviation.I think you need to take it easy on the GPS arguments here, no one is saying that GPS is rubbish. All people are saying is that over-reliance on just GPS for navigation is a mistake, as you'd have nothing else to fall back on. Also you'd be neglecting your own old style navigational skills - like everything else, you have to practice those to keep them fluent.

................Other than that, limitations of GPS availability...... just doesn't happen much in the USA. That's also a solid and verifiable fact.L.Adamson

Well OK, not even in remote USA regions and what about the rest of the world? Shouldn't there be something else, just in case, that you can fall back on?

Well I am still baffled by this thread.A statement of nothing is reliable so you should have a backup-doubt anyone disagrees with that?

You got it. L.Adamson would disagree with that. This is where this debate started in this thread, and previous ones with L.Adamson about his GPS.

Because of cost cuts the new sats. will have lower resolution and making the system less reliable, assuming we can keep all 24 running. They could / should have kept the Loran, interface it with the GPS and we would have had the best system in the World. Now it's iffy if we will have sufficient sats. in the future, and it's very likely that we will lose our position as leaders in the Space exploration / navigation. We have people that make decisions and are complete inepts. Best be ready to become a 3rd World Country.TV

Where do you get your information? The new satellites, in which Boeig has already delivered the first one, are to be more precise.http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology...ts-launch-.htmlBesides, cost not enough aircraft these days are even carrying a Loran to make it feasable.L.Adamson

You all have been pulling out accidents and Mr Adamson has stated infinite times how a GPS would have changed the outcome. I'll say it again: Those accidents where a GPS would have made a difference happened because the very basics of flying were dismissed at some time. You mentioned AAL965 near Cali, Colombia; cause of crash? Over-reliance on a single system and not reverting to basic navigation methods when things were not going as they should.Anyone who makes themselves a CFIT statistic is because the basic concepts of flying and airmanship were violated, dismissed, forgotten. I think someone already said it before: GPS just screams at you when you broke practically every concept you were taught not to.Geez! :(

Let's put it this way...............If you're a passenger on any accident aircraft, that either I or Geof A mentioned, in which the pilots somehow overlooked basic "airmanship" and all aboard died.................would you rather have the event take place exactly the way it did, or a much better system in which the items over looked are flashing directly in their face. And it wouldn't be just a small picture of navigation points between A & B, but a large moving map that covers a good portion of the route. Without doubt, a Cessna 172 panel would have directly changed the outcome of the Cali, Columbia accident, if the GPS constillation is in place.But with a forum such as this one, I doubt it would ever happen.That's the problem here. I'm an advocate for GPS because the system can do so much more that prior navigation tools. When the pilots "screw the pooch", it doesn't mean that everyone has to die along with them. I'm getting quite tired of this.. "if they had just followed basic airmanship" crap. And yet you sit here, and write Geez :lol. L.Adamson

Kevin, There are many other commercial airline pilots who give GPS the top notch for navigation. These are people who regularly fly FMC systems that include all three nav systems. I don't know what your GPS experience is, but I've heard from plenty of others. I know because I ask a lot. And yes, I do put much more trust into it, than previous radio nav systems. On the other hand, it's VFR, so it doesn't really matter. However, it hasn't failed since the early ninties (was less than a minute), and it hasn't yet screwed a coordinate. That's a pretty decent statistic if you ask me.If the GPS system goes down, I doubt we'll see much GA flight as well as commercial. It would be like 911. In the meantime, I have the two GPS's that act as a backup. It's VFR, it's day time, but best of all is the XM weather. It allows me to make intelligent decisions, that's always been somewhat of a guessing game in the past. And I'm far from being alone, when it comes to this weather advantage. Pilots who frequently use it, don't leave home without it.......as the saying goes. L.Adamson

Don't get me wrong, I love it. I think it's the bee's knees. However, I have experienced failures where it was my sole source and the situation became dangerous. If you must know what my experience with gps is, it consists of daily flying in EMB-145s that have 1-2 GPS receivers and 1-2 FMCs. I also had many hours in a PA-44 equipped with a KLN-89B. I also own a Trimble hand held, the first one that came out when this was all new back in the '90s.My debate with your position, and I remember we've debated this before in other threads, is that you think that it is perfectly ok to take off from somewhere, punch in direct XYZ, and just fly straight ahead following that line. My issue with that technique is that it presents risks in that you don't know what you will be flying over. In IFR flying, we call what you do RNAVing. R stands for Random. Where you will be is random. You are not flying along a line that can be navigated visually or by any ground facility. What landmarks you can see to verify you are where you are will be random at best, if any. What terrain, and their suitability for an emergency landing is unconsidered and unknown. What mountains or airspace that may present an obstacle to you is not known until it appears in front of you on your moving map. Should the gps signal be lost, or batteries be dead, you would have no idea where you are or which way to go. You don't back yourself up. You don't fly in such a way that if your primary means of navigation, if your gps should go away for whatever unfathomable reason, you would have something visual outside, such as a highway that you planned your route to fly along, to pilotage by as a fallback. Neither would you have a VOR station to tune in and continue flying towards either. Your gps is your sole source. You have nothing else to go by. You'd be crippled without it.BTW, if GPS went away, we'd do just fine in our jets. Plenty of times I've had single FMC planes with that unit MEL'd. We'd just be /A and fly VOR to VOR. And plenty of GA planes existed before the advent of GPS. It wouldn't be 9/11.

So yes, use it for the XM Weather (since you people don't have ACARS nor a company frequency to call to); yes, use it to have your flight plan all set up; yes, use it to give you a reference; but don't stop tuning VOR's and dialing courses, don't stop doing your own fuel and time calculations!

Let's go over fuel and time calculations. Of course we'll start by getting an idea of how long the flight will be, and multiplying by the aircraft's use by the hour. 8,9, 10,15 gallons or whatever. Then we'll figure in winds for some adjustment. Personally, I've wrote down all the varius fuel use for quite a number of cross country trips that are already taken. That way, I have a good comparison in mind.But unlike many older aircraft in which we're looking at unrealiable fuel gauges, I'm looking at a fuel management system in which all fuel has to run through a small turbine like device which measures the flow. At fillup, this device is always within a quart. And that's just about the difference you'll get when filling to the top of the cap, or not quite.While in flight, I'm always observing the fuel flow in gallons per hour, which I can compare to my power settings. It's easy to see if something doesn't seem right. At the same time, the GPS is sending flight information to the fuel management system. I then get a readout of the projected fuel usage to complete the flight as well as reserves. The GPS also has a built in timer and warning to change tanks. The timer display is always on. Of course this is a differnt method of the old paper and pencil, yet I'm constantly up to date, with exactly what's going on. And I do like the system. I hadn't installed it orginally, but did last year, when the airpane was partially disasembled for it's yearly inspection.L.Adamson

My debate with your position, and I remember we've debated this before in other threads, is that you think that it is perfectly ok to take off from somewhere, punch in direct XYZ, and just fly straight ahead following that line. My issue with that technique is that it presents risks in that you don't know what you will be flying over.

No Kevin, I never have thought it perfectly okay to just dial in a line, and off we go. I even mentioned deviations when I posted the flight plan pic, in case you didn't pick up on that. I also posted my flight planning proceedure before all cross countrys. This included setting up the plan on the AOPA flight planner. And for additional reference I have current charts in front of me, which will be in the aircraft as well. This plan is then transferred to the GPS, along with individual custom waypoints, etc. In other words, I know exactly what's in front of me, and no guessing what so ever. So let's don't imply something, when you've missed a few conversations here and there. This is why my wife was a bit mystified by some of the postings over the last few days. She is well aware of advanced flight planning, and all the paperwork on the kneedboard besides the GPS. She actually forced me into the kneeboard. I hadn't used them, but she was tired of holding the maps and printouts on her lap.

BTW, if GPS went away, we'd do just fine in our jets. Plenty of times I've had single FMC planes with that unit MEL'd. We'd just be /A and fly VOR to VOR. And plenty of GA planes existed before the advent of GPS. It wouldn't be 9/11.

My reference to GPS going away, is some calimity or supposeable terrorist attack. Then flying would be limited at with 911. Unless it's massive sun spots that will kill us all anyway, I don't see the GPS constellation going off line in our life time.L.Adamson

No Kevin, I never have thought it perfectly okay to just dial in a line, and off we go. I even mentioned deviations when I posted the flight plan pic, in case you didn't pick up on that. I also posted my flight planning proceedure before all cross countrys. This included setting up the plan on the AOPA flight planner. And for additional reference I have current charts in front of me, which will be in the aircraft as well. This plan is then transferred to the GPS, along with individual custom waypoints, etc. In other words, I know exactly what's in front of me, and no guessing what so ever. So let's don't imply something, when you've missed a few conversations here and there. This is why my wife was a bit mystified by some of the postings over the last few days. She is well aware of advanced flight planning, and all the paperwork on the kneedboard besides the GPS. She actually forced me into the kneeboard. I hadn't used them, but she was tired of holding the maps and printouts on her lap.L.Adamson

Very good, I'm glad to read that.

Very good, I'm glad to read that.

Good, I can go to work now in peace with pleasant thoughts for the day.. :)L.Adamson

Well I am still baffled by this thread.

Nobody disagrees that each wave of technology is welcomed appreciated. Today's GA pilot can fly along with levels of safety, peace-of-mind, and convenience, that were not only not availalble, not so long ago, but were literally unimaginable.When I learned to fly, circa 1979, the idea that that little Archer could have an; LCD screen, moving-map; instant, great-circle course-plotting; on-demand data for ANY airport; ultra-accurate ground-speeds and distance measurements; multi-waypoint plotting; data-base for all approaches AND the ability to guide the pilot through a precision approach to ANY runway (even grass strips)... that, at the time, would have seemed beyond science fiction.The powers and wonders of this technology itself, are not in question. The only thing on trial, is the human-nature that leads to over-dependency, and complacency. When someone says that it's important to keep ALL navigation skills sharp, the GPS addicts get all defensive. "Why should I bother to spin an OBS, or keep radio skills current, or even LEARN them in the first place, when I've got a GPS"... THAT'S a problem. And if you've ever spent time instructing, or giving a BFR, you see how much of a problem it can be. There are far too many pilots out there, who cannot even come up with a quick, instinctive position-report, for a tower at an airport they can SEE, if you cover the GPS :( Even though GPS failures are extremeley rare (though that is changing as the equipment ages.. I've had a failure that was as inane as one of the buttons wearing out and sticking), when they do happen, there are far too many pilots not prepared to deal with it.We do have a built-in safety margin though... as most of these pilots are recreational, VFR only. The GPS failure might scare them at first, but when you can see for miles, have a sectional-chart, and are not 1/2-way through a flight where fuel consumption is important.. you can take your time and re-compose yourself. But this begs the question that deserves an HONEST answer. How many of these weekend warriors, who fly exclusively by GPS, will even have a current sectional, or Airpot Facility Directory in the airplane ? You see this constantly at flying clubs. A couple of pilots will be talking about where they should go, for a fun adventure. "Hey, isn't there a nice $100 hamburger place, down near Cinncy ?" .. "Yeah.. call for fuel, let's GO !" ... and they jump into the airplane with nothing but they're headsets... BECAUSE it has a GPS in its panel.Again, as noted earlier.. if this thread were limited to posters who have a lot of actual instrument flying under their belt.. there would be no arguing about the importance of radio-navigation proficiency. On that note.. I'm still a firm proponent of becoming an instrument pilot, if for no other reason that it makes you more competent, and confident... even if you never-ever file an IFR flight-plan. We could dedicate an entire thread, just discussing all the ways that learning to fly when you cannot see a thing, and all the multi-tasking involved, carries over into all of your piloting, and makes you a better, all-around pilot.ANYway.. let me state one more time... Nobody is discrediting GPS... Everybody agrees that it's THE superior method for getting your airplane from one place to another.. It only becomes a problem when a pilot gets to where it's the ONLY way he can confidently navigate.*** and no Larry, I'm not pointing at you.. I'm sure that your experience and expertise are top-notch. I have no doubt that you could get yourself safely through a flight, and on the ground if the GPS quit ****** the only concern I'd have, would be that extra confidence that all the technology provides, might get you to a place where you WOULD be in trouble, if it failed, or you mis-interpreted it, or if it glitched and you had no backup method to even know that there was a problem***

Let's put it this way...............If you're a passenger on any accident aircraft, that either I or Geof A mentioned, in which the pilots somehow overlooked basic "airmanship" and all aboard died.................would you rather have the event take place exactly the way it did, or a much better system in which the items over looked are flashing directly in their face. And it wouldn't be just a small picture of navigation points between A & B, but a large moving map that covers a good portion of the route. Without doubt, a Cessna 172 panel would have directly changed the outcome of the Cali, Columbia accident, if the GPS constillation is in place.But with a forum such as this one, I doubt it would ever happen.That's the problem here. I'm an advocate for GPS because the system can do so much more that prior navigation tools. When the pilots "screw the pooch", it doesn't mean that everyone has to die along with them. I'm getting quite tired of this.. "if they had just followed basic airmanship" crap. And yet you sit here, and write Geez :lol. L.Adamson

I'd much rather have a different pilot. :( Now, everybody knows that an air accident is not caused by a single reason. Why that airplane crashed? The airplane took off late, meaning the crew were running out of duty time (and energy), there was no radar that night; it had been blown up by the guerilla. I reckon GPS has little help to offer in those two cases, but then things get complicated. I'll elaborate:1. The crew were all confident because the FMS was flying the aircraft, they didn't had a single chart prepared for reference (yet).2. Because of number 1, they were told to report a VOR, they were already passed that VOR and they didn't realised that.3. In a hurry, decided to approach for the runway which gave them the shorter time in the air and they were not prepared for it!4. In the same hurry, when instructed to go to point XXX, they dialed in the first letter of the point, and since they instinctively thought the first option would be the correct one, they carried on and selected the wrong point which was in a completely different direction.5. Since (in the same hurry) they needed to descend faster, they deployed the spoilers. They were already deviated from where they should have been going, thus descending into a valley.6. By the time the GPWS triggered (which by the way, it screams at you with enough time to do something), they applied full thrust with the spoilers still deployed, resulting in an insufficient climb to clear the obstacle.Please tell me how that's not breaking several concepts taught to you on the very beginnings of your flying career (i.e. bad airmanship)By the way, the 757 has the glorified moving map display, and you can select it to show you airports, VOR's, NDB's and fixes. It also shows terrain, it also has a weather radar, it also shows a flight path, it also shows the deviation you are about to make. Isn't that bad airmanship? Really?How could that have been prevented? Easy: The second the airplane went hoo-hoo, disengage the bloody autopilot and follow that radial from the VOR! Just by doing that, you just saved your life and other 150, plus millions of dollars in insurance costs. Just by pushing a button and fly the thing like you did when you flew single-engines while at flight school.That's why the GPS is just a tool, not the whole bloody airplane. I'll say it again: If we were trained to fly safely and efficiently (and it has been proven it is safe and efficient) WITHOUT a GPS, why start now?The satellite network doesn't have to fail to have the GPS failing, it can be the very own device. So yes, it can fail (as evidenced by several on this thread)No one is arguing that the GPS is a wonderful tool. But it is just that, a tool! You have tons of other tools in your airplane (I hope!)And yet I sit here again and write "Geez!"P.S.: Is Colombia, with an O.