As regards General Aviation: In the UK it is a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment, a fine and permanent loss of licence to NOT carry with you an aeronautical chart! This law applies even to paraglider pilots etc. As for commercial aviation they by law punishable the same way MUST carry airways charts and all necessary charts pertaining to the departure/arrival aerodrome and diversions. Therefore, the principal navigation aid as defined by UK law is the mark I eyeball! GPS is officially regarded as only an additional aid and must not on any flight of ANY nature be used as the principal navigation aid. Uk General aviation pilots use charts, eyeballs, VOR's, DME's, NDB's, and then and only then cross reference their position with the GPS to serve as a backup/confirmation ONLY. Commercial aviation navigates only by INS,VOR's, DME's, NDB's and again only use GPS as a cross reference.vololiberista

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?

You see safe and efficient. I see lot's of dead pilots and passengers. Shredded aircraft too.L.Adamson

As regards General Aviation: In the UK it is a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment, a fine and permanent loss of licence to NOT carry with you an aeronautical chart! This law applies even to paraglider pilots etc. As for commercial aviation they by law punishable the same way MUST carry airways charts and all necessary charts pertaining to the departure/arrival aerodrome and diversions. Therefore, the principal navigation aid as defined by UK law is the mark I eyeball! GPS is officially regarded as only an additional aid and must not on any flight of ANY nature be used as the principal navigation aid. Uk General aviation pilots use charts, eyeballs, VOR's, DME's, NDB's, and then and only then cross reference their position with the GPS to serve as a backup/confirmation ONLY. Commercial aviation navigates only by INS,VOR's, DME's, NDB's and again only use GPS as a cross reference.vololiberista

And over here, since we're farther along in the electronic age, in reference to GPS, etc., electronic flight charts are legal too. But then we have GPS only approaches also. That means no VOR or DME, in a lot of cases. And in the case of new commercial aircraft, wherever they're operated, the INS will be updated position wise, first by the GPS if it's available. It's a cross reference all right, yet the most accurate one. I linked to a Boeing chart the other day, that stated just that.L.Adamson

I see that several of us are on line. Are we all hanging around to see who can bite who? :( I just got back from a 95th birthday party for one of our leading aviation medical doctors. He's mostly retired now, but still goes to the office often.Hundreds of pilots there from all walks of life. And then there is me,.... as I brought this (forum) subject up. The most appropriate answers I got, is why do I even argue on forums such as this one? I think maybe they're right... :( L.Adamson

You see safe and efficient. I see lot's of dead pilots and passengers. Shredded aircraft too.L.Adamson

That's right, because it was those pilots who didn't do what they were supposed to who crashed (as I wrote in my previous post) . It was not because of inefficient training (or lack of tools to fly in a safe manner, as in this case), it was (and continues to be) because of wrong operational decisions.

I see that several of us are on line. Are we all hanging around to see who can bite who? :( I just got back from a 95th birthday party for one of our leading aviation medical doctors. He's mostly retired now, but still goes to the office often.Hundreds of pilots there from all walks of life. And then there is me,.... as I brought this (forum) subject up. The most appropriate answers I got, is why do I even argue on forums such as this one? I think maybe they're right... :( L.Adamson

No one is forcing anybody to keep "arguing", anyone can bail at any time they want.Maybe it's a good time to remember, yet again, that the words written here are my very own opinion, not AVSIM's nor anyone else's...just in case.

I just can't help it..........Yesterday afternoon, I went to an "experimental builders meeting" to look at someones airplane project. It turned out, than a retired FAA safety inspector with over 20,000 flight hrs showed up, because he's interested in a new plane. A few years back, he sold a model the same as mine (Van's RV6A), and is now kind of wishing he hadn't. So naturally, being the true GPS fanatic and advocate that I am.............I just had to run some of these thread "thoughts" past him. I did have to clarify that this is a "flight simulation" forum.I mentioned that the conversation started with someone who seemed quit impressed with the precision of modern day GPS. The very first response, was that "GPS" is for wussies, it's lazy, that real pilots don't need it, and just turn it off. (Note: do see the first and subsequent replies in this thread) And at that point, the majority of the conversations just seemed to go right down hill into the gutter. Yes, the positives of GPS came up from time to time, but the same old "GPS is for wussies" attitude seemed to prevail. So knowing some of this man's prior flight history, that started many years before Russia launched the very first satellite known as Sputnik in 1957; he obviously flew many years with nav radio (VOR). I then had to ask if he felt that GPS had increased flight safety over the years, seeing how numerous respondants on a "flight sim" forum seem to go along with the "GPS is for wusssies syndrom", and that somehow "real flight or real pilots" is setting an OBS. The immediate answer was "Heavens yes, GPS has made a lot of difference". And of course he kind of scoffed at the idea of just turning the GPS off, or that somehow radio nav is still superior, and GPS is just a useful backup. Naturally I had to bring up a few accident statistics such as Cali, Columbia and others. He seemed well versed with the facts for all.So why am I telling you this? First off, the FAA would like to decommsion the majority of the VORs in the United States. I didn't ask this man about the decommisioning. And I know that he doesn't agree with every thing the FAA promotes, but then who does agree totally with government agencies. I just wanted the thoughts of a person who has been around flight for a very long time, and who has had much experience with the old VOR nav system as well as the modern day GPS. Without any doubts, he was very much in favor of the GPS system, and has many insights into the safety aspect of flying due to the nature of his career.And I'm telling you because I'm "ticked" and just can't seem to let go. I'm a GPS advocate for so many good and important reasons. Yet this forum just seemed to poo-hoo it away. I felt like I was speaking with some kids, and still do. When I've personally seen the results of so many flight into terrain accidents just within my part of the country, I find it hard to believe that some can mock the future safety possibilities that GPS provides. Afterall, if the GPS system wasn't as accurate as it is, you wouldn't find Boeing and others using it as the first level to update the flight management computers in modern jet aircraft. Yes............it's GPS that keeps the INS the most accurate, as long as a good GPS signal is available.I also find it totally irresponsible for a pilot (or perhaps student pilot) to claim that you're just as well to turn the GPS off and use the FSS for weather, and other updates, as well as just managing airport & military restricted areas just by Mark I eyeballs. Here we have a system that's capable of showing the exact placement of your aircraft in relation to these boundaries, but somehow that idea is poo-hooed and cheered by others. Yes, this is something that would take place in a "flight sim forum". Because in other forums involving actual flight, the idea of using the VOR system as the main form of navigation, and GPS as the backup, was generally laughed at. So yes, I do agree that following a magenta colored line on a desktop flight simulator, can in fact, be boring. Afterall, we as desktop simmers don't have much more to worry about, unless we're trying to learn the principles of an actual real life GPS with an accurate simulation, or keep current in managing the aircraft down the ILS beam. Both are very legimate. Using a flight sim to check out unknown airports before flying there in real life, is very beneficial too.But to implicate that GPS is anything close to a "toy", and that it's only one of many tools, and that it should just be shut off once and a while to "be a manly pilot" so to speak............is quite irrational as far as I'm concerned. As I said, the safety of flight, especially in mountainous country means a lot to me. I study these accident cases rather aggressivly. It all started when a United Airlines DC8 crashed into the mountain above my home many years ago. I've mentioned this accident numerous times in the past. Controlled flight into terrain has quite an effect on me. And now we have a system that can go a long way in preventing these needless accidents. Yet right here, on this forum, the whole notion seems to get shot right down ----- starting with the very first reply. Do I wish to continue this subject. No. I'll most likely never return. My wife notices that it really seems to get on my nerves, and that I'm best just to stay off this forum. She is usually correct, when it comes to this activity.L.Adamson

No need to get upset.. relax :( But I can relate to the passion.. Understand that I get just as "ticked", when I see experienced, elder pilots suggesting for others (pilots to be, and young pilots).. "to heck with radio-nav, we got GPS now". Like you're discourging them to even bother.. as if you're really bothered and threatened by people enthusiastic about it. It aint gone yet, and won't be for a long time... and any pilot aspiring to go further with their flying than just the license, will need to be well-versed and current in radio navigation.As for dispariging this forum, and the "arguing" that goes on here... the irony is palpable.. so be nice :(

I don't see why people are getting so upset. Nobody (as far as I can tell) is saying GPS is no use. Quite the contrary as far as I can see, with a few people of the opinion that is useful, but it can be further backed up in its usefulness by employing other methods and systems too. And there's certainly nothing wrong with taking a belt and braces approach when it comes to aviation.With regard to not using GPS, I think the majority were alluding to doing so in MS Flight Simulator in order to present themselves a challenge. That is certainly the case for me anyway, for example, when I fly the A2A Accusim B-17G, I see that as an opportunity to use the methods the crews had to use when it was an operational warplane. If I really had to fly a preserved B-17G to an airshow, I'd absolutely have a GPS on the panel rather than be up in the astrodome with a bubble sextant and an almanac, or dropping a smoke bomb and asking the tail gunner how far off my track it was after a minute, to try and calculate my wind drift. FS lets me try that kind of thing though, and I appreciate the opportunity to try it, for the interest in historical aviation that I have.Al

The immediate answer was "Heavens yes, GPS has made a lot of difference". And of course he kind of scoffed at the idea of just turning the GPS off, or that somehow radio nav is still superior, and GPS is just a useful backup. Naturally I had to bring up a few accident statistics such as Cali, Columbia and others. He seemed well versed with the facts for all.

I think some of us are not making our point clear enough.No one has said that GPS has not made a big difference and that it doesn't provide a higher level of safety. I don't see anyone stating that VOR is superior than GPS. Truth is that your environment (read the U.S.) allows you to take GPS a bit more serious than others would. We don't have GPS approaches in Colombia (with an O), we don't have IFR-certified GPS units, we do have black holes in satellite signal reception. Yet another truth is that, while the GPS is strong and reliable enough, the VOR network is still in place and continues to be efficient and safe enough for aviation.Commercial pilots don't seem to care much for GPS yet. Why? We have FMS. We have company frequencies. We have ACARS. It's not as important as it is in a GA aircraft where you're practically by yourself.Anyway, it seems like we are running around in circles in this discussion...

Ahhhh! It's a repeat flightsim.com forums thread!!!I think GPS is a great aid for pilots today.

Interesting article in this months Flying Magazine by Mac McClellan. A quote:One of the many benefits of GPS is that the need for circling approaches is vanishing at many airports....the same is true at thousands of other airports and with luck, GPS will make a circling approach very rare. (This after several paragraphs detailing how the circling approach is the most risk prone of all). That is followed with an article on the Garmin G600-its' synthetic vision and the increased safety along with AHRS.Worth a read...

I just can't help it..........Yesterday afternoon, I went to an "experimental builders meeting" to look at someones airplane project. It turned out, than a retired FAA safety inspector with over 20,000 flight hrs showed up, because he's interested in a new plane. A few years back, he sold a model the same as mine (Van's RV6A), and is now kind of wishing he hadn't. So naturally, being the true GPS fanatic and advocate that I am.............I just had to run some of these thread "thoughts" past him. I did have to clarify that this is a "flight simulation" forum.I mentioned that the conversation started with someone who seemed quit impressed with the precision of modern day GPS. The very first response, was that "GPS" is for wussies, it's lazy, that real pilots don't need it, and just turn it off. (Note: do see the first and subsequent replies in this thread) And at that point, the majority of the conversations just seemed to go right down hill into the gutter. Yes, the positives of GPS came up from time to time, but the same old "GPS is for wussies" attitude seemed to prevail. So knowing some of this man's prior flight history, that started many years before Russia launched the very first satellite known as Sputnik in 1957; he obviously flew many years with nav radio (VOR). I then had to ask if he felt that GPS had increased flight safety over the years, seeing how numerous respondants on a "flight sim" forum seem to go along with the "GPS is for wusssies syndrom", and that somehow "real flight or real pilots" is setting an OBS. The immediate answer was "Heavens yes, GPS has made a lot of difference". And of course he kind of scoffed at the idea of just turning the GPS off, or that somehow radio nav is still superior, and GPS is just a useful backup. Naturally I had to bring up a few accident statistics such as Cali, Columbia and others. He seemed well versed with the facts for all.So why am I telling you this? First off, the FAA would like to decommsion the majority of the VORs in the United States. I didn't ask this man about the decommisioning. And I know that he doesn't agree with every thing the FAA promotes, but then who does agree totally with government agencies. I just wanted the thoughts of a person who has been around flight for a very long time, and who has had much experience with the old VOR nav system as well as the modern day GPS. Without any doubts, he was very much in favor of the GPS system, and has many insights into the safety aspect of flying due to the nature of his career.And I'm telling you because I'm "ticked" and just can't seem to let go. I'm a GPS advocate for so many good and important reasons. Yet this forum just seemed to poo-hoo it away. I felt like I was speaking with some kids, and still do. When I've personally seen the results of so many flight into terrain accidents just within my part of the country, I find it hard to believe that some can mock the future safety possibilities that GPS provides. Afterall, if the GPS system wasn't as accurate as it is, you wouldn't find Boeing and others using it as the first level to update the flight management computers in modern jet aircraft. Yes............it's GPS that keeps the INS the most accurate, as long as a good GPS signal is available.I also find it totally irresponsible for a pilot (or perhaps student pilot) to claim that you're just as well to turn the GPS off and use the FSS for weather, and other updates, as well as just managing airport & military restricted areas just by Mark I eyeballs. Here we have a system that's capable of showing the exact placement of your aircraft in relation to these boundaries, but somehow that idea is poo-hooed and cheered by others. Yes, this is something that would take place in a "flight sim forum". Because in other forums involving actual flight, the idea of using the VOR system as the main form of navigation, and GPS as the backup, was generally laughed at. So yes, I do agree that following a magenta colored line on a desktop flight simulator, can in fact, be boring. Afterall, we as desktop simmers don't have much more to worry about, unless we're trying to learn the principles of an actual real life GPS with an accurate simulation, or keep current in managing the aircraft down the ILS beam. Both are very legimate. Using a flight sim to check out unknown airports before flying there in real life, is very beneficial too.But to implicate that GPS is anything close to a "toy", and that it's only one of many tools, and that it should just be shut off once and a while to "be a manly pilot" so to speak............is quite irrational as far as I'm concerned. As I said, the safety of flight, especially in mountainous country means a lot to me. I study these accident cases rather aggressivly. It all started when a United Airlines DC8 crashed into the mountain above my home many years ago. I've mentioned this accident numerous times in the past. Controlled flight into terrain has quite an effect on me. And now we have a system that can go a long way in preventing these needless accidents. Yet right here, on this forum, the whole notion seems to get shot right down ----- starting with the very first reply. Do I wish to continue this subject. No. I'll most likely never return. My wife notices that it really seems to get on my nerves, and that I'm best just to stay off this forum. She is usually correct, when it comes to this activity.L.Adamson

When it all boils down -I do not agree with your deifying of the GPS. And whatmore, does it matter that this is an FS forum? Geof, Myself, Brett, and yourself (The primary contributors to the topic) are all apparently Licensed Airmen? unless I'm missing something, or that White and ugly sea green card that says United states of America is equivelant of a student pilot. You seem to continually ignore the fact nobody here has said GPS is a Bad thing, just that it's not the only thing as you've deified it to be. It has to do with over-reliance and what has the potential to become poor Airmanship. Not something I agree with. and you know what?Sure I could use expensive flightplanning softare to punch in a route get TFRs and weather data etc. I don't have to spend a half hour with a chart and an E6B, but I choose to. I double check the arithmatic. and then I go flying. I know every peak, Every TFR, Every bit of airspace, I know the weather, and I know I have 3 systems for navigational data. I usually use The eyeball and VOR as primary and GPS as secondary. It's redundancy - I dig redundancy. Like I said No GPS required. if it fails, or if the airplane is not equipped? fine - it doesn't ruin my day as it would for you. I have two other well practiced methods of navigation I use dead reckoning continously on all VFR Flights with reference to ground based objects along my route of flight. I walk along that VOR Radial and monitor the GPS (When it's equipped).It's not Irresponsible what so ever. In fact, if someone were to come from the FAA and comment in this forum regarding my technique's? He wouldn't have anything generally bad to say about it, guaranteed. He may not agree with it, but he wouldn't sit around and call me irresponsible as a pilot - He'd understand why I do what I do from what I've told you previously and that would just about be the end of it.Next, you shouldn't take opening remarks so seriously "GPS is for wusses" is a statement to be laughed at. (I believe as a matter of fact DC_ED did laugh at it) It displays a lot of information, that can be received from other sources, and has been received from other sources for a long long time, with good reliability.You know, that system is great!But if that's your first and last line of deffense, I really do think that mountains just as nearby as ever. It's not one piece of (Magical GPS) equipment that saves a life, it's redundancy and a good practice of Airmanship that saves a life. Every single time.So continue using Direct-To, and keep relying solely on the GPS for navigation. It doesn't bother me and it's your decision to make as PIC. I've explained to you my motives for doing it the other way, and if you don't get it - That's A-okay, you don't have to. Ed, Geof, the FAA, Brett, my past and future instructors, etc. They all understand my decision in the way I do things and I haven't heard the word Irresponsible from any of them. Most importantly - I am fully comfortable with these decisions I make as PIC, and I'm sure the FAA doesn't have anything bad to say about what I do or how I choose to navigate. Indiffirence? sure possibly. But I guarantee they'd not have one thing bad to say as you've continuously pressed.I tired of this thread about two pages ago, it keeps dragging on and going in circles as everyone else has said. So have a good one.Regards,Ryan

When it all boils down -I do not agree with your deifying of the GPS. And whatmore, does it matter that this is an FS forum? Geof, Myself, Brett, and yourself (The primary contributors to the topic) are all apparently Licensed Airmen? unless I'm missing something, or that White and ugly sea green card that says United states of America is equivelant of a student pilot. You seem to continually ignore the fact nobody here has said GPS is a Bad thing, just that it's not the only thing as you've deified it to be. It has to do with over-reliance and what has the potential to become poor Airmanship. Not something I agree with. and you know what?Sure I could use expensive flightplanning softare to punch in a route get TFRs and weather data etc. I don't have to spend a half hour with a chart and an E6B, but I choose to. I double check the arithmatic. and then I go flying. I know every peak, Every TFR, Every bit of airspace, I know the weather, and I know I have 3 systems for navigational data. I usually use The eyeball and VOR as primary and GPS as secondary. It's redundancy - I dig redundancy. Like I said No GPS required. if it fails, or if the airplane is not equipped? fine - it doesn't ruin my day as it would for you. I have two other well practiced methods of navigation I use dead reckoning continously on all VFR Flights with reference to ground based objects along my route of flight. I walk along that VOR Radial and monitor the GPS (When it's equipped).It's not Irresponsible what so ever. In fact, if someone were to come from the FAA and comment in this forum regarding my technique's? He wouldn't have anything generally bad to say about it, guaranteed. He may not agree with it, but he wouldn't sit around and call me irresponsible as a pilot - He'd understand why I do what I do from what I've told you previously and that would just about be the end of it.Next, you shouldn't take opening remarks so seriously "GPS is for wusses" is a statement to be laughed at. (I believe as a matter of fact DC_ED did laugh at it) It displays a lot of information, that can be received from other sources, and has been received from other sources for a long long time, with good reliability.You know, that system is great!But if that's your first and last line of deffense, I really do think that mountains just as nearby as ever. It's not one piece of (Magical GPS) equipment that saves a life, it's redundancy and a good practice of Airmanship that saves a life. Every single time.So continue using Direct-To, and keep relying solely on the GPS for navigation. It doesn't bother me and it's your decision to make as PIC. I've explained to you my motives for doing it the other way, and if you don't get it - That's A-okay, you don't have to. Ed, Geof, the FAA, Brett, my past and future instructors, etc. They all understand my decision in the way I do things and I haven't heard the word Irresponsible from any of them. Most importantly - I am fully comfortable with these decisions I make as PIC, and I'm sure the FAA doesn't have anything bad to say about what I do or how I choose to navigate. Indiffirence? sure possibly. But I guarantee they'd not have one thing bad to say as you've continuously pressed.I tired of this thread about two pages ago, it keeps dragging on and going in circles as everyone else has said. So have a good one.Regards,Ryan

re: tfr's-they are often dynamic and changing and oddly enough sometimes atc/fss isn't even sure. One time I took off-my box showed a stadium tfr-I called fss-they said they were not sure-I just took a wide berth.I have experienced that when a presidential motorcade was moving across a state-my 496 with xm depicted it-I asked atc about it-they were not aware-decided best to avoid based on the info in the xm. The backups of vor or adf are certainly not going to be helpful here-and with this environment nowdays I would never turn off the gps-macho or not-especially in your area of the country where the airspace is very complex. I guess I just like lots of backups since we are speaking of them.When a tfr pops up that you are not expecting you can ask atc but they might not even know about it-there seems to be a serious lack of coordination-if atc doesn't know and my box does-I inform atc and ask for a wide berth-just in case. So far no f-16's!I flew to Boston about a month ago..http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N7345R/...2010Z/KPTK/KBVYTrouble was Obama was there. The airport I wanted to fly to closed. I went to Beverly instead-but go a mile or so past the runway and you entered the shoot zone. Luckily I didn't have to do a missed-the weather was great-but the silence on the frequency and the deserted airport was unnerving. Again with these situations today-great- you certainly can do it on vor's but it certainly lowers the bloodpressure to have something better backed up with the vors.I consider lack of xm weather feed a no go in today's environment-but xm is just another one of those tech things that have improved flight like a gps-and are neccesary in today's world.When I flew a Wings of Mercy flight to Gaitherburg, Md. earlier in the year-if you go a little bit past the pattern you get into the no fly part of the Washington Adiz -e.g. get shot down by a f16's zone. Could I establish the distance by vor's if necessary-sure-but I'd sure rather do it by gps lest I become a news story. If the gps went out could I do it by vor-sure-but when you are that close to a shootdown/escort/being a major news story by a f16 I'll take the latest technology thank you-especially when in an unfamiliar area. :(

None of the airplanes I've flown have actually had a subscription :( So I've not had the pleasure. I am aware that the TFR's can change sometimes with practically no notice, but, inflight comm 2 is typically tuned to 121.5 (Except for Atis/Ground when landing) , and anytime I'm about to enter an area of population (Or am leaving one for another like San Diego - Long Beach) I give a call to the FSS for an update on TFR's and Notams. Nearly as simple? no not really, but it's still effective in the end. And if it fails? then it failed - I'd get a call from the FAA (Likely) and submit an explanation of the events leading up to that breach - They keep recordings and records of transmissions/Access to the FSS/Duats systems, and severity/circumstance is typically taken into account too. Not having XM weather? sure it's a step below the best, but there are plenty of resources anywho :) I do use them and am aware of the consequences of breaching (Jail/License suspension or Revocation). Flying over the president isn't something to joke with your buddies about, it's a given. I do disagree about the idea of necessity though, More and more each day it seems people start losing sight of What you really need - vs. what you really want. I don't need this computer, but I wanted it. I don't need that in n out burger (I already weigh 220 at 5'10" I'm not exactly a skinny dude), But I wanted it hahah (And man, was it good!). So the idea of necessity is debatable at best, nobody truly knows exactly what they needed most until they've lost it I figure anyway. I have a GPS to rely on, but as a general figure of reality I don't. I give it 25% credibility, the Eyeball gets about 30% and the VOR another 25. I reserve 20% of that faith to the idea that I could lose any of those sources of navigation at any time.All it takes is a cloudAll it takes is a Failure of Silicon/receiverall it takes is a failure of receiver.Any of those 3 can sneak up on you any time of day, any day of the year. is it a Credible system? absolutely - It's worth noting and using. Is it a necessity, or an aviation savior? not nearly from where I'm sitting :(But like I said, to each his own - Aviation isn't an exact science, because the idea of redundancy allows for multiple ways to do things (Which is an option our government has thankfully purchased and continues to fund for us). are Some easier than others? sure they can make it pretty much a lazy process (A glance and know thing, like I said in my first post it's a lazy jane method - get it on a silver platter) is lazy a bad thing? not exactly. Is doing it the more "Labor intensive" way a bad thing? not exactly. Both can be bad in their own rights, both can be good in their own rights.

"All it takes is a cloudAll it takes is a Failure of Silicon/receiverall it takes is a failure of receiver."...and Ryan-in your case all it takes is a failure of an alternator.. :( Now I've had 8 of those fail in my flying time-first two in a single were an emergency-now in a twin not a big deal.So again, when we talk about backups and redundencies-I think I'd be more worried about the alternator in a single than a gps failing.Re fss/trf's. I was once headed back to my home airport which had a presidential tfr around it that was due to expire at 4pm-I was due to arrive at 6. When I called fss to find out if it had in fact expired-they didn't know-either did atc... Thankfully when I was 1/2 hour out they finally knew. If I see a red tfr on my box and they don't know I am not going in it until they do. I also don't trust the box without a verification from atc/fss. Just call that another backup that I find necessary in todays messed up world. :(