I reckon the chap who had his hand stuck under the boulder probably had no need of GPS. To be honest, given his fortitude and self-reliance I don't think GPS would have helped him any more than he did help himself. The story made it right round the world & there are very few climbers who would have borne up as well as he did. I wonder if his latest gadget had failed might he still have two hands? I rather doubt it. Think we should never have explored the Earth until electronics became readily available? Nah.I'll recap..."Use GPS by all means but use it in conjunction with every other navigation aid at your disposal. And make sure they all agree with each other and with your judgement." As I said before, I'd have one myself but I have other things to spend on first.Electronics do break down. And usually when it's most inconvenient, like when you have no Plan B. Still MSFS is a simulator and there are as many different correct ways of using it as there are people using it.

I'll just agree with RyanB 110%

Euh, and this in between ?

My opinion doesn't really hold too water here as I have not started any official lessons yet, although I do a lot of reading on the topic, but I will say that VORs are already being taken down...yes slowly, but it has started...in the US. I believe that has all the meaning we need. Yes navigation with charts using VORs, land, etc is extremely important to know, and every pilot should be able to use it if the situation arises, but arguing that it is somehow BETTER then using GPS is simply silly. You can not argue that GPS isn't more accurate and more safe, IF IT WORKS. If it doesn't work, you'll have your traditional charts and aids to guide you home. Really simple in my eyes... If you're looking for a challenge or adventure, shut off that GPS is use your charts, but when flying to get to a destination, with fueling running low, ice on the wings, and a solid dark wall all around you, I bet you'll want that IFR-approved, autopilot coupled GPS.

L Adamson,I find you mentioning the 757 accident, While a G1000 is nice, or a moving map what have you. Its capabilities are limited and much less accurate than a dedicated Ground Radar, which modern airplanes with EGPWS are being shipped with. I wouldn't rely on synthetic vision to keep me out of a mountain, sorry. As I said, many of these technologies induce a sense of safety and I've seen plenty of pilots get Lazy from them. They do and will fail, You can't trust them as the end all of technology.

Do be aware, that the "E" at the beginning of EGPWS stands for "enhanced". And what does enhanced mean? Enhanced is a GPS driven terrain data base. Just like the database in my Garmin, as well as synthetic vision units. Ground radar can only look down. GPS data tells you what's ahead. Would you prefer to turn the "E" part off, and rely on eyeballs. Do you ever wonder why the US Navy issued hand-held GPS's to many pilots including F-18 pilots........after a C-130 crashed into the mountains near Jackson Hole, Wyoming. Did the Mark 1 eye ball not work that time?Do you really think you can make heads and tails of a chart in a sudden whiteout, and ATC hasn't been specific enough. Isn't that why a DC-8 plowed into the mountains above my house, years ago. Isn't it the same reason a twin engine firefighting plane plowed into the mountain near my present home just a year and a half ago. And why have two different aircraft with IFR flight instructors and students plowed into the mountains in my state........in the last few years? Different reasons, but still a lack of situational awareness in the last few seconds. Wouldn't a Garmin 696 or 496 have been nice? At least for the passengers? How about Comair Flight 191? The pilots used their eyeballs alright. Unfortunately, they were looking at the wrong and too short runway. All but one died. Wouldn't it have been nice to have a GPS representation of the runways with the overlayed position of your aircraft on them. The passengers would probably think so! I can go on and on and on with this. Accident after accident, and most within the last 100 years...Now let's get back to the capabilities of a GPS derived database. I've already told you what the "E" stands for. I don't believe that you have any idea of just how accurate terrain databases are these day's, when combined with WAAS. I'll tell you right now, that in many instances, the terrain database will depict a more accurate altitude than the altimeter. It's usually within 10', and hardly ever more than 50. With so many pressure changes on a cross country, it's very easy for an altimeter to be less accurate than the GPS/WAAS unit. I know this, because I fly over lot's of mountain country regularly.

I wonder how you would do if I took away your GPS and put you in a new part of the country to fly, with a reasonable amount of traffic and airspace. How well would you do?

Oh jeeze, I think I'd do just fine, considering I got my license at a large airport before they were known as Class B. Not to mention, I live and fly under Class B now. But..............why would I be dumb enough to do away with the GPS? Afterall, GPS defines airspace within mere feet. Wouldn't I do better scanning for other traffic ( I do fly out of an un-controlled airport...under ClassB), rather than looking for landmarks..........and especially at unknown airports. Would I really be as smart if I just turned the GPS off? Would it make me a better pilot to turn the GPS off? Have you ever flown the four corridors of the Grand Canyon airspace? I doubt it. It's much nicer to have GPS in this highly controlled airspace. With a GPS, you'll have time to appriciate what's below................instead of eye balling distances, and hoping you've allowed yourself enough space from the restricted borders.And getting back to the reliability of GPS. Remember the survey I discussed earlier? Most of the comments were from active airline pilots. Bare in mind, that I'm an "old guy". Many of my friends and associates are airline pilots. I share a hangar with my old aerobatic instructor and airline pilot. Well.........it turns out that modern jetliners have three navigation systems. I mentioned this earlier too. In all cases, the GPS navigation system ALWAYS out performs the other two, which consist of inertial nav with accelerometers, and of course, the VOR system. In reality, The GPS system seldom fails, and only momentarily. Can't say the same for VORs. In fact, a good friend and 737-800 pilot, told me that his GPS system has only failed "one" time in eight years. It was of short duration & close to a military base. Usually, these bases are NOTOMs posted in regards to GPS reliability. And BTW, it's been an awful lot of years since I've lost an airborne GPS signal. And as already mentioned, I'm up to number five.

When I have the other cherokee (With a GNS 430) I leave it on, it lets me know where I am in relationship and I can check it vs. the Chart. But like I said Mark 1 eyeball and Nav Radios for the cherokee in my picture :). It keeps me on my toes, and sharp. It allows me to fly and navigate better than most whom rely commonly on their GPS. I wouldn't want it any other way.

I think you'd really do better.......to know what the GNS 430 is all about. You might really change your mind someday...Have a nice day,L.Adamson

(You don't seem to get it)I do not put all my cards into the GPS, Sorry bud. It doesn't really matter what you or any of your airline friends say. When push comes to shove, I will dial in that OBS, and use my good old mark one eyeball - Because they are accurate, safe, and depictive. the GPS is welcome to stay in the arsenal, But I'm totally comfortable flying without it. I know exactly what the capabilitys are of the GNS430, I've used it before and you seem to think it's some sort of amazing 10,000 dollar do all end all navigational piece. I'm telling you it's just a really nice toy that helps with situational awareness flightplans list goes on (As you know). I am, and forever will be - Totally okay to fly without one. I never said GPS is a bad thing - What I have said and will continue to say, is that if you can't turn it off, and feel 100% comfortable and confident in your Mark 1 eyeball and navigational skills with the sole use of radios in ANY given (Legal, Because we're not just going to go into Known icing without a second guess to test if Radios/GPS are better for getting where you need to go under cloud coverage eh?) situation. Then you're not a pilot worth flying with. All that "Valuable" information you named is available without a GPS, It's available on a chart, in the AFD, or by contacting Flightwatch on 122.0Including terrain awareness. It's called a Chart, and an Altimeter. You should always be able to keep your altimeter +/- 200 feet even in an area with a good number of ISO bars, and almost always Much more accurate than that. If 200 feet is the reason you died, You messed up a lot earlier than what your altimeter or an EGPWS/TAWS was even worth.You say you'd live without your GPS, well then go do it :). setup a flightplan, Pull out the charts and your Mark 1 eyeball/Nav Radios........Scratch that, Don't even use your Nav radios. Use your eyeball, your compass, and a chronometer - Pretend you're flying a really fast piper cub for all I care. It'll do you good and increase your self confidence, because as far as I can tell you've built up way too much into that GPS. Of course that's only my opinion and assessment. Because if that failure ever hits you (It hits pilots, While you're going on and on and on about your airline friends, just remember that man made things always have and always will fail) I could go on and on about how Safe Aviation engines are and the quality of Avgas And many pilots never have one fail even after 20 years of flying!................. You might really change your mind someday...Sorry :(

(You don't seem to get it)I do not put all my cards into the GPS, Sorry bud. It doesn't really matter what you or any of your (Supposed) airline friends say. When push comes to shove, I will dial in that OBS, and use my good old mark one eyeball - Because they are accurate, safe, and depictive. the GPS is welcome to stay in the arsenal, But I'm totally comfortable flying without it. I know exactly what the capabilitys are of the GNS430, I've used it before and you seem to think it's some sort of amazing 10,000 dollar do all end all navigational piece. I'm telling you it's just a really nice toy that helps with situational awareness flightplans list goes on (As you know). I am, and forever will be - Totally okay to fly without one. I never said GPS is a bad thing - What I have said and will continue to say, is that if you can't turn it off, and feel 100% comfortable and confident in your Mark 1 eyeball and navigational skills. Then you're not a pilot worth flying with.Sorry :(

Pardon me, LAdamson.As I've said repeatedly, everyone has their own opinion. I respect yours nevertheless.But all I keep seeing is that GPS is good for this and that IF the pilots didn't do their job correctly as qualified pilots. AA965? OVER confidence on automation. Comair 191? Bad airmanship by not spending one second looking at the compass to match a known runway heading. And I'll put my hand over fire and say that every crash you might mention supporting your beliefs about the GPS had a very easy way to avoid it, that most likely was taught in the very early stages of flight training to those pilots who sadly died for not remembering.I'll conclude the following: No matter what device comes along, none of them will ever replace good ol' airmanship. It is the essence of a true pilot. Fancy GPS's just make you believe you don't need it.P.S.: Please don't take it personally, it's not my intention in any way. I'm definitely glad we can talk over this subject as mature members of a respected aviation forum :( I'd also like to state (yet again) that the words written express my very own opinion, not AVSIM's nor anyone else's. Thank you very much :(

As a passenger, I'd much rather fly in an aircraft equipped with GPS than in one without.And I'd much rather fly with a pilot extensively trained from the beginning using old nav methods (and who regularly keeps fresh on them) than a pilot who licensed in a lot less hours, but who almost never (if not practically never) relied and relies on other than GPS to navigate.Marco

(You don't seem to get it)I do not put all my cards into the GPS, Sorry bud. It doesn't really matter what you or any of your airline friends say. When push comes to shove, I will dial in that OBS, and use my good old mark one eyeball - Because they are accurate, safe, and depictive. the GPS is welcome to stay in the arsenal, But I'm totally comfortable flying without it. I know exactly what the capabilitys are of the GNS430, I've used it before and you seem to think it's some sort of amazing 10,000 dollar do all end all navigational piece. I'm telling you it's just a really nice toy that helps with situational awareness flightplans list goes on (As you know). I am, and forever will be - Totally okay to fly without one. I never said GPS is a bad thing - What I have said and will continue to say, is that if you can't turn it off, and feel 100% comfortable and confident in your Mark 1 eyeball and navigational skills with the sole use of radios in ANY given (Legal, Because we're not just going to go into Known icing without a second guess to test if Radios/GPS are better for getting where you need to go under cloud coverage eh?) situation. Then you're not a pilot worth flying with. All that "Valuable" information you named is available without a GPS, It's available on a chart, in the AFD, or by contacting Flightwatch on 122.0Including terrain awareness. It's called a Chart, and an Altimeter. You should always be able to keep your altimeter +/- 200 feet even in an area with a good number of ISO bars, and almost always Much more accurate than that. If 200 feet is the reason you died, You messed up a lot earlier than what your altimeter or an EGPWS/TAWS was even worth.You say you'd live without your GPS, well then go do it :). setup a flightplan, Pull out the charts and your Mark 1 eyeball/Nav Radios........Scratch that, Don't even use your Nav radios. Use your eyeball, your compass, and a chronometer - Pretend you're flying a really fast piper cub for all I care. It'll do you good and increase your self confidence, because as far as I can tell you've built up way too much into that GPS. Of course that's only my opinion and assessment. Because if that failure ever hits you (It hits pilots, While you're going on and on and on about your airline friends, just remember that man made things always have and always will fail) You might really change your mind someday...Sorry :(

Wait a minute. You want me to call flight watch, or perhaps an FSS. For what? The weather? Why would I want to do that. I have just as good weather information in the cockpit..........and I've been looking at it the whole time. I've been making weather related decisions far in advance. Does that really make me a bad pilot....not worth flying with?Does the fact that I have the ability to fly more direct routes with precision ............make me a bad pilot? Do electronic charts bug you?Do remember,..... that OBS is accurate within six miles between distant VORs, and is line of sight only. And DME? It's slant angle, and not too accurate either.I've done all this stuff for years. Do I care to still do it? NOIs there something special about zig-zagging to VOR's, and triangulating a fix between VORs? If so, I'll hurry and make it a point to install NAV radios in my plane. I don't have any. Just a hand-held NAV/COMM with an OBS...Maybe I'll throw in a Loran & ADF too. Then I can have three worthless nav features.... (at least when most VORs have disappered) :( Yep.................I'm just stuck with a hand made, high performance, low-winged experimental catagory aircraft. But I'm not alone! Lot's of military and commercial pilots have one. One of NASA's top people who runs the shuttle operation has one. An Airbus 380 test pilot has one. Nearly 7000 are flying. They're all over the place... at Oshkosh every year. And it's a whole lot faster than the Cherokee, and climbs three times as fast. Has a constant speed prop too. But sadly, no Nav radios...But........I do like Cherokees. Used to fly the Warrior, Archer, and Arrow all the time. Finished my PPL in an Archer. It didn't have a GPS either.GPS.........a nice toy? Thanks, I wouldn't have even guessd it.L.Adamson

As a passenger, I'd much rather fly in an aircraft equipped with GPS than in one without.And I'd much rather fly with a pilot extensively trained from the beginning using old nav methods (and who regularly keeps fresh on them) than a pilot who licensed in a lot less hours, but who almost never (if not practically never) relied and relies on other than GPS to navigate.Marco

I'd much rather fly with someone, who learned the old way, but realizes that the new way is much better. The "old" nav method is simply that. It's old!It simply replaced something that was even older. These day's, it's outdated and inefficient. Instead of VOR's dotting the country, we now have 24+ satellites orbiting the earth, that are actually capable of providing a method to locate any position on earth within inches (although consumer GPS is within about three feet). Imagine what Emilia Earhart could have done. Howland Island within three feet, instead of hundreds of miles. Wouldn't have been as Mocho though.So really ----------what's so important about turning an OBS knob, over a GPS knob? The GPS knob simply gives you a lot more information, than having to rely on someone else, such as an FSS station, or ATC. Besides, ATC isn't always perfect with information. Oh BTW --- I have one of the fancy traffic monitors too. Just a little more useful info. In fact, it's very useful ! :)L.Adamson

You can Call a Flightwatch for weather, and an FSS for any relative Notams TFR's Etc.Like I said, all this information is available with a quick radio call. These are all basic skills that are easily forgotten when not practiced. If you do not practice them and are not familiar with them, if you do Not use a NAV Radio (especially during IFR) or your eyeball charts and visual checkpoints for VFR. Then Yes, I consider you to be an unsafe Pilot, and no I would not comfortably climb into your high performance low wing expiremental aircraft. I don't take bets with my own life in Aviation. I keep myself Very well satisfied and very comfortable with everything I would ever need in a navigation instrumentation failure, and not even break a sweat because I've practiced these techniques at every opportunity. If you do not, that is your own fault, and a gamble. You should always be thinking of the What If, If you do not, there's nothing I can do about that, but it May just catch up with you sooner or later. Redundancy is always the best course of action - That's exactly why you should put a pair of NAV radios into that airplane. Navigate on the VOR's To/From your departure and destiation, Use that GPS, and it's safety features as the added comfort that you are in safe hands.If the GPS fails, No sweat your Nav Radios are there.If the Nav Radios Fail, Again no sweat your GPS is there.Redundancy Saves Lives :( . An over reliance on any one piece (In this case, GPS) is a flawed plan and an easy way to find yourself in a bad place.(As I said before, actually)

You can Call a Flightwatch for weather, and an FSS for any relative Notams TFR's Etc.Like I said, all this information is available with a quick radio call. These are all basic skills that are easily forgotten when not practiced. If you do not practice them and are not familiar with them, if you do Not use a NAV Radio (especially during IFR) or your eyeball charts and visual checkpoints for VFR. Then Yes, I consider you to be an unsafe Pilot, and no I would not comfortably climb into your high performance low wing expiremental aircraft. I don't take bets with my own life in Aviation. I keep myself Very well satisfied and very comfortable with everything I would ever need in navigation instrumentation failure, and not even break a sweat because I've practiced these techniques at every opportunity. If you do not, that is your own fault, and a gamble. You should always be thinking of the What If, If you do not, there's nothing I can do about that, but it May just catch up with you sooner or later. Redundancy is always the best course of action - That's exactly why you should put a pair of NAV radios into that airplane. Navigate on the VOR's To/From your departure and destiation, Use that GPS, and it's safety features as the added comfort that you are in safe hands.If the GPS fails, No sweat your Nav Radios are there.If the Nav Radios Fail, Again no sweat your GPS is there.Redundancy Saves Lives :( . An over reliance on any one piece (In this case, GPS) is a flawed plan and an easy way to find yourself in a bad place.(As I said before, actually)

When I did my instrument exam 1991 I had to do a partial panel adf approach-it was tough. When I got my commercial multiengine about the time you got your ppl I had to do a single engine ils approach with a surprise circuit breaker pulled on the landing gear after the marker. All good fun and yes increases the pilot skills and there is nothing wrong with practicing with the minimums-makes a sharp pilot.However-I am with Larry about usage of gps-personally I have 3 in my plane all working off of different sources so how is that for redundency-a lot more than my two vor's and adf? I get direct 99.8 percent of the time flying ifr. Could I do it with vor's/pilotage-even an adf-yep. But why would one want to?-especially when burning 30 gallons an hour and giving up the increased safety that gps gives over those dated instruments. Redundency is great and certainly desirable-but I want redundency from the highest capability available-not the lowest. The adf which was the cat's meow in the 1940's hasn't been used in years in my plane except to listen to a radio station and as the Faa has/is getting rid of most of them I don't miss it at all-even when flying it precisely-it just isn't very accurate. While state of the art for its' time it is pretty much useless at least in the United States today. As for fss-half the time I call them they don't answer-and I can get just as good if not better info from xm weather. I'll take xm weather any day-and xm (along with a stormscope) has allowed me to continue my flights with great wisdom, quicker and more timely info than fss could ever give, and actually reach my destinations with regularity where as 20 years ago before this info it meant a possible unscheduled landing, call to fss, and pacing back and forth at an airport trying to make a decision due to lack of info. A few years ago flying into Santa Fe I asked the controller for a deviation around a couple pixel cell which was shown on my xm. He very puzzled cleared me for my deviation-then a few minutes later called me and asked me how I knew to deviate like that?!-the cell had just shown up on his radar. I even took a shot of it cause I thought it was cool (I wonder what would have happened if I had continued on my course line instead of deviating to the left):I grew up in San Diego and did a cram cfi course at Montgomery-a great place to fly. Interesting though-out where I live everyone is an early riser and I noticed out there everyone doesn't get going till 10:30-11 am or so..(maybe the expected early morning fog or simply Californina-I like it cause I am not an early riser! :( )I'd go out at 9am or so to Ramona which was deserted and by 11 am it was a zoo.

However-I am with Larry about usage of gps-personally I have 3 in my plane all working off of different sources so how is that for redundency-

3 GPSs in the cockpit - is that enough? :(GPS is fine, but old style navigation is not to be underestimated. Best to be fluent and comfortable with BOTH old and new.

Getting back to the original post, yes I think there were two major achievements for Flight Simulator. One was the first GPS and the second was voice capability for on line controlling (VATSIM). When I saw (and got to use) both, it was a new world for serious flight simulator.Regards,Ed

3 GPSs in the cockpit - is that enough? :(GPS is fine, but old style navigation is not to be underestimated. Best to be fluent and comfortable with BOTH old and new.

What I have found over the last few years..................is that there is a 180 degree thought pattern between GPS users in the United States, versus the various navigation systems used by those in Europe. I see that you're from from the British side of the pond. Great place, I love it, I've been there, and my ancestors are from there.But................ Your side of the pod is still far behind in regards to aviation navigation. No WAAS, no XM weather, and ADF is still heavily used. You have no choice but to be "fluent". The "old" style is being phased out here. The "old" style doesn't even begin to compare in terms of safety, pilot knowledge, and redundancy. That's all there is to it. I have been completely humored by this whole thread. I'm surprised we're not using pony express to communicate here. I find using the VOR system as a main point of navigation, with a GPS as backup.............as about as backwards as it can get. I still say, that if an instructor covers up your GPS to make a point in flight instruction...............then throw them out. It's obvious that they are not up to par with advanced flight systems. And in reality, there are instructors that don't have enough knowledge of new systems to use them proficiently.I do hope that future pilots arn't inspired by all the malarky in this thread. GPS may be a bit boring for flight simming, because it works too well. Of course, if anyone wants to be proficient in the use of "glass" systems, then a good simulator that can replicate most functions is very worthwhile. When it's insinuated that calling an FSS for weather information is a "skill" in comparison to the use of XM weather as a real time knowledge component for piloting, then it becomes very misguiding. To insinuate that a pilot who prefers not to be stuck with the "old ways'', and is somehow dangerous...........is rediculous. Fact is, having more than one GPS IS redundency. I have two for constant comparisons. There is a better chance of that VOR you're tracking.........failing, than there is with the GPS system. It's one VOR , versus eight or more satellites at any one time. Half of those eight satellites (out of 24) are backup Since I've been using the moving map GPS system for piloting for 17 years, I don't need to be told by someone, who completely seems unfamiliar and not up to date with the GPS system (not you, BTW) .......of what's best for me. But that's where this thread has been headed. And unfortunately, some really do believe it....L.Adamson