The argument was sparked between myself and Mr. Adamson,I argued that you should be able to turn off a GPS (or have it fail)And still be totally happy with your backup plan.He argued that any instructor who turns off a GPS on a student, and that pilots that use radio navigation techniques on a regular basis in the day and age of GPS are using an inferior system and being un-safe as aviators.I'll just quote:"So here is what I'd do. If I ever had a flight instructor who turned off the GPS, I'd throw him/her out, and get a new instructor.""'m more into what GPS is capable of, including the new wave of synthetic vision glass panels, than wasting time with the notion that VORs are somehow real piloting. All a VOR is, is a navigation aid that was good for it's time. It was much better than what preceeded it. Now, it's truely inferior in nearly all repsects, to what's available now. And P.S. --- I keep hearing, "what if the GPS quits" crap. Well, it's been many years since I've lost the GPS signal. And since I'm around many commercial pilots, I always get their view on GPS versus radio & inertia navigation. GPS always wins, and it's always more accurate.... of their three nav systems.His argument seems to be it's the King of all nav systems (It's the only one in his homebuilt, no VOR's). So basically the argument's been that I'm a lesser pilot for being nostalgic and having my three backup methods.So the argument is:is GPS all you need to conduct a safe flight?or should full use of other techniques be used to conduct a safe flight?I'll just say - I think both are safe, but I think one way is safer :) (Which you've agreed with, as you keep dialing in those OBS's same as myself)And he doesn't buy the "GPS Failure stuff". Which I've simply been saying - Happens, like it or not, I'm confident the Sattelites were reporting fine at the time mine failed, but something went hay-wire and it decided to stop reporting information that was even relatively close to what was "Real". The GPS failed. I'm not here to say the system is unreliable, more so or less so than VOR's because I really don't care - It's man made and it can fail like anything else. :) which is also part of the argument.So unless I'm under a rock or very much mis-impressioned, this is basically what it's stemmed out of. idk. Go read page 1 and 2 I guess for the full picture :(

Does anyone besides me reading this thread think than none of us are disagreement with each other at all?I am having a real hard time figuring out what all the arguing is about...I realize avsim has been a calm place for quite a few days...

The argument was sparked between myself and Mr. Adamson,I argued that you should be able to turn off a GPS (or have it fail)And still be totally happy with your backup plan.He argued that any instructor who turns off a GPS on a student, and that pilots that use radio navigation techniques on a regular basis in the day and age of GPS are using an inferior system and being un-safe as aviators.I'll just quote:"So here is what I'd do. If I ever had a flight instructor who turned off the GPS, I'd throw him/her out, and get a new instructor.""'m more into what GPS is capable of, including the new wave of synthetic vision glass panels, than wasting time with the notion that VORs are somehow real piloting. All a VOR is, is a navigation aid that was good for it's time. It was much better than what preceeded it. Now, it's truely inferior in nearly all repsects, to what's available now. And P.S. --- I keep hearing, "what if the GPS quits" crap. Well, it's been many years since I've lost the GPS signal. And since I'm around many commercial pilots, I always get their view on GPS versus radio & inertia navigation. GPS always wins, and it's always more accurate.... of their three nav systems.His argument seems to be it's the King of all nav systems (It's the only one in his homebuilt, no VOR's). So basically the argument's been that I'm a lesser pilot for being nostalgic and having my three backup methods.So the argument is:is GPS all you need to conduct a safe flight?or should full use of other techniques be used to conduct a safe flight?I'll just say - I think both are safe, but I think one way is safer :) (Which you've agreed with, as you keep dialing in those OBS's same as myself)And he doesn't buy the "GPS Failure stuff". Which I've simply been saying - Happens, like it or not, I'm confident the Sattelites were reporting fine at the time mine failed, but something went hay-wire and it decided to stop reporting information that was even relatively close to what was "Real". The GPS failed. I'm not here to say the system is unreliable, more so or less so than VOR's because I really don't care - It's man made and it can fail like anything else. :) which is also part of the argument.So unless I'm under a rock or very much mis-impressioned, this is basically what it's stemmed out of. idk. Go read page 1 and 2 I guess for the full picture :(

Well I'll just mention something that I notice on pilot boards..Flying seems to encourage Sunday quarterbacks on every front. They smugly look at every accident report and then realize with complete confidence that if the pilot had proceeded with their value system they would have lived -until it doesn't work out for them.Backups are great and every pilot I know fly with them-but sometimes stuff happens that no amount of backups can cover and where thinking outside the box might save the day. In my 21 years of flying I've already experienced a few and thankfully I thought outside the box.So -I side with Larry-the reliability of gps is right up there with everything else we consider "reliable" with flying. If you are going to doubt that gps is reliable you better doubt that vor's are reliable..after all what happens if your gps fails and then your vor fails-it could happen. Heck even your adf could fail..what now? You could have a triple failure. When my worst emergency of altimeter failed, autopilot failed, and prop oversped at the same time in imc only 1000 ft. over hostile mountains-didn't think that was possible either-but it was and it happened. Thinking outside the box using my portable gps saved the bacon that day...imho flying is less about possible system failures and more about judgement and personal choices in a risky business. Then again, once born life is a risk-what is different?Me-if I fly out west I'll fly the airways-I don't live out there and that at least seems prudent to me. Larry-living out there and being much more familiar with the area and terrain may chose to take a direct route over mountains he is very familiar with-being familiar counts for something.Yes with the plane you fly you may want to take different choices-that is the mark of a wise pilot-same for me.I did learn partial panel adf approaches, and flying with 1 vor, and partial panel approaches with one engine in a twin.Would I choose to make those if I had a choice of a nice gps approach instead...Not me at least..

So the argument is:is GPS all you need to conduct a safe flight?or should full use of other techniques be used to conduct a safe flight?I'll just say - I think both are safe, but I think one way is safer :) (Which you've agreed with, as you keep dialing in those OBS's same as myself)And he doesn't buy the "GPS Failure stuff". Which I've simply been saying - Happens, like it or not, I'm confident the Sattelites were reporting fine at the time mine failed, but something went hay-wire and it decided to stop reporting information that was even relatively close to what was "Real". The GPS failed. I'm not here to say the system is unreliable, more so or less so than VOR's because I really don't care - It's man made and it can fail like anything else. :) which is also part of the argument.So unless I'm under a rock or very much mis-impressioned, this is basically what it's stemmed out of. idk. Go read page 1 and 2 I guess for the full picture :(

Yes, I guess you're under a rock. I've had one momentary GPS outage in 17 years. Geof A basically said the same thing. How on earth could an OBS be safer? It tells you so little. I have GPS and XM Satellite radio in my truck. How often do you think they fail? As Geof said, GPS satellite failure is one of the last things we worry about. And we have good reasoning from many years of experience.While in flight, I've got an arsonal of information in real time, and constantly. Airspace, terrain, obsticles, fuel management, weather for hundreds of miles, the ability to easily get AWOS, ASOS, and ATIS reports. Upper winds for better speed & comfort, airport diagrams for the destination that pop up as soon as the wheels touch...............and much more. You can't even get close to that with an OBS/VOR setup. They are primitive just as another website expressed.Yes, you can call an FSS station while airborne, and listen to the person at the other end ramble on. I prefer not to, as I have much more info that can be given over the radio in a short time. So is an OBS really better? You really would have to be living under a rock to think so. At least that's what I think!As to who has been calling certain people lesser pilot's, I believe you get the award for that. I just silently chuckled everytine you said it... :)L.Adamson

I as well chuckle at your distinction of high award for that GPS. Like I said before, it's man made I've had mine fail. and yes - the system does fail. If it's your sole reliance at the wrong place and the wrong time, it's of little bother to me Since statistically speaking you aren't about to land on my house. ;)And Geofa, I will quote myself from two pages back:"Without a doubt, but in the meantime There is no backup if the Sat Nav system goes down. At the end of the day how much does it really matter how reliable it's been in the past or how reliable it will be in the future? Putting your cards into one system is a formula that can result with dire consequences"I don't, never have never will state that one system in an airplane is all reliable (As you are currently stating Mr. Adamson, and you're not the only one who's laughing :) )Neither system - By itself, can safely be Assumed to be accurate. But hey, at the end of the day if you lose your GPS you have the mark 1 eyeball followed by nothing. I have that OBS knob as another line of defense. You can have no problems for seventeen years, but all it takes is once in the wrong place at the wrong time. Sometimes things may even come down to dumb luck and that's just the way things go. You seem to disadvocate my use and practice of "Primitive avionics and techniques" (In cooperation with the modern during XC's) though.I've made no comments as to anyone being a lesser pilot - Actually I take that back I said it about myself with regards to the comments you've made about me - Feel free to re-read it. Though it's nice to see you think I live under a rock - Appreciated., I've sat and watched you insult the intelligence of my teachers and their practices. (Shrug). That said - Do you have any other demeaning things to say? can we move past childish bicker of the such?

I as well chuckle at your distinction of high award for that GPS. Like I said before, it's man made I've had mine fail. and yes - the system does fail. If it's your sole reliance at the wrong place and the wrong time, it's of little bother to me Since statistically speaking you aren't about to land on my house. ;)And Geofa, I will quote myself from two pages back:"Without a doubt, but in the meantime There is no backup if the Sat Nav system goes down. At the end of the day how much does it really matter how reliable it's been in the past or how reliable it will be in the future? Putting your cards into one system is a formula that can result with dire consequences"I don't, never have never will state that one system in an airplane is all reliable (As you are currently stating Mr. Adamson, and you're not the only one who's laughing :) )Neither system - By itself, can safely be Assumed to be accurate. But hey, at the end of the day if you lose your GPS you have the mark 1 eyeball followed by nothing. I have that OBS knob as another line of defense. You can have no problems for seventeen years, but all it takes is once in the wrong place at the wrong time

Glad you have it all figured out. Report back in 20 years... :( Your Quarterbacking is excellent! P.S where did I ever say backup and their usage are not valuable-you keep saying that but I have never..

I've never said that you haven't (You have, and I insist this is good.)The argument is, again, stemmed primarily between myself and Adamson.He flies a GPS only high performance airplane and considers the VOR system to be inferior and of little use given his seventeen years reliability (Just read his last post as an example)I simply say, Do not allow GPS to be the only way you know. Dead reckoning (In its most basic form of a compass and a clock) is important, and so is the VOR system. They are both great backups if you're using a GPS airplane. In many situations (Where the benefits of GPS are not going to greatly increase to safety, like say some open plateus/fields) Turning the the thing off and doing it the "Old" way, is simply good practice and good measure. Would you agree in keeping current and well practiced in both techniques? and that they are not reliable means of backup in the even of GPS Failure? does VOR not provide a still reliable efficient means of navigation? (The system's been in use for years, 17 years now since mr adamson made his switch and it's still around, and not just around but the network is still strong). at the end of the day it's just another tool in my toolbag. I have VOR's and make good use of them on a normal basis, one of the airplanes I fly has a GNS430, I make good use of that too (As well as the NAV Radio since it has NAV 1 NAV 2 the GNS430 and the ADF. As I've said in other posts Geofa - most of this isn't posted at you much of what you're saying I totally agree with. What I don't agree with is Mr. Adamson's comments" 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 couldn't agree less, Why? Because both systems are in regular and full use today - Both can be taken advantage of, and should be taken advantage of. Using VOR's as primary navigation and GPS as a pin-pointer along the path isn't rare at all, Why? It affords the ability to navigate solely on Nav radio's as an issue of Good practice, no magenta line - just a map with airspace borders." 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."I again, 100% beg to differ. There is such a thing as over-dependancy, I hear a lot of students being popped out. Who feel like they know the G1000 very well, but their basic skills of pilotage - Lack. There's a very high importance in shutting down the technologically advanced and Knowing - furthermore practicing and staying profficient, with the basics. Why? because it's in a dire emergency that usually - the basics are what save lives. And this applies to much more than just Navigation. It applies to the abbility to not see a tachometer, or an attitude indicator, and being able to still safely fly just as a matter of sight and sound. It's the basis of 100 years, dropping it as the basis for......GPS, and practicing only that is a recipe for disaster. You have to turn it off, you have to cover it up - I find it important to continue doing this, just as a matter of knowing it and being able to do it without a second guess. It should feel as natural as popping in a GPS Route, or telling it to go Direct to. You make the GPS to be this huge thing - and I'm not sitting here saying it's a bad thing. I'm saying it's not the end all. There is way more to aviation that downloading your XM Weather, relying on that Nav terrain database, and following a magenta line while in the air and pulling up all your frequencies etc. For the last four pages All i've seen is GPS praise this GPS praise that - It's good system it is reliable, and it does work. But it's just another tool, it can and will fail, even if its not for you. If you haven't kept yourself nav worthy for other sources and means of navigation in the event of failure, then you've put alot of faith into one system. I guess that's your opinion make your own kool-aid and drink it too, But I fully disagree with the reliance in one system. This is my point.By the way geofa,I seldom bother to read accident reports, so no QB'ing here. Not saying my way is going to save anyone. Sometimes all that saves a person is dumb luck. (Shrug) Sure it's risk, but why keep any level of risk higher than it has to be?

Let me add a, "Forest from the Trees", angle to this thread...And admit that I made a hasty, lazy appraisal of that flight plan. I've been flying long enough for the shine to have worn off. I can't remember the last time I climbed into a cockpit and was excited about it. There isn't a destination important enough to have me flying while my consciousness depended on a bottle of compressed oxygen, and some tubing... so I wouldn't be flying directly over mountains that high, for any reason; in anything unpressurized ... or at the very least, in something fast, and with another pilot on board. I'm not saying it's un-wise or over-daring for a pilot well-versed in managing that situation to do so... I'm just saying it aint gonna be me :( I'll also say, that without Larry's currency in mountain flying; I wouldn't try to make my way throught the mountains, at non-oxygen altitudes. either.. It wouldn't be safe, or even fun..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.

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.

Good old Brett.............The master twister of words...See, now you've added overcast conditions, a little rain, and low visibility to make your point. You had better throw in icing too, as it's still been happening in the last few weeks, although temps hit the 80's a month ago. Oh, I like the "recreational" VFR pilot part too. Yep, that's all I do ...............is fly circuits around the pattern once every month. No Brett, I'm not the idiot flying on borrowed time , that you're attempting to plant into the minds of a few people around here. Don't even attempt to insinuate that I'm up there , helplessly in an overcast, especially over mountains. It's a true insult. I have a much better mind than that. I have the tools for much better management than that. No...............radio nav is not of the importance that you still are giving it. In fact, Boeing, just sent the first of twelve new GPS satellites to the cape three days ago. So get on board, learn more about WAAS (since you're --admittedly --quite unfamiliar), and realize the benefits of a new century. We hashed this for weeks at Flightsim com. I put your exact words before many, who use aircraft on a daily bases. You lost the argument, for the same reasons that Boeing uses GPS as the first measure to continually update the FMC (did you read my link?). Straight radio nav comes in last.L.Adamson

Several items here. Terrain and risk???I've often said, that so many of my airliner pilot friends will no longer feel comfortable over mountains in a single engine aircraft. Yes, they've become use to the redundency of multi engines & high altitudes. So who can blame them? I, on the other hand get rather bored flying across the flat desert area populated with VORs. I'm well versed in mountain flying, but who knows. The mountains took the life of one of a better known mountain pilot recently. He had wrote many books and courses on the subject. It's just an acceptable risk for me. My plane is capable of flying over 20,000'. It has a far greater clime rate than a typical Cessna or Piper. At least three times as much. This makes density altitude and up/down drafts easier to live with. The commercial pilot I share a hangar with, no longer feels all that comfortable over mountains either; but on the other hand, he's always flying hardcore aerobatics in his supersized Pitt's with a Russian radial of about 400 horsepower. Leaving one risk for another, I suppose.In the meantime, there is a lot of beautiful country out here. The Grand Canyon or Yellowstone is only a couple of hours in either direction. Same with Lake Powell, Monument Valley, Sedona Arizona and many other places of interest. It's only a couple of minutes out of my local airport before I'm over mountains myself. This is an area that doubles for the Alps in various movies.L.Adamson

If the purpose of the flight was for the purpose of sightseeing high terrain, then by all means, dance with the mountains. I would be disappointed if you didn't have to pull branches from your wheel spats after the flight. If the purpose of plotting the courseline is to fly your wife and kids to attend a graduation, then it would be foolish and criminally irresponsible to approach the flight with the attitude towards terrain and risk that you are representing to us. The approach to flying you argue for smacks of unnecessarily high risk. Risk has to be balanced with purpose. If the purpose of the flight is sightseeing canyons and mountains, then one obviously has to a accept a higher risk from flying over inhospitable terrain. If the purpose of the flight is to put bombs on an Iranian nuclear facility, then one must accept the risk of being engaged and shot down by SA-10 SAMs. If the purpose of the flight to is to fly to a business meeting, does the flight warrant the risk of prolonged flight over mountainous terrain or water? Does the business flight warrant the risk of flying through a SAM engagement zone? We understand that you just love the mountains, L.Adamson. We get it. But you need to to understand that that may not be the main reason other people take to the skies.Maybe your airline friends know something more than you do. Maybe these guys who have thousands of hours and fly on a daily basis and receive professional training on their planes, procedures and headwork, realize something that you don't. Even before I became an airline pilot, I've had and passed on to my flight students, the exact same considerations I've presented to you here. And I started my GA flying out in California. Plenty of mountains there. And pretty ones too. So the consideration of terrain risk is not something only airline pilots or sea-level pilots think is important. Maybe your airline pals understand a little better than you the risks associated with being up a creek without a paddle. You may not mind being up a creek without a paddle, but what about the people who may be sitting in the passenger seat of your aircraft? As airline pilots, our perspectives takes into account the fact that there may be other unsuspecting people with us in the aircraft. Your approach to flying, L.Adamson, may be perfectly sound for single engine, single pilot, single occupant flying. But are your risk assessments, tolerances, and attitude, appropriate if your grandkids were in the plane with you?And you think you're good and backed up with your two handheld gps'? One time I pulled my jet into the gate at Cleveland Hopkins and the MFD's moving map showed the KCLE waypoint 25 miles away. And we have two GPS units running two FMCs with DME/DME and ded-reckon fallbacks. It was a good thing we still knew how to use the VORs. I won't even go into what happened at the beginning of the flight on that RNAV SID when everything failed. The funny thing about problems with GPS, is that save for a small message that may pop up somewhere, everything you have will tell you that you are right on course...while you're miles off.

"The funny thing about problems with GPS, is that save for a small message that may pop up somewhere, everything you have will tell you that you are right on course. " I would ask why the airlines are not doing something about that pronto?My 496 whole screen will fill up with"gps signal lost" and a big question mark over the airplane icon and similar likewise with my ifr unit. It would be pretty hard to miss, at least less than the warning flag on a vor which I know of at least one case of a business jet flying into the ground thinking they were doing a perfect approach when the needles went to their default center and the little red flag was missed.

If the purpose of the flight was for the purpose of sightseeing high terrain, then by all means, dance with the mountains. I would be disappointed if you didn't have to pull branches from your wheel spats after the flight. If the purpose of plotting the courseline is to fly your wife and kids to attend a graduation, then it would be foolish and criminally irresponsible to approach the flight with the attitude towards terrain and risk that you are representing to us. The approach to flying you argue for smacks of unnecessarily high risk. Risk has to be balanced with purpose. If the purpose of the flight is sightseeing canyons and mountains, then one obviously has to a accept a higher risk from flying over inhospitable terrain. If the purpose of the flight is to put bombs on an Iranian nuclear facility, then one must accept the risk of being engaged and shot down by SA-10 SAMs. If the purpose of the flight to is to fly to a business meeting, does the flight warrant the risk of prolonged flight over mountainous terrain or water? Does the business flight warrant the risk of flying through a SAM engagement zone? We understand that you just love the mountains, L.Adamson. We get it. But you need to to understand that that may not be the main reason other people take to the skies.Maybe your airline friends know something more than you do. Maybe these guys who have thousands of hours and fly on a daily basis and receive professional training on their planes, procedures and headwork, realize something that you don't. Even before I became an airline pilot, I've had and passed on to my flight students, the exact same considerations I've presented to you here. And I started my GA flying out in California. Plenty of mountains there. And pretty ones too. So the consideration of terrain risk is not something only airline pilots or sea-level pilots think is important. Maybe your airline pals understand a little better than you the risks associated with being up a creek without a paddle. You may not mind being up a creek without a paddle, but what about the people who may be sitting in the passenger seat of your aircraft? As airline pilots, our perspectives takes into account the fact that there may be other unsuspecting people with us in the aircraft. Your approach to flying, L.Adamson, may be perfectly sound for single engine, single pilot, single occupant flying. But are your risk assessments, tolerances, and attitude, appropriate if your grandkids were in the plane with you?And you think you're good and backed up with your two handheld gps'? One time I pulled my jet into the gate at Cleveland Hopkins and the MFD's moving map showed the KCLE waypoint 25 miles away. And we have two GPS units running two FMCs with DME/DME and ded-reckon fallbacks. It was a good thing we still knew how to use the VORs. I won't even go into what happened at the beginning of the flight on that RNAV SID when everything failed. The funny thing about problems with GPS, is that save for a small message that may pop up somewhere, everything you have will tell you that you are right on course...while you're miles off.

Does this apply to the multitude of "back country" flyers too? There are thousands upon thousands, who use aircraft such as Super Cubs and Aviat Huskys for all of that mountain flying on a daily basis. Idaho & Alaska are famous for just that. So what's your point? do you really need to start implying, that I'm going to make poor decisions just to get the wife and kids somewhere. L.Adamson

I've never said that you haven't (You have, and I insist this is good.)The argument is, again, stemmed primarily between myself and Adamson.He flies a GPS only high performance airplane and considers the VOR system to be inferior and of little use given his seventeen years reliability (Just read his last post as an example)I simply say, Do not allow GPS to be the only way you know.

Ryan, you were the first reply to the original post. The poster was amazed about the accuracy of GPS. You then imediately said:Who needs GPS?That stuff's for wussies, and a lot more goes into navigation than seat of the pants, even back in the 60's.........and earlier than that as well ;). Navigators, pilots shall first and finally be. We're a breed that welcomes the GPS to our arsenal of tools, but are generally quite happy to Say to hell with that and turn it off :DAnd that's where you pulled me into this argument. You even went farther downhill from there, in regards to your thoughts about GPS as a navigational system.L.Adamson

"The funny thing about problems with GPS, is that save for a small message that may pop up somewhere, everything you have will tell you that you are right on course. " I would ask why the airlines are not doing something about that pronto?My 496 whole screen will fill up with"gps signal lost" and a big question mark over the airplane icon and similar likewise with my ifr unit. It would be pretty hard to miss, at least less than the warning flag on a vor which I know of at least one case of a business jet flying into the ground thinking they were doing a perfect approach when the needles went to their default center and the little red flag was missed.

The main problem with GPS and all the new nav systems really, is that there really is no standard on presentation and usage. Your big gps signal lost was something cooked up by the individual manufacturer. So this really is not an airline problem, but rather a problem with all of the new navigation systems. I would bet though, that if the airlines start perceiving navigation failures like this as a recurring prblem, the first thing they would do would be to make "Advise ATC Immediately" a memory item when that flag pops. Anyways, it wasn't that we did not notice the flag and not realize that there was a problem. The porblem was that the back up capabilites (radio and then ded-reckon) were nowhere near sufficient in accuracy for the phase of flight that we were in when it failed, that of a RNAV SID coming out of a big airport with parallel runway departures. The only thing we had at that point was for the gal at the other end of the radio to give us vectors to keep us from hitting the people next to us.

"The funny thing about problems with GPS, is that save for a small message that may pop up somewhere, everything you have will tell you that you are right on course. " I would ask why the airlines are not doing something about that pronto?My 496 whole screen will fill up with"gps signal lost" and a big question mark over the airplane icon and similar likewise with my ifr unit. It would be pretty hard to miss, at least less than the warning flag on a vor which I know of at least one case of a business jet flying into the ground thinking they were doing a perfect approach when the needles went to their default center and the little red flag was missed.

I've always maintained that a good part of the commercial jet fleet..................still doesn't have the navigational ability of a new Cessna 172. It's a fact...L.Adamson

Does this apply to the multitude of "back country" flyers too? There are thousands upon thousands, who use aircraft such as Super Cubs and Aviat Huskys for all of that mountain flying on a daily basis. Idaho & Alaska are famous for just that. So what's your point? do you really need to start implying, that I'm going to make poor decisions just to get the wife and kids somewhere. L.Adamson

My point is the risk needs to be appropriate to the purpose. There are risks that are necessary and risks that are unnecessary. There are necessary risks to living in the back countries of Idaho and Alaska. Flying through mountains and fighting off hungry bears are amongst some of them. Those risks are necessary, for someone who lives in the mountains. The straight line you plotted diagonally across those mountains was not a necessary risk for a flight with the purpose of going from point A to point B. The zig zag that avoided most of that high terrain would have been a better choice.

I've always maintained that a good part of the commercial jet fleet..................still doesn't have the navigational ability of a new Cessna 172. It's a fact...L.Adamson

The diesel nines flown by Delta (ex-Northwest) represent the majority of the US fleet that don't have the navigational capabilities of a new Cessna 172. The rest are much more advanced.

Geez, Larry... I wasn't implying YOU.. I even made a point to note where your experience would count.. never insinuating that you fly into IMC .. good lord..You really are paranoid..I was just pointing out that this discussion is about VFR flying.. not instrument flying.. and the difference between convenience and necessity re: equipment..You've even "twisted" that into an argument that isn't even there..