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.

Read back through the entire post. I do make deviations. In fact, I linked a flight path using my satellite messenger system, that's an exact flight with my wife. Many low lying areas and airports, with a few mountain passes.However, if we're all stuck to flying level and safe areas, then forget major cities (which I consider a higher risk), as well as the Grand Canyon cooridors or Lake Powell, not to mention thousands of other areas.Like I said ---------- airline pilots do seem to make their points about redundency, and the foolish exploits of their past. I don't feel that you'd feel comfortable at all, flying over the Grand Canyon. But do remember, big jets have been bitten by big bird flocks over big cities. And who'd have ever thought, that we'd be flying twin engine jet liners over the Pacific and Atlantic oceans? I remeber all the flap about that. Just two engines.....no way! At least that's what they use to say.L.Adamson

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..

Sure you did. Salt lake to Page is the way your comment started out. Edit: Okay............ I see you said something about currency, as I've gone back & re-read. You might be off the hook....L.Adamson

Because Salt Lake to Page was the flight in the discussion... it could be ANY flight.. I was just saying that IF we were talking about a pilot making that (or any flight), in IMC.. you wouldn't have to argue with him about radio-navigation, and its importance..

I put your exact words before many, who use aircraft on a daily bases. You lost the argument,

Again.. exactly what argument is is that I lost ?? In what way was I proven wrong ??

Because Salt Lake to Page was the flight in the discussion... it could be ANY flight.. I was just saying that IF we were talking about a pilot making that (or any flight), in IMC.. you wouldn't have to argue with him about radio-navigation, and its importance..Again.. exactly what argument is is that I lost ?? In what way was I proven wrong ??

It was the way in which you pointed out that "radio nav" should be the first line of navigation with GPS as the backup. It was repeated over and over thoughout the course of the argument. L.Adamson

Read back through the entire post. I do make deviations. In fact, I linked a flight path using my satellite messenger system, that's an exact flight with my wife. Many low lying areas and airports, with a few mountain passes.However, if we're all stuck to flying level and safe areas, then forget major cities (which I consider a higher risk), as well as the Grand Canyon cooridors or Lake Powell, not to mention thousands of other areas.Like I said ---------- airline pilots do seem to make their points about redundency, and the foolish exploits of their past. I don't feel that you'd feel comfortable at all, flying over the Grand Canyon. But do remember, big jets have been bitten by big bird flocks over big cities. And who'd have ever thought, that we'd be flying twin engine jet liners over the Pacific and Atlantic oceans? I remeber all the flap about that. Just two engines.....no way! At least that's what they use to say.L.AdamsonSure you did. Salt lake to Page is the way your comment started out. Edit: Okay............ I see you said something about currency, as I've gone back & re-read. You might be off the hook....L.Adamson

No, like I said, you need to make the risk appropriate for the purpose. If my purpose was to see the Grand Canyon (yes L.Adamson, I have toured the SFRA in my Ga days), then the risk of flying over inhospitable terrain becomes appropriate and acceptable. If the purpose is to fly to a big city, then the risk of flying over inhospitably populated areas becomes appropriate and acceptable. Unless part of the purpose of the flight in the picture you posted was to actually see that particular mountain section, then the diagonal trace across that range, as opposed to the alternate course to the west of it in the second picture, represents an element of unnecessary risk. A safer course of action could have been had for little extra cost.

It was the way in which you pointed out that "radio nav" should be the first line of navigation with GPS as the backup. It was repeated over and over thoughout the course of the argument. L.Adamson

Paste away... the only time I said anything close to that, was when I noted that I prefer to descend into busy airspace, IMC, by VOR; because in THAT situation, time is critical. It's much easier to transition from VOR to GPS in a pinch, than it is to go from GPS to VOR.Other than that.. I said (over and over), that GPS is by far, the best, primary nav system.

No, like I said, you need to make the risk appropriate for the purpose. If my purpose was to see the Grand Canyon, then the risk of flying over inhospitable terrain becomes appropriate and acceptable. If the purpose is to fly to a big city, then the risk of flying over inhospitably populated areas becomes appropriate and acceptable. Unless part of the purpose of the flight in the picture you posted was to actually see that particular mountain section, then the diagonal trace across that range, as opposed to the alternate course to the west of it in the second picture, represents an element of unnecessary risk. A safer course of action could have been had for little extra cost.

The purpose IS to see these particular areas. Several national parks are in that direction. I deviate just for them. Yet, with the exception of Bryce Canyon, VORs are not in the path. They're are also numerous airports and strips along the way. Yet, theres always an element of risk. Desktop flying is much safer.Just for your info, when using a small airport north of Salt Lake City, many will head directly east right over the mountain range, rather than 30 miles over dense populated city in Class B airspace. If the plane has a good climb rate, such as mine..........then I feel much more comfortable going up and over, as do so many others. It's just what we're used to. L.Adamson

Paste away... the only time I said anything close to that, was when I noted that I prefer to descend into busy airspace, IMC, by VOR; because in THAT situation, time is critical. It's much easier to transition from VOR to GPS in a pinch, than it is to go from GPS to VOR.Other than that.. I said (over and over), that GPS is by far, the best, primary nav system.

Shoot..............I have to leave. Won't be home until much later this evening. Keep it all under control..........you're in charge! :)L.Adamson

Shoot..............I have to leave. Won't be home until much later this evening. Keep it all under control..........you're in charge! :)L.Adamson

Gee.. thanks.. LOL :( I'll save us both a lot of pasting.. and avoid any sentences selected out of context, and just post the link to that 181, post thread.. :( I doubt anyone is bored enough to read it.. but if you do.. note how it ended :( http://forums.flightsim.com/vbfs/showthread.php?t=211445

The purpose IS to see these particular areas. Several national parks are in that direction. I deviate just for them. Yet, with the exception of Bryce Canyon, VORs are not in the path. They're are also numerous airports and strips along the way. Yet, theres always an element of risk. Desktop flying is much safer.Just for your info, when using a small airport north of Salt Lake City, many will head directly east right over the mountain range, rather than 30 miles over dense populated city in Class B airspace. If the plane has a good climb rate, such as mine..........then I feel much more comfortable going up and over, as do so many others. It's just what we're used to. L.Adamson

Then have at it. And make sure you snag some branches in your wheel spats. Otherwise, it ain't worth it.I just hope you do understand risk management when it comes to flying. When it seems like you come on the board arguing that flying around with nothing more than a hand held gps or two going direct here there and everywhere each time you fly is just as safe if not better than using whatever backed up with whatever else with carefully considered routes, then you do represent to others a very risky attitude.

Brett-I am just curious about your statement:"the only time I said anything close to that, was when I noted that I prefer to descend into busy airspace, IMC, by VOR; because in THAT situation, time is critical. It's much easier to transition from VOR to GPS in a pinch, than it is to go from GPS to VOR."...cause I feel exactly the opposite about the transition part. I find Gps takes quite a few button presses and advanced planning where as a Vor is a quick dial of a frequency, ident. Therefore, personally I find it easier to transition from a Gps to a Vor. The time critical part I agree with-why I would much rather transition from the Gps which hopefully I've used down time on the flight to program to the quicker Vor if in a pinch. Of course I use both anyway.. :( Not to start an endless debate-just curious..

Brett-I am just curious about your statement:"the only time I said anything close to that, was when I noted that I prefer to descend into busy airspace, IMC, by VOR; because in THAT situation, time is critical. It's much easier to transition from VOR to GPS in a pinch, than it is to go from GPS to VOR."...cause I feel exactly the opposite about the transition part. I find Gps takes quite a few button presses and advanced planning where as a Vor is a quick dial of a frequency, ident. Therefore, personally I find it easier to transition from a Gps to a Vor. The time critical part I agree with-why I would much rather transition from the Gps which hopefully I've used down time on the flight to program to the quicker Vor if in a pinch. Of course I use both anyway.. :( Not to start an endless debate-just curious..

No debate..lol.. I think we're pretty much on the same page..I'll just pull a real-world example from memory.. Flying into KOSU from the east.. utter IMC .. on a flight plan that "ended" at the APE VOR, for the ILS 09R...At that point, I find it easier to fly by reference (relative to ATC vectors), to a radial off of APE, keeping an eye on the NDB (outer-marker for 09R).. It gives me a comfortable, accurate image image of where I am, descending and preparing to turn for ILS intercept.. without having to break the scan and look at a the GPS. When I get into low-altitude, crowded air,(it's nestled into KCMH 'C' airspace), the instrument scan is my complete world.. looking over at a GPS at that point, is counter-productive.. I don't need to worry about airspace, or even exactly where I might be, as I'm obviously talking to KCMH approach at that point... and will soon be talking to KOSU tower.Now.. if the VOR or NDB go whacky on me.. it's quick and easy to revert to just the moving map for situation awareness (actual navigation is of no concern here).. however.. if I were keeping situation awareness by GPS and IT went whacky.. it's not as quick and easy to re-tune your brain to fly by the nav radios. I know it's pretty close to, "six of one, half-dozen of another"... because you're in ATC hands anyway.. I just find the worst-case scenario in that situation, to be more manageable, with radios as primary, and GPS as confirmation/backup.Plus..I'll be finishing that approach by ILS, too. If nothing goes wrong, the GPS could end up being turned off, and I might not even know it..

No debate..lol.. I think we're pretty much on the same page..I'll just pull a real-world example from memory.. Flying into KOSU from the east.. utter IMC .. on a flight plan that "ended" at the APE VOR, for the ILS 09R...At that point, I find it easier to fly by reference (relative to ATC vectors), to a radial off of APE, keeping an eye on the NDB (outer-marker for 09R).. It gives me a comfortable, accurate image image of where I am, descending and preparing to turn for ILS intercept.. without having to break the scan and look at a the GPS. When I get into low-altitude, crowded air,(it's nestled into KCMH 'C' airspace), the instrument scan is my complete world.. looking over at a GPS at that point, is counter-productive.. I don't need to worry about airspace, or even exactly where I might be, as I'm obviously talking to KCMH approach at that point... and will soon be talking to KOSU tower.Now.. if the VOR or NDB go whacky on me.. it's quick and easy to revert to just the moving map for situation awareness (actual navigation is of no concern here).. however.. if I were keeping situation awareness by GPS and IT went whacky.. it's not as quick and easy to re-tune your brain to fly by the nav radios. I know it's pretty close to, "six of one, half-dozen of another"... because you're in ATC hands anyway.. I just find the worst-case scenario in that situation, to be more manageable, with radios as primary, and GPS as confirmation/backup.Plus..I'll be finishing that approach by ILS, too. If nothing goes wrong, the GPS could end up being turned off, and I might not even know it..

Why would you have to break your scan to look at the gps?-is it not coupled to your hsi navigation instrument? Of course the gps guidence for ils is only for monitoring anyway.....and you have to look at the radios every once in a while-hopefully your gps isn't far off. :( For approaches/sids/stars I feel the opposite-here is where a gps with a couple quick button presses really shines.As a rather comical story-in my flying time I have only been given sid's perhaps 5 times and the first 4 were fly radar vectors.When I left Long Beach a few years ago-it was quite a hectic place and we were given a rather complicated sid. My pilot friend was sure busy dialing radials, giving me headings, and altitudes while I flew. It was only after we completed it with sweat pouring down our faces that we realized the whole thing was in the gps-and with two button pushes we could have saved ourselves a whole lot of grief. I learned my lesson and when I get my next complicated sid 10 years from now I'll be using the gps.

Yeah.. that airplane had the VOR1 head linked to the GPS (it had no HSI)... and I agree.. that if you're flying a STAR (which would be most of the flight for me in a Warrior ..lol), the GPS is golden.. because you're still navigating during the STAR (as oppose to ATC vectors to intercept). I've flown one STAR in my life (into KCVG).. and it started nearly 200 miles out :( I'd say that 99/100 of my instrument approaches were STAR-less.. but I honestly don't think I've flown 100 real-world, instrument approaches.. maybe, but I doubt it. Sooo.. I'll say that 99% of my approaches are STAR-less... and I haven't flown even a complete, published approach, save once or twice, since instrument training. I always end up with ATC vectors until I'm "cleared for the approach".. which pretty much entails contacting the tower, and getting to hear, "cleared to land".Pulling up, and trying to fly even a GPS approach, by the VOR1 head, would be pointless.. In that situation, ATC is gonna give me the headings and altitudes to the ILS intercept.. and the VOR/GPS is for awareness.

Yeah.. that airplane had the VOR1 head linked to the GPS (it had no HSI)... and I agree.. that if you're flying a STAR (which would be most of the flight for me in a Warrior ..lol), the GPS is golden.. because you're still navigating during the STAR (as oppose to ATC vectors to intercept). I've flown one STAR in my life (into KCVG).. and it started nearly 200 miles out :( I'd say that 99/100 of my instrument approaches were STAR-less.. but I honestly don't think I've flown 100 real-world, instrument approaches.. maybe, but I doubt it. Sooo.. I'll say that 99% of my approaches are STAR-less... and I haven't flown even a complete, published approach, save once or twice, since instrument training. I always end up with ATC vectors until I'm "cleared for the approach".. which pretty much entails contacting the tower, and getting to hear, "cleared to land".Pulling up, and trying to fly even a GPS approach, by the VOR1 head, would be pointless.. In that situation, ATC is gonna give me the headings and altitudes to the ILS intercept.. and the VOR/GPS is for awareness.

No disagreement. My instrument teacher also told me 19 years ago I would probably never see a hold in my lifetime-so far he is right about that too. I do practice them with regularity though in GA flying they seem about as useful as an adf in today's world.

This is where I find MSFS priceless... You really can keep your holding, and instrument brain fine-tuned .. Though, I've only had to hold twice. Once at Iron Mountain, Michigan in a Bonanza.. and once while instrument training in a Cardinal.I was lucky, as most of my training was in actual IMC... But the downside to that, is that everyone else is instrument flying for real too.. :( We were planning to shoot the VOR 19 approach into Circleville (KCYO)... go missed and then over to the big 11,000ft runways at Rickenbacker AFB (KLCK), for some ILS/back-course work..BUT... some guy at KCYO had filed a plan by phone.. so we had to hold and wait for him to takeoff and contact ATC. During that hold (zero visibility).. my instructor said the same thing.. ala.. this won't happen often in the real world. THEN.. he tapped me on the shoulder and pointed to the wing's leading edge (you can actually sight down the leading edge in a Cardinal)... we were picking up ICE :( What happened next is still kinda blurry. He cleared us in to KCYO, and we called out on CTAF before that guy had even started taxiing..

What's more accurate than GPS? Answer INS. GPS is mainly used by general aviation and is only accurate when talking to a fixed base station. Most large airlines still use INS.(a more modern system built into the FMC compared to the old DC). Why do they still use INS? It is far more accurate achieving a course displacement of perhaps only 60feet at 500 kts even with a crosswind component. And, more importantly INS is completely autonomous not requiring satellites etc. Even the first INs's had an error of only 3nm after 15hours of continuous flying! (without any kind of updating). As said modern jet transports use INS and update using VOR fixes or GPS fixes.vololiberista