Maybe I'm weird but I quite like using VORs, ADFs on GA ... I find it gives me more to do - GPS takes away the fun - Anyway, even if you choose to fly using GPS, isn't it a mandatory requirement to also have a navigational chart onboard?

For starters.........you've been simming, but have took your first flight, where you've been able to control the aircraft. And I've been using moving map aviation GPS's since 1993. That's the first year that a decent one was for sale. I'm a GPS advocate.........and I have plenty to do as a pilot and plane owner.In fact, in this day and age, I think it's a bit dumb, not to have a aviation database GPS aboard the aircraft. It isn't like the old days. There are just too many airspace boundaries such as Class B, military, etc. to keep a close eye on, as well as scanning for other aircraft. A good moving map display, easily shows the exact boundary, as well as your aircrafts position. You don't need to waste time looking for landmarks that blend into the landscape. That time is better spent with a constant scan.GPS allows for more direct routes in a lot of cases. In congested areas, VOR airways are considered as being more hazardous because of traffic flying from VOR to VOR. GPS routing, eliminates much of this problem, and saves fuel and time as well.In my case, I use XM satellite weather with my GPS. I can see weather for hundreds of miles in all directions, in real time. I also know winds at my destination, as well as winds at different levels. Should I end up in inadvertant IMC the GPS is showing elevations as well as warnings for terrain and obstacles such as towers. XM satellite also shows current TFR's.My aircraft uses a fuel totalizer which is connected to the GPS. This shows exact fuel usage, as well as how much is required to fly to the destination. It's much more accurate than relying on the airplanes fuel gauges.I do keep & use up to date sectionals in the aircraft. My flight planning is done at home on the computer, with the AOPA flight planner. I'll usually input the flight plan into the GPS, which also controls my two axis auto-pilot if desired. And yes, for those flights of several hundred miles, I do like the auto-pilot. This frees me up, to scan for traffic, and see more scenery, as well as checking out the sectional.For "flight simming", I seldom use GPS. The screens are to small, and the switches/dials too hard to use. The moving map, isn't much like real life either. In real flight, I use a Garmin 696 portable, which has a screen that looks more like a Garmin 1000. Much better than the older Garmin 430/530's with lower resolution and computing power. And FWIW, I don't have any NAV radios or ADF in my plane. I bought the new Sporty's 400 portable nav/comm with OBS & ILS to play with........should I get bored. But I sold it, due to an accident...........which hasn't allowed me to fly for the last few months. I'll probably buy another one, though.L.Adamson

Maybe I'm weird but I quite like using VORs, ADFs on GA ... I find it gives me more to do - GPS takes away the fun - Anyway, even if you choose to fly using GPS, isn't it a mandatory requirement to also have a navigational chart onboard?

Not weird. Having a solid foundation in basic navigation is important to good airmanship. GPS and moving maps are nice, but you need to be able to function comfortably without those crutches. Having current charts is required no matter what equipment you use.

Not weird. Having a solid foundation in basic navigation is important to good airmanship. GPS and moving maps are nice, but you need to be able to function comfortably without those crutches. Having current charts is required no matter what equipment you use.

In parts of the world, where GPS is fully functional, GPS is certainly no more of a "crutch" than VORs were.........when they replaced inferior forms of navigation. GPS just has a lot more useful information than what's available with VOR radio navigation. Fact is........radio navigation in the States will be gone, rather than staying. So what's the importance of having a "solid foundation" with an inferior type of navigation? Here are the facts... (and as I remember, you fly as a commercial pilot)The most modern & up to date, airliners use GPS as #1,to update the flight management system. GPS is more accurate than inertial navigation & VOR systems. In other words, a new Boeing 737 has a better system than a lot of 767's.Too bad, that all existing commercial aircraft don't have GPS moving maps with airport runway layouts. I can think of a recent one......that could have used it. The pilots tried to takeoff on the wrong and too short runway. They didn't make it. Even my portable GPS switches to a Jeppeson airport layout, with my aircraft's position, the second I touch the runway.And then we still hear of commercial aircraft landing at the wrong airport, wrong runway, or taxiway. They could use a good moving map GPS too! It's also a fact that new Cessna 172's have better navigation systems than many airliners that still operate around this world!And since........I'm too well aquainted with "flight into terrain" accidents; GPS & synthetic vision will certainly be a huge improvement over the VOR nav system. It's really tough to argue with that..........as I have so much statistics on the subject.So no..........I do not agree with the term "crutch", when speaking of GPS. It's far more accurate, and more reliable than the VOR system. It's the future.I share a hangar with a commercial jet & aerobatic pilot. His view, is that they've spent billions on GPS, as well as having spent billions on the VOR system. So instead of spending more on the VOR system...........just get rid of it. I know of many other commercial pilots, who feel the same. I ask all the time. This subject, is of very high interest, to me. I live in an area, where airplanes have been smashing into our mountains, for a very long time.L.Adamson

In parts of the world, where GPS is fully functional, GPS is certainly no more of a "crutch" than VORs were.........when they replaced inferior forms of navigation. GPS just has a lot more useful information than what's available with VOR radio navigation. Fact is........radio navigation in the States will be gone, rather than staying. So what's the importance of having a "solid foundation" with an inferior type of navigation? Here are the facts... (and as I remember, you fly as a commercial pilot)The most modern & up to date, airliners use GPS as #1,to update the flight management system. GPS is more accurate than inertial navigation & VOR systems. In other words, a new Boeing 737 has a better system than a lot of 767's.Too bad, that all existing commercial aircraft don't have GPS moving maps with airport runway layouts. I can think of a recent one......that could have used it. The pilots tried to takeoff on the wrong and too short runway. They didn't make it. Even my portable GPS switches to a Jeppeson airport layout, with my aircraft's position, the second I touch the runway.And then we still hear of commercial aircraft landing at the wrong airport, wrong runway, or taxiway. They could use a good moving map GPS too! It's also a fact that new Cessna 172's have better navigation systems than many airliners that still operate around this world!And since........I'm too well aquainted with "flight into terrain" accidents; GPS & synthetic vision will certainly be a huge improvement over the VOR nav system. It's really tough to argue with that..........as I have so much statistics on the subject.So no..........I do not agree with the term "crutch", when speaking of GPS. It's far more accurate, and more reliable than the VOR system. It's the future.I share a hangar with a commercial jet & aerobatic pilot. His view, is that they've spent billions on GPS, as well as having spent billions on the VOR system. So instead of spending more on the VOR system...........just get rid of it. I know of many other commercial pilots, who feel the same. I ask all the time. This subject, is of very high interest, to me. I live in an area, where airplanes have been smashing into our mountains, for a very long time.L.Adamson

When they do dismantle all the VORs and mandate multiple GPS's and FMC's for all aircraft that operate in the airspace system, then that is when you won't have to learn VORs. That's perfectly fine that you do what you do in your own airplane with yourself and whoever is willing to take a ride with you. How do you know that DalSingh will never work as a commercial pilot? How do you know that DalSingh will only rent the newest and most modern GA planes with all the moving maps and glass cockpits? What if one day, the only plane available for rent is the beat up old Cherokee with the KX-170s? What if one day, he gets hired by a 135 cargo outfit that flies PA-31s with nothing more than a pair of KX-155s? What happens then? What happens then, if all he knows how to do is follow a line on a brightly lit moving map display?L.Adamson, when you fly as much as I do with modern GPS, moving map, and FMC, equipped aircraft, you realize that there will be numerous occasions when that technology can fail you and you need to be able to switch back to and function effectively on nothing more than the raw data of a VOR and OBS. There will be times when the GPS equipment or signal can be lost. There will be times when ATC will hand you a short notice hold where you have no time to program the equipment and your only way to not bust the clearance is to switch immediately to VORs. There will be times when you will make a mistake with the FMC and you will need to fall back to radio nav until you sort out what went wrong and fix it.Don't for a minute think that GPS will be the savior to landing at wrong airports or CFIT. I know of occasions where people have almost landed at wrong airports or CFIT'ed, even with the availability of moving maps, GPS and FMCs. In the public realm of such incidents, look no further than Cali, Columbia where American flew a 757 in the mountains or Las Vegas where two CAP pilots flew their brand new GPS and moving map equipped C-182 straight into a mountain.When they do get rid of the VOR system and the current airspace structure built upon it that we have, then we can stop knowing how to use VORs. Until that happens, you need to know it.

Of all the aircraft I've had over the years the best FDE I've found where one could really practice stalls and spins is the freeware Fs-Tutorials C150 L. For those with TrackIR and a good Yoke/Peddles setup you can't beat this aircraft for practicing lessons. This aircraft is hands down the most realistic spinner I've found for FS9.

when you fly as much as I do with modern GPS, moving map, and FMC, equipped aircraft, you realize that there will be numerous occasions when that technology can fail you and you need to be able to switch back to and function effectively on nothing more than the raw data of a VOR and OBS. There will be times when the GPS equipment or signal can be lost. There will be times when ATC will hand you a short notice hold where you have no time to program the equipment and your only way to not bust the clearance is to switch immediately to VORs. There will be times when you will make a mistake with the FMC and you will need to fall back to radio nav until you sort out what went wrong and fix it.

This is another example, of where I disagree. I'm around too many commercial pilots, who will vouch for the reliability of GPS..............and the fact, that the signal is rarely lost. A good friend, stated that his Boeing 737 800 has lost the signal for just a few seconds in the eight years he's flown it. Another acquaintance who fly's the 737 800 said about the same thing. In fact, when I ask, it's nearly universal. Out of the five aviation GPS's I've owned.......I haven't lost a signal since 1994. Can't say the same, for VOR's.

Don't for a minute think that GPS will be the savior to landing at wrong airports or CFIT. I know of occasions where people have almost landed at wrong airports or CFIT'ed, even with the availability of moving maps, GPS and FMCs. In the public realm of such incidents, look no further than Cali, Columbia where American flew a 757 in the mountains or Las Vegas where two CAP pilots flew their brand new GPS and moving map equipped C-182 straight into a mountain.

The Columbia American 757 accident has always been one of my best examples for the "big picture" moving map display, such as a Garmin 1000 or even my Garmin 696. With either of these, it simply wouldn't have happened. They'd had known they were headed back in the wrong direction, and would have had terrain warnings, well ahead. Same for all these pilot's that land at wrong airports. A big picture GPS is quite different from the older line to point GPSs.I'm well aware of the Cessna accident also. It's what happens when you get two old guys who are efficient with VORs, but are apparently flipping through pages of a Garmin 1000 screen, because they just didn't really know how to use it. BTW ---- I'm an "old" guy too. It's probably what happens when you just assume it's a crutch...

When they do get rid of the VOR system and the current airspace structure built upon it that we have, then we can stop knowing how to use VORs. Until that happens, you need to know it.

Thank goodness,.... we're moving past the point, of VORs being the current airspace structure. Good riddance.... as I can list accident after accident.....in which modern methods would have most likely saved the crew, passengers, and aircraft as well.L.Adamson

L.Adamson - a kind reminder not to hijack this thread into a GPS vs Radio navigation argument.

Of all the aircraft I've had over the years the best FDE I've found where one could really practice stalls and spins is the freeware Fs-Tutorials C150 L. For those with TrackIR and a good Yoke/Peddles setup you can't beat this aircraft for practicing lessons. This aircraft is hands down the most realistic spinner I've found for FS9.

Yup, that's a great realistic little aircraft - and its freeware.Another more complex freeware trainer for FS9 is the Yakovlev Yak-18T by Alexey Yuzefov and co. Its amazing how close to its real world counterpart they got the systems and flight handling on that one. Its my favourite piston single engine GA to fly around in FS9.There are many really good aircraft with fantastic FDEs to fly around in the sim, that compare very well to their real world counterparts - Marcel Kuhnt's BN-2 Islanders and Xomer's An-2 come to mind among many many others, there are way too many FS9 examples to list them all.In the end it all comes down to what I said earlier, the simulator can be a very valuable tool to aid in flight training or it can be just a sort of complex game - it all depends on how the end user chooses to use it, what they've added to it and what they fly in it. Do they choose to fly with the more realistic aircraft and FDEs or do they choose to use something much simpler and less realistic. They can choose to read up on real world theory, procedures and practices and follow those; or they can just drop in the sim to have some quick fun.

Of all the aircraft I've had over the years the best FDE I've found where one could really practice stalls and spins is the freeware Fs-Tutorials C150 L. For those with TrackIR and a good Yoke/Peddles setup you can't beat this aircraft for practicing lessons. This aircraft is hands down the most realistic spinner I've found for FS9.

I learned to fly on a Reims C150J in the 1970s. These models were, in fact, very reluctant to spin. Unless the controls were applied hard and at exactly the right time, the aircraft just dropped away into a spiral dive, rather than a spin. This meant climbing back to altitude and trying again, which was a waste of time and money for the flying school and the srudent. As a result, spinning practice was always carried out on one of the school's two C150 Aerobats. Even these were slightly different and the one with better spinning characteristics was always used.

The Columbia American 757 accident has always been one of my best examples for the "big picture" moving map display, such as a Garmin 1000 or even my Garmin 696. With either of these, it simply wouldn't have happened. They'd had known they were headed back in the wrong direction, and would have had terrain warnings, well ahead. Same for all these pilot's that land at wrong airports. A big picture GPS is quite different from the older line to point GPSs.

They could have had the biggest baddest large display possible with all the bells and whistles and that 757 would have impacted anyways. The AA Flight 965 in Colombia crashed because the crew inputted the wrong fix and failed to identify the fix or observe the error. They failed to even properly brief the approach into Cali or abondon the approach when numerous cues indicated they should do so. The well trained crew ignored basic navigation rules and company SOP's. Once the GPWS went off the crew had 12 seconds to climb and research has shown it would have cleared the ridge. However, the crew left the speed brakes extended reducing lift. In flight 965's case even with a large display TAWS the crew may have continued along the same path. It was a typical garbage in, garbage out scenario. The big picture GPS is a great tool in proper hands or a deadly tool in the wrong hands. It is not the end all to safety. Use flight 965 as an example of complacency or get-there-itis. Not as an argument for large screen integrated flight instrument systems.On a side note, glace at the G1000 pilots handbook next time you get a chance. You will see in the terrain section a nice warning "CAUTION: Use of Terrain Proximity information for primary terrain avoidance is prohibited. The Terrain Proximity Map is intended only to enhance situational awareness. It is the pilot's responsibility to provide terrain avoidance at all times."

I learned to fly on a Reims C150J in the 1970s. These models were, in fact, very reluctant to spin. Unless the controls were applied hard and at exactly the right time, the aircraft just dropped away into a spiral dive, rather than a spin. This meant climbing back to altitude and trying again, which was a waste of time and money for the flying school and the srudent. As a result, spinning practice was always carried out on one of the school's two C150 Aerobats. Even these were slightly different and the one with better spinning characteristics was always used.

Nevertheless I haven't found a better FS aircraft to practice with. Most FS aircraft FDE's don't model spins and stalls correctly. The best FDE's that one can practice in FS9 are in the order of best to good:1. Fs-Tutorials C150 L (don't care what the real on does, this is the best we have in FS. My experience in the real 150 gave me no issue in getting into spins. One can also go on Youtube and see these things spin for themselves and make the decision as to what the real world models can do versus what's being reported here).2. Flight1's 1723. Flight1's Commander (this FDE is actually very good to say the least)I forget the guys name who did the FDE for the Flight1 models but his work is consistently excellent.

Nevertheless I haven't found a better FS aircraft to practice with. Most FS aircraft FDE's don't model spins and stalls correctly. The best FDE's that one can practice in FS9 are in the order of best to good:1. Fs-Tutorials C150 L (don't care what the real on does, this is the best we have in FS. My experience in the real 150 gave me no issue in getting into spins. One can also go on Youtube and see these things spin for themselves and make the decision as to what the real world models can do versus what's being reported here).2. Flight1's 1723. Flight1's Commander (this FDE is actually very good to say the least)I forget the guys name who did the FDE for the Flight1 models but his work is consistently excellent.

I didn't say the C150 wouldn't spin - instructors could spin them every time. My point was they were, by design, quite difficult to spin inadvertently and had to be handled very firmly and precisely to put them into a fully developed spin

They could have had the biggest baddest large display possible with all the bells and whistles and that 757 would have impacted anyways. The AA Flight 965 in Colombia crashed because the crew inputted the wrong fix and failed to identify the fix or observe the error. They failed to even properly brief the approach into Cali or abondon the approach when numerous cues indicated they should do so. The well trained crew ignored basic navigation rules and company SOP's.

I seriously doubt, this aircraft would have impacted the rising terrain. I've been using moving map GPS with terrain features, far too long, to believe other wise. When I say big picture, that means a zoomed out representation of the flight path, for quite a distance all around. The pending problem would be hard to miss. As to what the Garmin literature says, it doesn't matter. I live & fly in a rugged mountainous region, and the system works very well. Plenty of visual warning in advance, as well as audio warnings. I also have this thing, about recreating flights in the area, where flight into terrain accidents have happened. Once again, the GPS does very well.Thread hijack over.....for now.L.Adamson

When I earned my wings in Florida at Comair Aviation Academy, almost all flight instructors endorsed the use of MSFS. Of course you won't learn what it feels like in turbulent air in the sim, but they liked it to be an excellent training tool for procedures, navigation and multitasking.I also remember my introductory flight, way before I joined the CAA. It was in a Tomahawk and just after takeoff my instructor said "your controls". I smiled and knew exactly what to do. Of course it was a rough ride, but everything in the airplane looked familiar to me due to MSFS. Everyone learns differently, but I believe my thousands of hours in MFSF saved me a good 10-15 hours towards my PPL.Jim Skorna hit the nail on the head, it's not the sim teaching us bad habbits, it's us ourselves learning to fly the sim without an instructor. That's why opponents of MSFS use say they have to correct so many things. Many of the CAA instructors spend nights with their students "playing" with the sim to show them how it can be used as a procedural trainer. I remember, my favorite instructor once came to my crash pad with a six pack and tried to land a 777 with a 200 knot headwind on top of a high-rise...He now flies a CRJ200 and hasn't attemted to land on any buildings as far as I know. He said he had logged over 5000 hours in MSFS before joining the academy.Cheers,Pete

When I earned my wings in Florida at Comair Aviation Academy, almost all flight instructors endorsed the use of MSFS. Of course you won't learn what it feels like in turbulent air in the sim, but they liked it to be an excellent training tool for procedures, navigation and multitasking.I also remember my introductory flight, way before I joined the CAA. It was in a Tomahawk and just after takeoff my instructor said "your controls". I smiled and knew exactly what to do. Of course it was a rough ride, but everything in the airplane looked familiar to me due to MSFS. Everyone learns differently, but I believe my thousands of hours in MFSF saved me a good 10-15 hours towards my PPL.Jim Skorna hit the nail on the head, it's not the sim teaching us bad habbits, it's us ourselves learning to fly the sim without an instructor. That's why opponents of MSFS use say they have to correct so many things. Many of the CAA instructors spend nights with their students "playing" with the sim to show them how it can be used as a procedural trainer. I remember, my favorite instructor once came to my crash pad with a six pack and tried to land a 777 with a 200 knot headwind on top of a high-rise...He now flies a CRJ200 and hasn't attemted to land on any buildings as far as I know. He said he had logged over 5000 hours in MSFS before joining the academy.Cheers,Pete

Pete, that's great to see that MSFS has actually benefited you in your career and more importantly saved your some money! I've heard that 'Spin Training' used to be on the syllabus for PPL - but it was banned due to being dangerous and so is not taught by the instructor in the air. Instead, theory is given on how to avoid the spin. Isn't this another example of how FS can help... the spin simulation might not be 100% accurate but I'm guessing its better then nothing?I think FS can help provide an accelerated learning for PPL - I guess the instructor I had has never seen or used Microsoft FS, he has probably heard of it and presumed its a 'video game', without realising just how much simulation there actually is.In some ways I think it might be good for me - learning from an instructor who has nothing to do with FS so that I can distinguish the difference between real world flight and simulated flight for myself.