You know I'll disagree! Cessna 172's are equipped with Garmin 1000's for a reason. It should be GPS navigation on day one.........without hesitation. We have another thread going... on a pilots forum in regards to XM Satellite weather. It's being called one of the best additions to ever come along for both VFR & IFR flight. And I totally agree with that, since I've used it for several years. Much better real time information, than pilots have ever got in the past. and if course, it's incorported into a moving map GPS screen. edid: PS------ I guess I need to find the link, in which new students were put into planes with either steam or glass, for a comparison study. The glass students were able to comprehend navigation, far ahead of the steam students. They finished their PPLs in less time. They also started with nav on day one. This is a fact.L.Adamson

Of course a moving map will accelerate a nav learning curve, but at what expense ? There is absolutely no reason to not make sure a pilot can fly without a moving map, before he learns to fly with one. Now, if that study proves that a glass cockpit makes basic navigation easier, I'd have to agree.. it puts all the information in a much more useable, easy to see, format, including a nifty HSI.. and reversing the training (ala getting them comfy with steam after glass) is fine by me. I'm stating from experience, that pilots not well skilled in radio-navigation before GPS, have a much lesser degree of competance.. and not just in navigation, but situational awareness too. They are taught a level of complacency.. that even rears its head in basic aerodynamics, and aircraft systems (many of our discussions point that finger at you). The whole idea of GPS from day one, is as goofy, as letting them use an autopilot before they can manage smooth, descending turns/climbs, or even hold heading and altitude on their own..And to be honest, it disturbs me that an experienced pilot takes your position ..and if you're gonna quote all these experts from other forums.. please let them speak for themselves,, I'd love to discuss this with them...

You know I'll disagree! Cessna 172's are equipped with Garmin 1000's for a reason. It should be GPS navigation on day one.........without hesitation. edid: PS------ I guess I need to find the link, in which new students were put into planes with either steam or glass, for a comparison study. The glass students were able to comprehend navigation, far ahead of the steam students. They finished their PPLs in less time. They also started with nav on day one. This is a fact.L.Adamson

I don't care which day the student gets introduced to the GPS, as long as when I ask them where they are, they can give me the same answer with the same level of confidence whether or not the GPS is on or not. Can you do that, L.Adamson? Can you tell me accurately where you are at any time in flight with or without the GPS?

What GPS & glass will do..............is easily provide an advance warning in regards to terrain. It's the big picture! It can solve the problems of complacency, navigation mistakes in regards to maps, and loss of situational awareness that often happens on IFR flights, or unintentional VFR flight into IMC. It can also solve the problem of taking off on the wrong & too short runway. This is something that Mark 1 eyeballs & paper maps have often failed to solve. GPS is the future, and shouldn't be regarded as a backup to traditional radio nav, that dates back to the 1940's. Yet, some people still think that way. That's why my original comment..........was........that if the instructor has a smirk, and turns off the gps.......then throw him out. Because........some instructors really think that way. L.Adamson

Instructors think that way because the FAA thinks that way. Until the FAA adds moving map GPS's to 91.205b as minimum required equipment for VFR flight, then you are still responsible for knowing how to fly safely using the same amount and quality of instrumentation that was available in 1920. It doesn't mean you can't use the GPS, but it does mean that you need to be capable of functioning safely without it.

As for links.. let's try these (out of hundreds) on for size... just food for thought, but worth taking into consideration:http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/satellites/4318471http://gcn.com/articles/2010/09/21/gps-next-gen-challenges.aspxThe GAO (Government Accounting Office) and AAOP have said back as early as 2009, that we're already on borrowed time, and the economy has only gotten worse. Likey scenario is a massive tax on GPS users... more likey (not yet admitted) is that civillian users will have to buy extremely expensive equipment that can be used safely on fewer satellites.

And then theres this....gives new meaning into 'CFIT" LOLhttp://www.msnbc.msn...ce=home_oneline

Instructors think that way because the FAA thinks that way. Until the FAA adds moving map GPS's to 91.205b as minimum required equipment for VFR flight, then you are still responsible for knowing how to fly safely using the same amount and quality of instrumentation that was available in 1920. It doesn't mean you can't use the GPS, but it does mean that you need to be capable of functioning safely without it.

It's the FAA, that would prefer to get rid of VORs, sooner than later. "The FAA has confirmed to AOPA that it is making plans to reduce the network of VORs across the country, beginning in 2010."http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2008/080828vor.htmlL.Adamson

http://gcn.com/articles/2010/09/21/gps-next-gen-challenges.aspx

I read farther down...Air Force Space Command, which has responsibility for sustaining and maintaining the Global Positioning System, feels that the GAO report is overly pessimistic and doesn't adequately acknowledge what AFSPC has done to address constellation sustainment. The Air Force has created the largest, most accurate constellation, with the greatest capability, in the history of GPS; with 31 operational satellites currently on orbit. This is well above the 24 minimum satellites needed for a full constellation and to meet constellation performance standards. Since 1995, GPS has never failed to exceed performance standards.L.Adamson

It's the FAA, that would prefer to get rid of VORs, sooner than later. "The FAA has confirmed to AOPA that it is making plans to reduce the network of VORs across the country, beginning in 2010."http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2008/080828vor.htmlL.Adamson

Did I mention VORs in that post? VORs weren't even a twinkle in the eye in 1920. VORs are as superfluous as GPS under 91.205b. I'm talking about a magnetic compass and a map. That's all you've got to navigate by in a plane that is equipped to legal minimums for VFR. Until the legal minimums for VFR include a GPS moving map, you better know how to fly without that moving map.

Did I mention VORs in that post? VORs weren't even a twinkle in the eye in 1920. VORs are as superfluous as GPS under 91.205b. I'm talking about a magnetic compass and a map. That's all you've got to navigate by in a plane that is equipped to legal minimums for VFR. Until the legal minimums for VFR include a GPS moving map, you better know how to fly without that moving map.

Fine............I know how to fly without a moving map. So do many others. But, why would I choose to? If it's for the sake of "old school", and being less informed, then I choose not to. I guess I'm just more efficient. I'll run a flight plan on the computer, and get all the information for winds, TFR's, etc. Since I don't need to hop-scotch back and forth to VORs, the flight will be more direct. Less fuel & better time. I then print it out. I'll take it to the airport, and load the plan into the GPS. Of course, it can be saved for future flights, or a reverse. I won't need to call an FSS, because I've got more complete weather information from the Internet flight planner. I also check other weather sources.Before flight, I'll start my satellite tracker. I do have to pay for a subscription, but it does plot my course on a Google map, in case there is a problem, or just for family & friends to track progress. It also has an emegency button, that sends out a distress signal with GPS coordinates. This kind of beats filing a flight plan all the time.........since the idea of a flight plan, is also search & rescue if needed.While airborne, I have my printed flight plan & sectionals on the kneeboard. The GPS is displaying weather patterns, winds, TFR's, boundaries, terrain, obstacles, current altimeter settings, and keeping track of my fuel use, in conjunction with a fuel computer. It's always accurate to about a quart. I can also check the destination airport for it's ATIS, ASOS, or AWOS, far ahead of time........thanks to XM weather.Yes.............I don't have to do any of this. It's NOT required.Oh...........I almost forgot. I have one of those "thingies" that spots other aircraft traffic too. At least if they have a working transponder. Not bad for a homebuilt airplane... :)L.Adamson

Fine............I know how to fly without a moving map. So do many others. But, why would I choose to? If it's for the sake of "old school", and being less informed, then I choose not to. L.Adamson

Easy for you to say you know how while sitting in your armchair. But do you really? When was the last time you practiced those skills? If you went up with an instructor tomorrow, who smirks and turns the moving map off on you, would you be able to fly the plane back home safely? And if even you, L.Adamson, asserts that you have the skills to fly without a moving map, then why should a new student pilot be denied from learning those skills?

Yes.............I don't have to do any of this. It's NOT required.L.Adamson

By the way you emphasise the NOT in that sentence, I sense that there is something fundamental about the phrase "not required" that you are still not understanding.All that you do is great. All that you equip yourself with is great. But you have to understand that what you do is not required. It is over and above the minimum requirements. It is extra. It is bonus material. It is NOT required. It makes your plane safer than a plane that only meets the minimum requirements. It makes your flight easier than a flight in a plane that only meets the minimum requirements. As an instructor, I have to be assured that you are capable of flying an aircraft that is minimally equipped since that aircraft will be more difficult to fly than one that is optionally equipped. As a pilot you should be assured that you are capable of flying an aircraft that is minimally equipped because you may be faced with that situation some day.

Three words... needle-ball-airspeed

Fine............I know how to fly without a moving map. So do many others. But, why would I choose to? If it's for the sake of "old school", and being less informed, then I choose not to.

Not for the sake of old-school.. for the sake of being a well-rounded, competent pilot.. and for the sake of any passenger who climbs into an airplane assuming that you are.

Since I don't need to hop-scotch back and forth to VORs, the flight will be more direct.

Larry.. a skilled pilot need not play VOR hop-scotch... he can fly a relatively direct course with VOR triangulated waypoints, never flying directly to, or from, any VOR. Me thinks you've never been completely comfy with radio-naviagtion (per many statements like this), and that it's always been like a scary, mysterious thing to you.

Larry.. a skilled pilot need not play VOR hop-scotch... he can fly a relatively direct course with VOR triangulated waypoints, never flying directly to, or from, any VOR. Me thinks you've never been completely comfy with radio-naviagtion (per many statements like this), and that it's always been like a scary, mysterious thing to you.

Brett, I see you're online. This is where I quit,.... in this game of modern versus old. We went through the same crap last year. As you know,I posted some of your thoughts last year on a different pilots forum, and few agreed with you at all. Some of your thinking was quite bizarre. You kept harping about the fundemental skills, and the right of pilots to fly. I'm well aware of triangulating. We all did it at one time. At the same time, I do believe that the modern glass panel and XM weather is something somewhat mysterious to you. So seriously, once again I'm totally out of this petty conversation.L.Adamson

Easy for you to say you know how while sitting in your armchair. But do you really? When was the last time you practiced those skills? If you went up with an instructor tomorrow, who smirks and turns the moving map off on you, would you be able to fly the plane back home safely? And if even you, L.Adamson, asserts that you have the skills to fly without a moving map, then why should a new student pilot be denied from learning those skills?

They can learn all they want. I don't care. But if all you learned was from a flightsim forum, and a few instructors who frequent these forums to push old school............then you'd never know about a better method. Afterall, within flightsim forums, GPS is just a toy, a bore, and a backup. In the real world, this isn't the case at all.L.Adamson