How do pilots typically set NAV1 and NAV2 radios?

[Guest Adverse Yawn]

You were using GPS in 1993??Regardless, with all due respect Adamson, you've missed the point. You don't have any problems because you sound like a 1st rate competent pilot. The real irony of technology is that those that can use it safely and don't what the fuss is about are those who don't need it!What Jim is saying, that for those who are struggling at the back of the cognative drag curve mid flight, technology won't change much. They'll still die. Some people make fatal mistakes and some people don't. All simplifying technology does is move the complexity somewhere else. That complexity still has to be dealt with one way or another.Often, that moved complexity is self-induced. Non-instrument rated pilot departing in marginal weather only because they have a GPS. Without the GPS they wouldn't have departed. The number of Controlled Airspace busts remains alomost the same in the UK, inspite of the common use of GPS. People are still getting it wrong on a regular basis. Maybe not you, but it happens.As for the loss of signal: Very infrequent, but inevitible. Wales is a common blackspot. Probably to do with military ops in the area. The UK CAA often conduct jamming tests. Surely the US mil do too? GPS signals are very very very weak. It doesn't take much. Not all GPS units are RAIM equiped so you may not be aware of your loss of accuracy as a result of losing satellites. Also, multi-path errors from mountainous terrain cause problems (as they do for VOR and ADF).Commercial aircraft don't use GPS in isolation. They cross reference the GPS position with the IRS, VOR/DME and DME/DME crosscuts (where available).GPS approaches are another kettle of fish. In the US, GPS precision appoaches are possible through the use of dGPS and WAAS correction systenms and ground based Psuedolites providing much stronger and extremely accurate signals.

[LAdamson 240]

>You were using GPS in 1993??Yes, the Garmin moving map GPS95 came out in the summer of 1993, and I bought one. Upgraded to the Garmin 195Map in 1997. Use a Garmin 296 with terrain/ terrain warning these days. Plan to get a 396 with XM Satellite weather, soon. Satellite uplinked weather patterns in mountainous regions is extremely valuable.L.Adamson

[Guest Adverse Yawn]

Gosh! I thought the first units were out in about 1996. As a general rule, within the commercial market, the US seems to be about 2 years ahead of the UK!How about my other points?

[LAdamson 240]

>Gosh! I thought the first units were out in about 1996. As a>general rule, within the commercial market, the US seems to be>about 2 years ahead of the UK!>>How about my other points?Regardless of what anyone say's, when a computerized screen can provide a synthesized rendition of "impending" terrain in the aircraft's path, it's a whole lot better than not. I'll argue that point to death, if need be. I don't want to hear excuses regarding the pilots incompetancy regarding the use of "steam gauges" and charts, when passengers along with the pilots are needlessly dying.For instance, in the case of the Aspen Colorado incident, the pilot could not see the runway, and the co-pilot thought it was to the right, when it was actually to the left. Darkness and inability to see rising terrain were also factors listed in the NTSB report.Now, we have terrain depicting GPS screens along with runway orientation in relation to the terrain. But most important is the GPS provided moving airplane symbol that shows the airplanes position relative to the terrain, runway, etc. Instead of "I can't see the runway" and guess work as to looking at the actual runway or not, the GPS screen shows it, and the airplanes relationship to it, RIGHT NOW!But it's getting better! Chelton avionics has a glass screen with sythentic 3D terrain imaging that's much like using flight simulator. When darkness hides terrain, this is even better than night vision goggles! Other brands are also coming on line with this advanced technology.As to multi-path errors and mountains, it's a non-event. All my flying is in mountainous regions. They surround where I live in the Mountain West. With at least 12 track channels for most aviation GPS recievers, I'd need a massive reflective rock to even get a chance of multi-path signal deflection, and the reciever would throw that signal out anyway. With 12 channels, I usually get at least eight good satellites, and I only need four good ones. My GPS also uses WAAS.As to "weather" and the GPS for non IFR rated pilots.....Happily, here in the USA, we now have satellite uplinked weather screens for GPS's such as the Garmin 396 hand-held, Garmin 1000/Avidyne glass panels, and some other handheld GPS/PDA's. With the ability to see up to date weather patterns (which are re-broadcast every few minutes) for hundreds of miles in all directions, or even a thousand if needed; the pilot can make a much more informed, go or no-go decision, as well as diverting, when weather deteriorates along the planned path. I'm hearing from lot's of pilots regarding this new feature, and it's apparently the best aviation navigation tool to come along since the GPS! Even a 737 pilot friend of mine, thinks that his 737's ought to have one!IMO, even though Cessna admits that "steam guage" happy pilots will have a harder time adjusting to the new glass panels, than computer savy begginers will; I think we're a lot better off! Situational awareness will be highly improved, we won't be guessing at weather, we can see other aircraft that are using transponders, not to mention airport runway/taxiway diagrams that pop up on the right side MFD the second we land. Restricted airspaces, Class B altitude rings, current TFR's, and much more is also depicted. L.Adamson

[Guest Adverse Yawn]

Yes I agree totally. On the face of it, glass/moving map/TCAS/GPS/etc, it just has to be easier. But why don't the statistics change then? Because the guy pressing the buttons hasn't changed. Hence my comment about the individual and that if one problem is simplified, the boundary is pushed elsewhere. Which takes us back to Jim's comment, that technology may not have prevented accidents in quite so a clear cut way as common sense suggests.

[LAdamson 240]

>Yes I agree totally. On the face of it, glass/moving>map/TCAS/GPS/etc, it just has to be easier. But why don't the>statistics change then? Because the guy pressing the buttons>hasn't changed. That's not it. Integrated glass panels are "new". It's only been a little over a year since Cessna introduced the Garmin 1000 in GA aircraft. These new Garmin and Avidyne systems for general aviation airplanes have better displays than most commercial jets. I noticed that the next generation Boeing cockpit seems to resemble them.The majority of airplanes out there, with built in GPS, don't have near the display capability of my Garmin 296 hand-held, when it comes to color, resolution, and features. Not even the older Garmin 430's and 530's have the capacity to compute like my hand-held does. Their display isn't near as detailed either.Let's wait around a few years, and re-check statistics that compare planes and pilots with new technology to old. L.Adamson

[Guest av84fun]

I missed this chapter in your diatribe and just felt the need to respond.<>Of course it does. That is my point! So far as I know, no avionics device comes with an injection of competence. You go WAY off the deep end...both in your opinions and your unfortunate rhetoric...to suggest that glass guages are some sort of panacea that will end tragic death due to gross pilot incompetence. Sadly, you are wrong.In the Aspen tragedy, for example, what would have been the BEST method of preventing the accident...a glass guage depicting mountains in which the crew KNEW they were surrounded or the BASIC competency and compliance with the regulations that would have REQUIRED the crew to refuse the approach. I can't imagine why you continue to suggest they they were "lost." They weren't LOST. They were shooting an illegal approach to the Aspen airport in virtually impossilbe visual conditions...that they should NEVER have gotten into in the first place. That is not being LOST. If you are pulling into your driveway and a sudden fog comes upon you so that you can no longer see...are you LOST??Unlike glass guages, sound decision making cannot be "installed" in a pilot's brain.As for how many hours in takes to achieve competency, as you should know, there is NO number of hours that proves competency. Some pilots get away with stupidity and gross neglegence for their entire careers.One noted pilot magazie recently ran an article about a LEGENDARY race car driver who is also a pilot. Guess what THAT MORON was in the habit of doing. He would activate his autopilot AND TAKE A NAP!!!!Exactly which glass device would have protected him from a mid-air or a CFIT if he nodded off a bit too long???<>Of course such devices can make a difference on occasion. I have NEVER argued to the contrary. But unlike you, I do not incorrectly presume that they are the "holy grail" as your near-religeous ferver with respect to glass seems to indicate.<No and I am not going to dismiss parachutes, or someday, maybe even laser-guided Victor Airways...or Super Glue that will keep airplanes from breaking up when some macho/idiot trys to "pick his way" through a squall line with his NEXRAD paints.<>I am genuinely saddened to hear that. Possibly, that is why you have departed from your normally learned and polite contributions to this forum.Let us agree that it is fair for everyone to have their own point of view with respect to the DEGREE of safety benefits provided by new aviation technology.Finally, by way of explanation/retraction, I did not intend to "dismiss" GPS or any other new technology as a "toy" in the sense that they have no merit. In fact, I repeatedly stated that such devices ARE beneficial. Where you and I disagree is on the EXTENT of those benefits.By "toy" I meant in the sense of HDTV or Ferarri's etc. All good stuff but not essential to watching television or driving the roads. I retract and apologize for conveying any other impression but in my own defense, I reiterate that I never suggested that the devices do not have their place.What I further suggest and what I will never retract...since the truth does not require retraction, is that the vast majority of airmen who come to grief do so by their own, often unbelievably poor decision-making and no piece of avionics ever has or ever will do much good which such so-called pilots. Jim

[LAdamson 240]

>>They weren't LOST. They were shooting an illegal approach to>the Aspen airport in virtually impossilbe visual>conditions...that they should NEVER have gotten into in the>first place. That is not being LOST. If you are pulling into>your driveway and a sudden fog comes upon you so that you can>no longer see...are you LOST??>Assuming you haven't quite pulled into the driveway, as they hadn't made the runway; then you assume the driveway is to the right, but actually it's to the left..............and you run into the house; yes, your lost...You've probably seen the recently re-released "Island in the Sky" with John Wayne, perhaps? Remember the co-pilot that's lost in the storm, and finally lays down to freeze to death, but is actually only a few yards from the aircrafts tail. Of course, had the DC-3 had one of today's GPS's, it wouldn't have been more than 30' off course anyway. :D Had the co-pilot had a GPS for hiking, he'd have gotten back safely too, instead of walking circles in a freezing blizzard.Imagine having a GPS back then.....................there would be NO plot for the movie! The plot is ..........Everyone's LOST!!! :)And with today's GPS's, I actually would make the garage door with a few feet to spare on each side, instead of hitting the house. They are that good. Just happened to have mine on the driveway yesterday, as I was getting an "atomic clock" time fix. As fast as I was turning directions, it was too; which was quite surprising, since it was updating faster than previous units.L.Adamson

[Guest Adverse Yawn]

I actuall made a faux pas. TCAS has reduced the accidient rate considerably. But TCAS isn't a nav aid so there are two reasons why I shouldn't have mentioned it!I would say most PPL flights in the UK are handled with the aid of a Garmin GPS. But yet CAS busts are still regular occurance. Replace the edge of CAS with the edge of a mountain and it amounts to a CFIT. Maybe pilots would take more care if there was a risk of mountain, but that doesn't say much about the individual concerned though.However, you could well be right and it is simply a case of training and that in a few years the stats would be different. But that kind of concurs with my view that if you are the type of pilot who doesn't make these mistakes in the first place then you ain't going to make them with or without a moving map.

[Guest av84fun]

<>Oh. OK. I once got "lost" in a hotel bathroom in Budapest after 7 or 8 drinks too many.But you rephrased my question. I said nothing about hitting your house. I just said if you are ON your driveway...but just can't see due to fog...are you "lost."But your anaolgy is instructive. In your version, you said you could have made it into the garage if you had GPS. My point is that if you can't see, you ought not to be driving the car in the first place OR, if on an "IDR drive plan", when you hit the fog bank and can no longer see forward, and since you KNOW there is a garage in front of you somewhere, what you should do is turn around and drive back out of the fog.Of coure, you could get out of the car and just "feel your way" toward the house but that is not recommended practice in an airplane in cruise flight.But you probably don't want to tell the cops that you were "lost" on or near your driveway or they will make to take a breath test! (-:And BTW, you had better have a pretty LARGE garage with no other cars in it because the scientific data suggests that given normal accuracy variables, you would be pretty lucky to shoot the Garage Door Front Course without bending something.Here is the conclusion from one of the most exhaustive studies on GPS accuracy."The numbers presented here are only presented as being somewhat typical. Position accuracy is a function not only of the GPS receiver and antenna, but also a function of the geometry and status of the satellites, the surroundings of the antenna and ionosphere conditions/modeling. At the same location with the same receiver and antenna, daily RMS error of horizontal position has been seen to vary by a meter or more. Because of this, one should never depend on a belief that the RMS error or any other error statistic is known more accurately than within a couple meters. Although some consumer-grade receiver/antenna configurations are seeing horizontal RMS errors closer to 4 meters and 95% errors around 7 to 8 meters, some sources, including some receiver specifications, are now stating a possible horizontal specification of a CEP (50%) of 8 meters and 95% within 15 meters (implying an RMS error of about 9 meters), when HDOP is perhaps 1.5. Remember that the horizontal error is a "random variable". Some observations may yield errors near zero or very large ones, but neither case is of any particular significance."Given the above, your suggestion that you "WOULD make the garage with a few feet to spare" is telling. That remark just shows that you do what most of the safetly experts fear...you assign TOO much to the capabilities of these TAA devices.Many fear the Cirrus pilots will be TOO bold in their mission planning because of the chute and many fear that pilots will be TOO bold in their mission planning because of their NEXRAD devices...failing to understand how MANY minutes OLD the data is and that thunderstorm cells can literally EXPLODE in strength in a minute or TWO...not 5-6 minutes or longer.I am NOT DISMISSING GPS or NEXRAD or chutes. But I have never NEEDED any of those devices (although I have flown with them all) in over 1,000 hours total an 100+ actual instrument , barring engine failure, I will never fly into rising terrain with or without terrain warning or into a CB cell so the chute is the only thing that might save my bacon.How can I say "NEVER"? Because I KNOW IN ADVANCE where the hills are and I don't fly at them and I don't get LOST because I know how to use my VOR/DME avionics and/or how to get vectors from ATC and in the case of total electrical failure, I am proficient at partial panel aviation and can execute a turn toward lower terrain if need be.THEN, I would pull out my trusty hand held 296 AND my hand held radio and make things easier on myself...although the radio won't do much good given range issues. But to those who suggest that I NEED a TAA to prevent me from running into the side of a mountain (I lived and flew out of Colo. Springs for several years)or to serve as badges of membership in the community of "real, modern pilots" I say...not true. Regards,Jim

[Guest]

You are just affraid of modern technology and the chance it gives people to be more safe. Sorry to hear your wreckless thinking where you can't put your ego behind a piece of equipment that makes flying more safe.

[brucek 38]

This post will give me a chance to visibly unsubscribe to this thread- it's getting to sound like a broken record.Point- if you don't wish to fly IFR with a GPS, then file accordingly and may you wish that you never need that additional perspective that these electronic "eyes" provide you. Point- if you do have an IFR-legal GPS and wish to file /G, then know all about how it works before you end up in the soup- it may save your life, only if you don't fixate on how to use it when you need it.Bruce (now unsubscribed).

[Guest av84fun]

>>FINALLY, the ONE flaw in TIA aircraft that the manufacturers>and the FAA have officially recognized is OVER CONFIDENCE IN>THE BENEFITS which is EXACTLY the attitude that you are>conveying in this thread.>Bullsh***"Support this....., as I read just the opposite"How's THIS for support...from the AOPA Airsafety Foundation.Beyond workload: over-relianceA related safety issue, identified by the FAA as partof its recent hearings and reports on the FAAIndustryTraining Standards (FITS), concernspilots who apparently develop an unwarrantedover

[Guest nowhining]

What a wonderful pissing match we've seen. I hope your e-peen feels bigger now. What's the quote...... "Debating over the internet is like the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still a retard."

[LAdamson 240]

>What a wonderful pissing match we've seen. I hope your e-peen>feels bigger now. >>What's the quote...... "Debating over the internet is like the>Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still a retard."It's true.......For every opinion quoted here, I can find the opposites. Even from the same magazines. That's all it is................someone's personal opinion. And BTW, AOPA has some excellent articles regarding glass, and support of.L.Adamson