Have you ever...

Jay Honeck wrote:

Garmin charges $400 per year to keep their databases current?

Glad I own an AvMap.

For VFR, I would agree, but when IFR and when your destination only has a
GPS approach to get you through the layer and low visibility so that you
can spend time with your family on vacation or get to a client site to work
the billable hours, it is money well spent.

--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Peter R." wrote in message
...
Jay Honeck wrote:

Garmin charges $400 per year to keep their databases current?

Glad I own an AvMap.

For VFR, I would agree, but when IFR and when your destination only has a
GPS approach to get you through the layer and low visibility so that you
can spend time with your family on vacation or get to a client site to
work
the billable hours, it is money well spent.

Damn, and those guys that run around with the black Jepp cases are really
paying a big tax!!

Matt Barrow wrote:

Damn, and those guys that run around with the black Jepp cases are really
paying a big tax!!

No, they pay for a big *taxi* to carry all those cases of approach plates.

- Andrew

"Ross Oliver" wrote in message
...
Jay Honeck wrote:
Who in the world uses VORs
for daily flight anymore?


Those of us who refuse to pay $400/yr "Garmin tax" for data collected
and produced at taxpayer expense.


You must really be ****ed at Rand-McNally, too, and their $4 tax for their
atlas.

Ross Oliver wrote:
Jay Honeck wrote:
Who in the world uses VORs
for daily flight anymore?


Those of us who refuse to pay $400/yr "Garmin tax" for data collected
and produced at taxpayer expense.

And those of us unable to afford the $xxxx to buy and install a GPS.

How much to "subscribe" to either NOAA or Jepp approach plates?

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 08:44:11 GMT, (Ross
Oliver) wrote:

Jay Honeck wrote:
Who in the world uses VORs
for daily flight anymore?


Those of us who refuse to pay $400/yr "Garmin tax" for data collected
and produced at taxpayer expense.

Ross Oliver
Cheap ******* Aviator

Jay Honeck wrote:

After I got tired of that and removed the hood, I asked "so, where are
we".
He laughed and told me that I was supposed to figure it out. So I did.

This seems rather useful to me. Why eliminate it?

You figured out your position using VORs? What decade was this? ;-)

A few years (3? 4?) ago. Did I just use the two VORs or did I use a VOR and
DME? I don't recall which, to be honest. The airplace I used for the
checkride was, I recall, /A.

Who in the world uses VORs
for daily flight anymore?

Out of the "neighborhood", I do.

I know, a lot of you guys do. Despite the fact that you've probably got a
Garmin/Lowrance/AvMap on your yoke that is 500 - 1000 times more accurate
and intuitive than your old 1953 Narco 12, you feel compelled to "follow
the
needle" cuz that's what you're used to doing.

Actually, GPS was a part of my IR training. It was just annoyingly bad luck
that I took the checkride in a /A instead of /G. Fortunately, I'd a good
CFII. The /A had an ADF; the /G didn't. Naturally, though, the DE
required an NDB approach of me. No problem.

If I'd two GPSs, perhaps it would be different. But since I've but one, I
track my location with VORs too.

I'd like to think I'd do that even with two GPSs. I've the tools in the
airplane; it's silly to waste them. It's more to do, but this also means
I've some "slack" if I ever grow overloaded (and I'm "exercising" to help
avoid that).

[...]
Which isn't to say that tracking a VOR isn't kind of fun, and (for those
of us at the bottom of the aviation food chain) still necessary for IFR
flight. But for regular, VFR navigation, VORs have pretty much outlived
their usefulness.

The planes that are often rented to VFR-only pilots are often as historic as
radio ranges, no laugh?

[...]

In five more years everything will be GPS based, and
interpreting a VOR will be like knowing how to gauge your position by
listening to two tones in your headset.

That's a separate issue. I'm not entirely comfortable with GPS-only, given
the ease with which it can be jammed or otherwise impacted. Why not have
the new "GPS" units dual capable, perhaps LORAN and GPS? From a user
perspective, we'd never see a difference, but it would offer greater
resilience.

These new units could even use VORs. It's not the navaid so much as the UI,
I think, that makes it a big deal.

- Andrew

I know, a lot of you guys do. Despite the fact that you've probably got
a
Garmin/Lowrance/AvMap on your yoke that is 500 - 1000 times more accurate
and intuitive than your old 1953 Narco 12, you feel compelled to "follow
the
needle" cuz that's what you're used to doing.

Actually, GPS was a part of my IR training. It was just annoyingly bad
luck
that I took the checkride in a /A instead of /G. Fortunately, I'd a good
CFII. The /A had an ADF; the /G didn't. Naturally, though, the DE
required an NDB approach of me. No problem.

Totally different point. Of course VORs are necessary for IFR flight
training, and of course they should be a major part of the written.

The topic is what could we eliminate from the Private, in order to make
flying more accessible to all?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 13:44:44 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote in gzP7e.17999$GJ.670@attbi_s71::

The topic is what could we eliminate from the Private, in order to make
flying more accessible to all?

A more appropriate question might be, what should be added to the
airman's written test to increase flight safety.

Jay Honeck wrote:

Totally different point. Of course VORs are necessary for IFR flight
training, and of course they should be a major part of the written.

My point was that I don't argue from a "because it's what I'm used to"
perspective. I'm quite comfortable with GPSs, having flown behind a couple
of BK models and the Garmin 430.

The topic is what could we eliminate from the Private, in order to make
flying more accessible to all?

The planes in which I did my PPL didn't have GPS. They couldn't even be
counted upon to have two working VORs...or even two working COMMs. A VOR
was the only electronic navaid available in those aircraft.

Upgrade the entire fleet, and I might be taking your side of the argument
(actually, it would be moot {8^). But as long as VORs are actually in the
aircraft (and I don't mean a fancy VOR-exploiting moving map RNAV type
machine {8^), the pilots flying those should learn them.

- Andrew