GPS switched S for N!

When I got up to the mouth of the bay, I turned around and followed
the bug back south. [...] my destination was 5,900 miles distant, and the time to
get there was 84 hours.

When I got home, I scanned out and out on the map, to find that my
waypoint was now located in the Andes on the Argentinian side of the
Chile-Argentina border.

What happened?

What happened was precisely why I am so vocal about paper charts and
against reliance on this newfangled gizmo thang. (and horrified at the
thought of central computer control of airplane systems)

As a cub driver you are probably with me on this. I've had my home
airport move to the other side of the country several times. Dunno why.

I use 'em when I hafta, and they're cool when they work, but I've never
seen the blue screen of death on a sectional!

Jose
--
My other car is up my nose.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

In article ,
Jose wrote:
As a cub driver you are probably with me on this. I've had my home
airport move to the other side of the country several times. Dunno why.

I use 'em when I hafta, and they're cool when they work, but I've never
seen the blue screen of death on a sectional!


I've never seen the blue screen on a GPS either. I've used Garmin
handhelds for years without a single problem, and now use a
Windows-based PDA system for navigation without a problem--both are far
superior to charts for both navigation and situational awareness.
However, I always have charts on board so that if there is ever a
problem, I can revert to paper. Attempting to resist technology in the
cockpit is a losing battle.


JKG

Jonathan Goodish wrote:

Attempting to resist technology in the
cockpit is a losing battle.

If you own your own aircraft, it's very easy; just don't buy it. What's a losing
battle is the attempt to convince other pilots not to rely on this neat
"newfangled gizmo."

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

In article nj2ue.645$Z.549@trndny05,
George Patterson wrote:
Attempting to resist technology in the
cockpit is a losing battle.

If you own your own aircraft, it's very easy; just don't buy it. What's a
losing
battle is the attempt to convince other pilots not to rely on this neat
"newfangled gizmo."


I'm not sure what you're saying. The fact is, GA cockpits are moving
toward glass. Navigation is moving away from terrestrial navigation and
toward satellites... and the GPS system has been around for a very long
time. Sure, you can stick with legacy technology, but pretty soon
you're either going to be forced to upgrade, or be content to fly around
with limited navigational capability. Cockpit technology isn't going
back to simple transistors and vacuum tubes, it's moving toward a
PC-driven environment, like it or not.

If I were a CFI, I would NEVER discourage the use of technology in the
cockpit. It enhances safety tremendously, and even saves lives. It
improves operational efficiency. It is part of using "all available
information" in order to safely complete the flight. Using technology
like a GPS isn't "required," but those who have access to it and don't
use it are foolhardy in my opinion.



JKG

If I were a CFI, I would NEVER discourage the use of technology in the
cockpit.

There's a difference between the use of technology and the =reliance= on
it. I agree that we should all be able to =use= the available
technology. However, I see too many pilots, especially new ones, that
=rely= on it to such an extent that they could not navigage without it.

=This= is dangerous.

Jose
--
My other car is up my nose.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

In the Cherokee and the C150 I train in, there are some ancient
(1997-era) Magellan GPS units that have VERY limited capabilities and
even more outdated databases that can't be updated. I don't have any
trust in that technology. I do trust the VOR(s) though. I trust the
compass for dead reckoning. Frankly, I don't want to know much about
that GPS as I have no intent on using it. I would rather master the
"legacy" skills needed to navigate using terrestrial navigation
techniques. I'll add technology later as I can and desire to.

Chris


Jose wrote:
If I were a CFI, I would NEVER discourage the use of technology in the
cockpit.


There's a difference between the use of technology and the =reliance= on
it. I agree that we should all be able to =use= the available
technology. However, I see too many pilots, especially new ones, that
=rely= on it to such an extent that they could not navigage without it.

=This= is dangerous.

Jose

Jose wrote
There's a difference between the use of technology and the =reliance= on
it. I agree that we should all be able to =use= the available
technology. However, I see too many pilots, especially new ones, that
=rely= on it to such an extent that they could not navigage without it.

Yep! I caught the same flack way back during the switch from
Radio Range to VOR/DME.

I've been through Radio Range, Manual DF, Celestial, DR Plotting Board,
CONSOLAN, Pressure Pattern, LORAN A, LORAN C, OMEGA, Inertial NAV, ADF,
TACAN, and VOR/DME. I'll take GPS anytime!




Bob Moore

Yep! I caught the same flack way back during the switch from
Radio Range to VOR/DME.

.... and actually there are too many pilots who can't navigate VFR
without VORs.

Jose
--
My other car is up my nose.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

In article ,
Jose wrote:

If I were a CFI, I would NEVER discourage the use of technology in the
cockpit.

There's a difference between the use of technology and the =reliance= on
it. I agree that we should all be able to =use= the available
technology. However, I see too many pilots, especially new ones, that
=rely= on it to such an extent that they could not navigage without it.


Reliance on ANY one technology is generally not good. However, pretty
soon reliance on GPS for navigation will be essentially mandated by the
market. When you're IFR in the clouds or above a layer, you have to
rely on technology for navigation, whether that's old technology or new
technology.

I use GPS as the primary means of navigation on long flights. I have
weather uplink and TFR updates every 12 minutes. No chart or other
legacy technology can come close to that capability. However, if I'm
making the breakfast or dinner run, I never rely on my GPS--it's all
pilotage, even if it's out of the local area. For long flights, I
always have charts on board (both IFR and sectionals) and VORs tuned for
backup. I am always on a flight plan when making long flights.

I think students should be encouraged to use "all available
information." That means GPS (handheld or otherwise), VOR, ADF, etc.
Use flight plans, and get flight following when on VFR cross countries.
My handheld GPS units have been more reliable and more precise than any
other radio in any of the airplanes I've flown since I started flying 10
years ago. There is nothing inherently bad about GPS, and teaching
students to shy away from it is doing them a disservice, given the fact
that GPS and other modern technologies are the future.



JKG

"Jose" wrote in message
...


What happened was precisely why I am so vocal about paper charts and
against reliance on this newfangled gizmo thang.

lol - If you are in the majority of the posters on this newsgroup you fly a
single engine plane with 1970's mechanical technology. The GPS is probably
the single best technology on your plane. In any case, if it concerns you,
you can get a backup GPS for about the cost of a tank of gas. This "railing
against technology" stuff is getting pretty old...

Michael