RNAV vs IFR GPS

john smith wrote:

Richard Hertz wrote:
You are filing /G and you don't know the answer to this?
Where do people get their IFR 'training' these days?

That's not necessarily a fair criticism.
For those of us who have been flying since the 70's, we still think and
refer to airspace as TCA's, TRSA's and ARSA's. So we still remember RNAV
as VOR/DME, while LORAN and GPS are essentially global navigation
systems (although, technically, that's still another, different form
altogether).

I;ve been flying since the late 1950s and I adjust. TCA, and ARSAs seem
quite alien to me these days. Then again TRSAs don't because we still have
those.

I think the criticism is quite justified.

wrote in message ...
=20
=20
john smith wrote:
=20
Richard Hertz wrote:
You are filing /G and you don't know the answer to this?
Where do people get their IFR 'training' these days?

That's not necessarily a fair criticism.
For those of us who have been flying since the 70's, we still think =
and
refer to airspace as TCA's, TRSA's and ARSA's. So we still remember =
RNAV
as VOR/DME, while LORAN and GPS are essentially global navigation
systems (although, technically, that's still another, different form
altogether).
=20
I;ve been flying since the late 1950s and I adjust. TCA, and ARSAs =
seem
quite alien to me these days. Then again TRSAs don't because we still =
have
those.
=20
I think the criticism is quite justified.
=20
=20
Me too, Sammy.
I've been flying since the middle fifties, and I've adjusted pretty =
well, too.
GPS approaches are a far cry from 4-course Range orientations,
and the Range Approaches that I learned to do without an ADF.
(Follow the edge of a leg into the cone of silence, then turn to xxx=BA =
and descend.)
Oooh, those were fun!
And why do I remember 3023.5 kHz? (Except they were kc back then.)
---JRC---

"John R. Copeland" wrote:

wrote in message ...


john smith wrote:

Richard Hertz wrote:
You are filing /G and you don't know the answer to this?
Where do people get their IFR 'training' these days?

That's not necessarily a fair criticism.
For those of us who have been flying since the 70's, we still think and
refer to airspace as TCA's, TRSA's and ARSA's. So we still remember RNAV
as VOR/DME, while LORAN and GPS are essentially global navigation
systems (although, technically, that's still another, different form
altogether).

I;ve been flying since the late 1950s and I adjust. TCA, and ARSAs seem
quite alien to me these days. Then again TRSAs don't because we still have
those.

I think the criticism is quite justified.


Me too, Sammy.
I've been flying since the middle fifties, and I've adjusted pretty well, too.
GPS approaches are a far cry from 4-course Range orientations,
and the Range Approaches that I learned to do without an ADF.
(Follow the edge of a leg into the cone of silence, then turn to xxxº and descend.)
Oooh, those were fun!
And why do I remember 3023.5 kHz? (Except they were kc back then.)
---JRC---

Right, that was before Ms. Hertz took over from Mr. Cycle.

I remember 3023.5, except I can't recall what it was for. Was it a common HF tower
frequency even though most of the equppage was VHF by then? Perhaps you had a VHF
receiver, but only an HF transmitter? From the day I started the aircraft I flew
either had no radios or they had VHF transceivers (perhaps with only a few transmit
crystals and an analog receiver turner.) I remember my first IFR set well, the Narco
Omnigator. Did a lot of ATCS en route communications with that equipment.

wrote in :

I remember 3023.5, except I can't recall what it was for. Was it a
common HF tower frequency even though most of the equppage was VHF by
then? Perhaps you had a VHF receiver, but only an HF transmitter?
From the day I started the aircraft I flew either had no radios or
they had VHF transceivers (perhaps with only a few transmit crystals
and an analog receiver turner.) I remember my first IFR set well, the
Narco Omnigator. Did a lot of ATCS en route communications with that
equipment.

3023.5 KHz is 3.0235 MHz, and I doubt this is what you remember. 3023.5 Hz
is possible, since this is in the HF band, being just over 3 KHz.
MegaHertz band receivers weren't in general use in the 50's.

--
Regards,

Stan

Stan Gosnell wrote:

wrote in :

I remember 3023.5, except I can't recall what it was for. Was it a
common HF tower frequency even though most of the equppage was VHF by
then? Perhaps you had a VHF receiver, but only an HF transmitter?
From the day I started the aircraft I flew either had no radios or
they had VHF transceivers (perhaps with only a few transmit crystals
and an analog receiver turner.) I remember my first IFR set well, the
Narco Omnigator. Did a lot of ATCS en route communications with that
equipment.

3023.5 KHz is 3.0235 MHz, and I doubt this is what you remember. 3023.5 Hz
is possible, since this is in the HF band, being just over 3 KHz.
MegaHertz band receivers weren't in general use in the 50's.



Like I said, the equipment I used had the same basic VHF comm frequencies we
use today, except there were a maximum of 90 channels (100 KC spacing?). Most
of the equipment I used had 4 to 27 transmitting crystals and a continuous
tuning receiver. Those were around in late 1956, for sure.

I only remember seeing 3023.5 on the charts, and I presume, as you say, it was
Cycles, not KiloCycles (no Ms. Hertz back then ;-)

"Stan Gosnell" wrote in message =
...
wrote in :
=20
I remember 3023.5, except I can't recall what it was for. Was it a
common HF tower frequency even though most of the equppage was VHF =
by
then? Perhaps you had a VHF receiver, but only an HF transmitter?=20
From the day I started the aircraft I flew either had no radios or
they had VHF transceivers (perhaps with only a few transmit crystals
and an analog receiver turner.) I remember my first IFR set well, =
the
Narco Omnigator. Did a lot of ATCS en route communications with =
that
equipment.=20
=20
3023.5 KHz is 3.0235 MHz, and I doubt this is what you remember. =
3023.5 Hz=20
is possible, since this is in the HF band, being just over 3 KHz. =20
MegaHertz band receivers weren't in general use in the 50's.
=20
--=20
Regards,
=20
Stan
=20
No, Stan, it was 3023.5 kHz AM, in the HF Aeronautical Mobile band,
which spans 2850-3155 kHz even to this day.
3.0235 kHz would be VLF, with a 100-km wavelength!
As VHF gear began to be emplaced in the 1950s,
they couldn't just suddenly abandon HF communications.

And as Sammy said, it was either the common Tower frequency,
or the common "Radio" frequency (meaning Flight Service Station).
I *think* 3023.5 kHz was for calling "Radio", who could respond
either on VHF or on the local LF/MF 4-course Adcock Range station.
If that's right, then 3105 kHz probably was the frequency for calling =
the Tower,
who could respond on the fixed frequency of 278 kHz as standard,
or on a small number of alternative HF frequencies if other towers were =
nearby.

Whew. I'd have to dig through some old stuff to remember this exactly,
but I'd lay money on Steven P. McNicoll's ability to turn it up easily.
---JRC---

"John R. Copeland" wrote:

"Stan Gosnell" wrote in message ...
wrote in :

I remember 3023.5, except I can't recall what it was for. Was it a
common HF tower frequency even though most of the equppage was VHF by
then? Perhaps you had a VHF receiver, but only an HF transmitter?
From the day I started the aircraft I flew either had no radios or
they had VHF transceivers (perhaps with only a few transmit crystals
and an analog receiver turner.) I remember my first IFR set well, the
Narco Omnigator. Did a lot of ATCS en route communications with that
equipment.

3023.5 KHz is 3.0235 MHz, and I doubt this is what you remember. 3023.5 Hz
is possible, since this is in the HF band, being just over 3 KHz.
MegaHertz band receivers weren't in general use in the 50's.

--
Regards,

Stan

No, Stan, it was 3023.5 kHz AM, in the HF Aeronautical Mobile band,
which spans 2850-3155 kHz even to this day.
3.0235 kHz would be VLF, with a 100-km wavelength!
As VHF gear began to be emplaced in the 1950s,
they couldn't just suddenly abandon HF communications.

And as Sammy said, it was either the common Tower frequency,
or the common "Radio" frequency (meaning Flight Service Station).
I *think* 3023.5 kHz was for calling "Radio", who could respond
either on VHF or on the local LF/MF 4-course Adcock Range station.
If that's right, then 3105 kHz probably was the frequency for calling the Tower,
who could respond on the fixed frequency of 278 kHz as standard,
or on a small number of alternative HF frequencies if other towers were nearby.

Whew. I'd have to dig through some old stuff to remember this exactly,
but I'd lay money on Steven P. McNicoll's ability to turn it up easily.
---JRC---

I have some 1945 WACs for Southern California. I don't see that frequency on those charts. I do see
126.18 all over the place, and some 140+ MHz. And, some really low frequency stuff as well.

wrote in message ...
=20
=20
"John R. Copeland" wrote:

And as Sammy said, it was either the common Tower frequency,
or the common "Radio" frequency (meaning Flight Service Station).
I *think* 3023.5 kHz was for calling "Radio", who could respond
either on VHF or on the local LF/MF 4-course Adcock Range station.
If that's right, then 3105 kHz probably was the frequency for =
calling the Tower,
who could respond on the fixed frequency of 278 kHz as standard,
or on a small number of alternative HF frequencies if other towers =
were nearby.

Whew. I'd have to dig through some old stuff to remember this =
exactly,
but I'd lay money on Steven P. McNicoll's ability to turn it up =
easily.
---JRC---
=20
I have some 1945 WACs for Southern California. I don't see that =
frequency on those charts. I do see
126.18 all over the place, and some 140+ MHz. And, some really low =
frequency stuff as well.
=20
OK, Sammy, I dug up a 1955 Albany Sectional (price 25 cents!), and I =
couldn't find any reference to 3023.5 or 3105 on it, either.
But "Albany Radio" could transmit on the Albany LF/MF Range station at =
263 kHz, as well as Albany VOR at 116.9 MHz.
Albany Tower's transmitting frequencies were 278 kHz, 118.7 MHz, and =
257.8 MHz.
Nearby Schenectady Tower transmitted on 284 kHz, 126.18 MHz, and 257.8 =
MHz.

Elmira Tower used LF 278 kHz, too, but its neighboring Binghamton Tower =
used LF 332 kHz.
Both Syracuse and Rochester Towers, up to the north, were far enough =
separated to re-use 278 kHz again.
I gotta stop this nostalgic stuff. I'm forcing this thread out of =
control.
---JRC---

"John R. Copeland" wrote:

And as Sammy said, it was either the common Tower frequency,
or the common "Radio" frequency (meaning Flight Service Station).

Air Traffic Communications Station, not FSS. ;-)

wrote in message ...

Air Traffic Communications Station, not FSS. ;-)


Air Traffic Communications Stations only for a brief time. These facilities
were named Airway Radio Stations when the Department of Commerce assumed
responsibility for the transcontinental airway from the Post Office in 1927.
They were renamed Airway Communications Stations in 1938 and later
Interstate Airway Communications Stations. They became Air Traffic
Communications Stations after the FAA was created in August 1958 and were
renamed Flight Service Stations in March 1960.