Violating Airspace with GPS

John Bell wrote:

It appears that a lot of pilots are violating airspace even with GPS on
board.

Actually, from what I've read, *more* violations occur with GPS on board than
without. The reason is that pilots with GPS tend to cut pretty close to the
limits because the *think* they know exactly where those airspace limits are.
Pilots without GPS receivers tend to give protected airspace a little more
leeway because they aren't exactly sure where they are.

George Patterson
You can dress a hog in a tuxedo, but he still wants to roll in the mud.

IMHO: GPS stinks (today) for airspace mapping/boundaries.

About a year ago I was flying a 172 with a B&W Garmin (Panel mounted -
I'm not sure the model) and the database was somehow incorrect -
placing Santa Rosa STS about 8-10 miles North of it's actual position.
There was a VOR on field - why use GPS there?

A month ago, I was flying a club 172 with a panel mounted Garmin 430
(I think IFR certified too). As I skirted San Jose's (SJC) class C,
the 430 showed me about 1mi *inside* the outer shelf. I stayed low
around 2000'-2500' (I forget at the moment, but was being a 'good
citizen') and as I saw the mountains ahead (flying South towards
Monterey) asked Norcal Appch/Dep if I was clear of SJC's C. They were
nice, friendly, and said something like: "Yeah - you were clear miles
ago". Looking out the window, I would roughly estimate my distance to
SJC to be in the 10-15mi range, but I was waiting for the magical
gizmo to *show* me that I was clear of the shelf.

Moral of the story: I purchased a simple handheld Magellan that I can
use as (a) a backup, and (b) a simple course/groundspeed calculator.
I'd rather not have the distractions of potentially inaccurate
colorful inside maps when my eyeballs should be outside the plane at
as much as possible.

Just my 2c.
Noah



It appears that a lot of pilots are violating airspace even with GPS on
board.

Actually, from what I've read, *more* violations occur with GPS on board than
without. The reason is that pilots with GPS tend to cut pretty close to the
limits because the *think* they know exactly where those airspace limits are.
Pilots without GPS receivers tend to give protected airspace a little more
leeway because they aren't exactly sure where they are.

George Patterson
You can dress a hog in a tuxedo, but he still wants to roll in the mud.

Violation of airspace comes from lack of preflight planning. If you
wait until you are in the air near airspace to figure out what you are
doing, you are in big trouble, with or without GPS. You can see from
dozens of past threads in this group about no longer carrying charts,
etc, that many pilots think GPS is magic and will solve all their
problems. Not true at all. Technology does not take the place of
common sense and diligence. With blind dependence on technology, you
can get into deeper doo-doo a lot faster than without it. A GPS is
great for telling you where you are, but you've got to know where you
want to be first. I seldom use my moving map. I use GPS to verify that
I am on my pre-planned course and I don't violate airspace.
--
Gene Seibel
Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.


I would like to hear some feedback as to how pilots are violating airspace
with GPS. I address this in my online book, www.cockpitgps.com. I have my
hypothesis, but I would like to hear your experience or scenarios that you
have heard involving this issue.

Also of interest is how you might be using GPS to successfully avoid
airspace violations.

Gene Seibel wrote:
...snip... A GPS is
great for telling you where you are, but you've got to know where you
want to be first. I seldom use my moving map.

Completely agree except for one point...

A GPS is excellent at *knowing* where you are, but very few of them (if
any) can transfer that information to you in a suitably efficient way.
So I disagree that they are "...great for *telling you* where you
are..." :-) Trying to interpret that tiny moving map is where the
distractions occur and the potential for error...

Concentrating on CTS, Bearing to next waypoint, and XTE for a
well-planned (and correctly entered) route, is so much easier and more
informative.

Perhaps the GPS is making us forget that it is so much more important to
know where to go next, than it is to confirm where you are now.

I guess I still wasn't clear on what I was trying to say. A GPS is
great for knowing where you are on a pre-planned course. A GPS moving
map isn't good for much of anything.
--
Gene Seibel
Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.




Gene Seibel wrote:
...snip... A GPS is
great for telling you where you are, but you've got to know where you
want to be first. I seldom use my moving map.

Completely agree except for one point...

A GPS is excellent at *knowing* where you are, but very few of them (if
any) can transfer that information to you in a suitably efficient way.
So I disagree that they are "...great for *telling you* where you
are..." :-) Trying to interpret that tiny moving map is where the
distractions occur and the potential for error...

Concentrating on CTS, Bearing to next waypoint, and XTE for a
well-planned (and correctly entered) route, is so much easier and more
informative.

Perhaps the GPS is making us forget that it is so much more important to
know where to go next, than it is to confirm where you are now.

Gene Seibel wrote:

I guess I still wasn't clear on what I was trying to say. A GPS is
great for knowing where you are on a pre-planned course. A GPS moving
map isn't good for much of anything.

Huh? Wouldn't be without mine. A GPS without a moving map is useless.

"Gene Seibel" I guess I still wasn't clear on what I was trying to say. A
GPS is
great for knowing where you are on a pre-planned course. A GPS moving
map isn't good for much of anything.

"Icebound"
Concentrating on CTS, Bearing to next waypoint, and XTE for a
well-planned (and correctly entered) route, is so much easier and more
informative.

I am somewhat in disagreement on the usefulness of the map: I actually
consider the GPS map to be a very useful feature. I even consider this to
be the case in low resolution models such as the GPS III Pilot. However, I
feel that the map display is insufficient without the assistance of changing
the data fields displayed on the map page to something more useful. The map
is good at adding context to the data fields and the data fuilds are good
for adding precision to the map. I like TURN (TRACK-BEARING), OFF COURSE
(XTE), DISTANCE, and WPT (I like a textual indication of the waypoint--
accurately navigating to the wrong place is pointless).

I very strongly agree that a properly preplanned course with reference to
the proper charts is mandatory.


John Bell
www.cockpitgps.com

(Gene Seibel) wrote

A GPS moving map isn't good for much of anything.

BULL****!!! Strong statement to follow.....

Bob Moore
ATP CFII

Gene,

I guess I still wasn't clear on what I was trying to say. A GPS is
great for knowing where you are on a pre-planned course. A GPS moving
map isn't good for much of anything.


Well, I couldn't agree less. GPS moving maps are a WONDERFUL tool for
situational awareness. In fact, beyond the AI, it doesn't get much
better. If you think wasting your time interpreting arcane needles is
better, it may be time to tune down the machismo ;-)

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 17:01:01 +0100, Thomas Borchert
wrote:

Well, I couldn't agree less. GPS moving maps are a WONDERFUL tool for
situational awareness.


Did you mean to say positional awareness? Positional awareness is
only a small part of situational awareness.