RNAV vs IFR GPS

Teacherjh wrote:

VOR-DME is RNAV too? Now I'm confused.

Not by itself, but RNAV can be based on VOR, DME, and a computer to put it all
together. In fact I believe that was the first system.

Jose

Naw, they took four-course low-frequency range stations and ran them through an
IBM .2 mainframe to derieve RNAV tracks and bearings.

Naw, they took four-course low-frequency range stations and ran them through an
IBM .2 mainframe to derieve RNAV tracks and bearings.


That never worked because they used the Pentium processor.

2+2=3.99992423 for small values of 2

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"David Brooks" wrote in message
...

VOR-DME is RNAV too? Now I'm confused.


No, he's referring to a VOR/DME based form of RNAV that was initially called
a Course Line Computer, then it was called RNAV specifically, then the term
RNAV was expanded to include all area navigation systems.

Just look in a book of approach plates, David, and you will see approaches
listed as VOR/DME RNAV.

I have nothing to do with the publication of updates. ASA policy is that
only "safety of flight" information will be updated...everything else waits
for the next edition.

Bob Gardner

"David Brooks" wrote in message
...
VOR-DME is RNAV too? Now I'm confused.

When can we get those updates, Bob? (I note that asa2fly.com is a little
sparse in the "textbook updates" department).

-- David Brooks

"Bob Gardner" wrote in message
news:nwQ%b.424998$na.813278@attbi_s04...
I feel your pain. Since the FAA lumped GPS, Loran, and VOR-DME into one
basket labelled RNAV, I have been going nuts trying to keep my books up
to
date. The KNS-80 and its ilk are still around, so I have to discuss that
kind of RNAV, but because there are so many approaches labelled RNAV
(GPS),
the potential for confusion is there. It all boils down to the fact that
if
you can fly a random route using any one of the three, you have RNAV.

Bob Gardner

"PaulaJay1" wrote in message
...
Coming into CLE the other day the controller ask if I had RNAV and I
said
no,
that I was /G ,that is, IFR GPS. He said that it was the same and
gave
me
direct.....
Is it the same, should I have answered yes to his question? Of course
I
can
navigate direct but do I have "RNAV"?

Chuck

"PaulaJay1" wrote in message
...

Coming into CLE the other day the controller ask if I had RNAV
and I said no, that I was /G ,that is, IFR GPS. He said that it was
the same and gave me direct.....
Is it the same, should I have answered yes to his question? Of course
I can navigate direct but do I have "RNAV"?


RNAV is any form of area navigation, GPS is just one example. Had you filed
/G?

In article , paulajay1
@aol.com says...
Coming into CLE the other day the controller ask if I had RNAV and I said no,
that I was /G ,that is, IFR GPS. He said that it was the same and gave me
direct.....
Is it the same, should I have answered yes to his question? Of course I can
navigate direct but do I have "RNAV"?

It's interesting in that /G does not distinguish between being approved
foro enroute vs. approach. I suppose if you were truly /G and this was
in the enroute environment that it's the same.

Scott
www.privacytactics.com -- Protect Your Personal Infomration Assets