GPS and old-fashioned thinking?

With all these questions about how to integrate GPS into our everyday
operations, I'm tempted to believe we have allowed the advent of this
wonderful new technology to send our thinking back to the dark ages!

We want GPS to simply replace everything else - then all that "legacy"
stuff just becomes a backup, in case the GPS signal or on-board equipment
should become unreliable. This presents problems - as has been pointed
out in the above threads - as we are not usually flying airways and
overlays (at least that's the idea) so transitioning to the "legacy"
stuff is not always that quick and easy, especially in high workload
moments like approaches or missed approach procedures. I don't know why
we don't simply weave GPS into the RNAV web that was already part of our
mentality before GPS came along. With one integrator box, receiving
signals from VOR/DME/ILS/eLORAN and GPS we could fly random routes, RNAV
waypoints and approaches even with one primary system (GPS for example)
inoperative or unreliable. An in-flight failure of one such system would
still leave us with full RNAV capability, but might be our clue to fly an
overlay, such that the (unlikely) failure of a second system would make
transitioning easier.

We consider the old KNS-80 style RNAV boxes to be obsolete today - but in
a way they were more forward-looking than the way we're going about GPS
today.

G Faris

G Farris wrote:
: We consider the old KNS-80 style RNAV boxes to be obsolete today - but in
: a way they were more forward-looking than the way we're going about GPS
: today.

I happen to really like my KNS-80. Although my panel-mount GPS/COM is VFR
only, it's what I generally use to point myself in the right direction. Unlike what I
suspect to be many pilots, I still follow along with the other equipment enroute.
Even if I had an IFR-certified GPS, I wouldn't be comfortable flying without a finger
on the chart, a VOR dialed in, and a DME blinking numbers at me.

I think many pilots have gotten lazy and want to have their Garmin 295 in
their lap coupled to the autopilot so they can punch D- and take a nap while the
plane takes them where they want to go. That's the "new-fashioned" thinking causing a
lot of this mentality. Same with all the glass cockpit hubub... yeah, it's sexy and
modern and will practically shine your shoes while it flies you to your destination.
Will it keep your 172 from dropping out of the sky as an icy plane-cicle or getting
the wings torn off in a CB? No... laziness and complacency aren't a good thing to
encourage in GA. It's a pedantic argument of "primary means of navigation."

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

G Farris wrote:
With all these questions about how to integrate GPS into our everyday
operations, I'm tempted to believe we have allowed the advent of this
wonderful new technology to send our thinking back to the dark ages!

We want GPS to simply replace everything else - then all that "legacy"
stuff just becomes a backup, in case the GPS signal or on-board equipment
should become unreliable. This presents problems - as has been pointed
out in the above threads - as we are not usually flying airways and
overlays (at least that's the idea) so transitioning to the "legacy"
stuff is not always that quick and easy, especially in high workload
moments like approaches or missed approach procedures. I don't know why
we don't simply weave GPS into the RNAV web that was already part of our
mentality before GPS came along. With one integrator box, receiving
signals from VOR/DME/ILS/eLORAN and GPS we could fly random routes, RNAV
waypoints and approaches even with one primary system (GPS for example)
inoperative or unreliable. An in-flight failure of one such system would
still leave us with full RNAV capability, but might be our clue to fly an
overlay, such that the (unlikely) failure of a second system would make
transitioning easier.

We consider the old KNS-80 style RNAV boxes to be obsolete today - but in
a way they were more forward-looking than the way we're going about GPS
today.

G Faris


The FAA, and the rest of the world as well, want to eventually shut-down
the VORs. The only remaining ground-based systems will be ILSes. This
will take a long time, but it will happen.

And, it's all about Required Navigation Performance (RNP). RNP, by
definition, is sensor independent, although that has some practical
limitations today.

The new RNAV (RNP) procedures are premised on the possibility the GPS
will fail. Without this assumption, the target level of safety required
for small RNP containment areas cannot be achieved. This is
particularly true of the missed approach segment.

Note that the first FAA RNP procedure at KDCA does not require RNP for
the missed approach, just for the approach segments. OTOH, the newer
RNP procedure at KSUN requires RNP for the missed approach because of
terrain.

The DCA procedure can be flown without a second system of RNAV. The SUN
procedure cannot. Presently, the only approved second system is two
(preferably three) IRUs feeding at least two flight management systems.

Eventually, IRUs, or something quite similar, will become affordable for
light aircraft.

These concepts are where the forward thinkers are going, and not just in
this country by any means.

wrote:

I think many pilots have gotten lazy and want to have their Garmin 295 in
their lap coupled to the autopilot so they can punch D- and take a nap
while the
plane takes them where they want to go. That's the "new-fashioned"
thinking causing a
lot of this mentality.

Possibly, but so what?

Do we have any hard data that supports the idea that "excess" reliance on GPS
for navigation is raising the accident rate? Isn't it just as arguable that
GPS has a beneficial impact on safety by reducing the number of lost pilots?

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

GPS, especially handheld ones with terrain, roads, rivers and such, ADD
to my enjoyment of the flight. It also gives me and my passengers
something to do on a long flight.

Knowing EXACTLY where I am at all times and being able to direct to
pretty much everywhere (just the prohibited and restricted airspaces,
oh and TFR's to go around), save time, money and fuel.

GPS is a terrific invention.

I've started using one in my car. Nice to punch in "nearest Mexican
Resturants" and get a list.

"G Farris" wrote in message
...
With all these questions about how to integrate GPS into our everyday
operations, I'm tempted to believe we have allowed the advent of this
wonderful new technology to send our thinking back to the dark ages!

I think the only problem with GPS is the human interface. We need either a
full keyboard input by keyboard or touch screen or they have to transition
them to voice activated, such as, Being able to just speak: "GPS - Direct
to - Kilo - Romeo - Victor - Bravo - Approach - ILS - One - Three" Then
there will be little to no heads down. For now I'd take the keyboard.

Kobra

In article xl0kf.62898$qw.59268@fed1read07, wrote:

The FAA, and the rest of the world as well, want to eventually shut-down
the VORs. The only remaining ground-based systems will be ILSes.

DME, and probably MLS, will be around for a while longer.

--
Bob Noel
New NHL? what a joke

In article ,
"Kobra" wrote:

"G Farris" wrote in message
...
With all these questions about how to integrate GPS into our everyday
operations, I'm tempted to believe we have allowed the advent of this
wonderful new technology to send our thinking back to the dark ages!

I think the only problem with GPS is the human interface. We need either a
full keyboard input by keyboard or touch screen or they have to transition
them to voice activated, such as, Being able to just speak: "GPS - Direct
to - Kilo - Romeo - Victor - Bravo - Approach - ILS - One - Three" Then
there will be little to no heads down. For now I'd take the keyboard.

Kobra

I agree -- the biggest problem with today's crop of GPS is that the UIs all
stink. Having a full keyboard would help a lot (not full in the sense of a
normal PC keyboard, but all the digits and letters). The problem is,
there's no place to put such a thing in a typical GA cockpit. They are
starting to appear, however, in conjunction with cockpits designed from the
ground up to use modern systems (http://www.lancairusa.com/20051103.html,
for example).

Knowing EXACTLY where I am at all times and being able to direct to
pretty much everywhere (just the prohibited and restricted airspaces,
oh and TFR's to go around), save time, money and fuel.

And you cannot do that with a map and compass?

Bob Noel wrote:

In article xl0kf.62898$qw.59268@fed1read07, wrote:


The FAA, and the rest of the world as well, want to eventually shut-down
the VORs. The only remaining ground-based systems will be ILSes.


DME, and probably MLS, will be around for a while longer.

Alas, where are the MLSes?

DME will remain only if the legacy carriers can keep flying, and keep
their first-generation, non-GPS, LNAV aircraft flying to need the arcane
DME/DME update protocol.