NDB Holds

Roy Smith wrote:
Blanche wrote:
Expecting (assuming) all IFR training in the US to be in aircraft
that have IFR-certified GPS is a bit unrealistic.

I guess that depends on your definition of "realistic".

I certainly think it is inappropriate, in the year 2006, to be giving
instrument training in an airplane that is not IFR GPS equipped. You
should be training people to operate in the kind of environment they are
going to be flying in after they pass their checkride. For the most part,
that means GPS. And that's going to be even more true every year that goes
by.

Would you like to pay for an IFR-certified GPS to be installed in
my cherokee? I'd be delighted, and would even buy you dinner.

I take it that you use your cherokee for instrument instruction? If that's
the case, then you should invest the capital to equip it with gear which
allows you to teach your students what they need to know. I'm afraid I
have no particular desire to fund the upgrade to your plane, however.

I'm not the teacher, I'm the student. My cherokee. And I don't have
an extra $4-8K to install an IFR-certified GPS. And the cherokee *IS*
the environment I expect to be flying after my checkride. Flying is
not my profession, nor will it be a career change.

Please, lay off the assumptions. Feel free to qualify your opinions
(and yes, they are valid but not in all situations) but make sure you
define your criteria.

Blanche wrote:
I'm not the teacher, I'm the student. My cherokee.

OK, so my comment didn't apply to you. I was complaining about flight
schools who teach in non-GPS equipped airplanes. If you own your own
airplane, you can obviously equip it any way you like, and you're the only
one you have to answer to about your decisions.

Please, lay off the assumptions. Feel free to qualify your opinions
(and yes, they are valid but not in all situations) but make sure you
define your criteria.

Well, I started out by saying:

Any flight school (at least in the US) which is not doing instrument
training in GPS equipped airplanes today is just ripping off their students.

Clearly, that doesn't apply to you. Thus, I don't understand why you took
exception to it.

Blanche wrote:

Roy:
Expecting (assuming) all IFR training in the US to be in aircraft
that have IFR-certified GPS is a bit unrealistic.

Would you like to pay for an IFR-certified GPS to be installed in
my cherokee? I'd be delighted, and would even buy you dinner.


That comparison is irrelvant.

Roy is speaking of trainers at a school that holds itself out to the
public to provide IFR flight training.

You are talking about your own personal airborne "rattletrap."

Blanche wrote:
Roy Smith wrote:

Please, lay off the assumptions. Feel free to qualify your opinions
(and yes, they are valid but not in all situations) but make sure you
define your criteria.



I'll give you something more concrete than an assumption: 10 years from
now, you might as well forget about conducting IFR operations in a light
aircraft if you don't have a TSO-C146 box.

So, it is really a limited form of training *today* to do all that work
for an instrument rating without becoming proficient in GPS operations
in the process.

Sam Spade wrote:



I'll give you something more concrete than an assumption: 10 years from
now, you might as well forget about conducting IFR operations in a light
aircraft if you don't have a TSO-C146 box.


Baloney. Operations won't be any different in ten years than they are now.

Newps wrote:


Sam Spade wrote:



I'll give you something more concrete than an assumption: 10 years
from now, you might as well forget about conducting IFR operations in
a light aircraft if you don't have a TSO-C146 box.



Baloney. Operations won't be any different in ten years than they are now.


Might be balony to you but it isn't to the folks that run the FAA.

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 18:39:00 -0500, Roy Smith wrote:

Blanche wrote:
Expecting (assuming) all IFR training in the US to be in aircraft
that have IFR-certified GPS is a bit unrealistic.

I guess that depends on your definition of "realistic".

I certainly think it is inappropriate, in the year 2006, to be giving
instrument training in an airplane that is not IFR GPS equipped. You
should be training people to operate in the kind of environment they are
going to be flying in after they pass their checkride. For the most part,

Most trainers don't have instrumentation that old.
That means they have to put the ADF back in for my training.

that means GPS. And that's going to be even more true every year that goes
by.

I fly IFR in the system using VORs, RNAV, and NDBs. The only GPS I
have/own is a hand held.


Would you like to pay for an IFR-certified GPS to be installed in
my cherokee? I'd be delighted, and would even buy you dinner.

I take it that you use your cherokee for instrument instruction? If that's
the case, then you should invest the capital to equip it with gear which
allows you to teach your students what they need to know. I'm afraid I
have no particular desire to fund the upgrade to your plane, however.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Alan Burke wrote:

Hi,

I'm studying for my IR and having some trouble in calculating the outbound
times. Has anyone got any easy way of calculating the times.

Just finished mine over here in Germany. We were supposed to learn it,
however our flying clubs' Pipers have 2 GNS 430, with the excellent
"pictures"...

Anyway: Here is an easy method, if you have lets say 3+ miles to go in
a 100kts airplane:
Time: Subtract/Add the Wind-speed in seconds from/to your 1 min as
follows:
Wind angle 30° full speed. Wind angle 30..60° half speed. Wind angle
60° no correction.
Example: Wind 300/20, Course 290°. Wind angle=10°, that is "full
speed" so ADD 20seconds (20kts) to your 1 min.
By the way, that works with VORs as well.

Of course, in the real world, in a small plane...who gives a f* ?
You'll stay almost always in the protected area, no matter what heading
you fly.... ;-)

Cheers,

Kusi