GPS and old-fashioned thinking?

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).

Roy Smith wrote:



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).

The avionics engineers call it panel "real estate."

No high-end FMS systems use the QWERTY keyboard, rather they use a
non-typist alpha-numeric keypad.

In article a97kf.62950$qw.9566@fed1read07, wrote:

Roy Smith wrote:



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).

The avionics engineers call it panel "real estate."

It's a common term. I do software development for a living. We talk about
"screen real estate", as in, "I'd really love to make that text field
bigger, but I don't think we can afford the real estate".

wrote:
Roy Smith wrote:



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).


The avionics engineers call it panel "real estate."

No high-end FMS systems use the QWERTY keyboard, rather they use a
non-typist alpha-numeric keypad.

We used to have those non-qwerty keyboards in our Approach Control
facilities. Don't know if it's true, but I heard rumors that they were
made that way to prevent overloading the computer with fast typing. They
never had to worry about that from me!
Some of the new PDA's have small folding keyboards that use bluetooth
technology to input the signal, those might be an option for tight
cockpits. No wires, and not much space required when not in use.

John

The Creative Real Estate Buying and Creative Real Estate Financing.
Senior Consultant Paul RunningHorse Vigil . FREE Telephone
Consultation. 303-284-0636 fax 303-284-0974
* Refer-A-Friend http://www.capitalvigilfundingdept.com
Wealth Formula FOR SALE: A One Page Summary on How to build Wealth
without the use of your money. This Formula is a Proven Concept used by
few and it can be used on any product (s) or service (s) very basic and
easy to understand formula. How to build Wealth without the use of your
money is easier than one may think it has created wealth for those that
put the formula into action. Send certified check or money order in the
amount of $100 dollars Payable to Paul Runninghorse Vigil The mailing
address is Post Office Box 1481 Westminster, Colorado 80036-1481 Please
Include your Name, Your Telephone number include your area code, Your
Mailing Address. I will mail it to you ASP or if you request, I could
fax it to you. The One Page Summary on How to build Wealth without the
use of your money.Visit my web site:
http://www.capitalvigilfundingdept.com My Office Phone# 1-303-284-0636
Westminister Colorado 24hr Fax #1-303-284-0974 Investors are invited to
join us in Acquisition projects, Great Returns

In article ,
says...

I think the only problem with GPS is the human interface.

I disagree. I think there is a more important problem. If you're flying direct
routes and RNAV with GPS as primary(and only random route) source of
navigation, in the event of a GPS signal degradation, you have a bit of a
balancing act to do to get back to "legacy" navigation. If you're in the
middle of the Great Plains that's no issue, but if you're shooting an approach
to White Plains it may be.

My point is we were on the way toward an integrated RNAV system until GPS came
along and we decided we have to hurry and trash everything else. What we need,
I believe, is an RNAV system which allows us to seamlessly maintain random
route navigation in the event of a primary source failure (GPS). eLoran would
be one possible answer, but so would existing ground-based (VOR-DME) systems,
if your box is programmed for this.

The "all-or-nothing" approach to GPS (I know this is an exaggeration - but
only a slight one) is contrary to everything we learn and practice in aviation
- where we're supposed to have an answer, and hopefully a good answer, to
every eventuality.

I love GPS, and I see no problem in being highly reliant on it, because it is
intrinsically reliable - however I believe it would be practical and desirable
to build a system that maintains full RNAV capability in the event of a loss
in GPS integrity.

G Faris

G Farris wrote:

I disagree. I think there is a more important problem. If you're flying direct
routes and RNAV with GPS as primary(and only random route) source of
navigation, in the event of a GPS signal degradation, you have a bit of a
balancing act to do to get back to "legacy" navigation. If you're in the
middle of the Great Plains that's no issue, but if you're shooting an approach
to White Plains it may be.

Wouldn't you be in the same situation if you were shooting an ILS
approach and the localizer went U/S?


All the best,


David

In article .com,
says...


G Farris wrote:

I disagree. I think there is a more important problem. If you're flying
direct
routes and RNAV with GPS as primary(and only random route) source of
navigation, in the event of a GPS signal degradation, you have a bit of a
balancing act to do to get back to "legacy" navigation. If you're in the
middle of the Great Plains that's no issue, but if you're shooting an
approach
to White Plains it may be.

Wouldn't you be in the same situation if you were shooting an ILS
approach and the localizer went U/S?


Not at all. The missed approach is part of the procedure, and if you've done
good you have it all dialled-in, briefed and ready to fly. No transitioning to
do.

GF


David

G Farris wrote:

I disagree. I think there is a more important problem. If you're flying
direct
routes and RNAV with GPS as primary(and only random route) source of
navigation, in the event of a GPS signal degradation, you have a bit of a
balancing act to do to get back to "legacy" navigation. If you're in the
middle of the Great Plains that's no issue, but if you're shooting an
approach
to White Plains it may be.

Wouldn't you be in the same situation if you were shooting an ILS
approach and the localizer went U/S?

Not at all. The missed approach is part of the procedure, and if you've done
good you have it all dialled-in, briefed and ready to fly. No transitioning to
do.

The the missed for a GPS overlay approach uses a ground-based navaid,
then you still have it dialed in and ready to go; if the missed for a
ground-based-navaid approach uses the same navaid, then you still have
a problem.


All the best,


David

G Farris wrote:

The missed approach is part of the procedure, and if you've done
good you have it all dialled-in, briefed and ready to fly.

LOC22 at KCDW requires the localizer for the missed. The NDB-A (which has a
GPS overlay now) also uses the same NDB in the missed approach procedure.

Not all approaches provide a decent transition to a missed approach in the
case of a failure of the primary NAVAID. I find that astonishing.

- Andrew