Technology is Incredible...

Jay Honeck writes:

However, when the pilot is freed from the burdens of navigation, he may
fly more freely.

But when the pilot who knows nothing of navigation and depends on a
computer to fly loses the computer, he dies more quickly.

It used to be that I didn't dare wander too far off
my planned flight, cuz that's what I had marked on the charts. In
fact, as a new pilot, if I diverted off my flight path (to look at
something on the ground, for example), I would laboriously fly BACK to
my original flight path, just so I could find all of my landmarks.

Those days are long gone, thanks to moving-map GPS. (Well, and 1500
hours of experience.)

Surely you could do much the same in the past, albeit with a bit more
effort.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ups.com...
Those days are long gone, thanks to moving-map GPS. (Well, and 1500
hours of experience.)

I think LORAN did a pretty good number on it even before your moving map GPS
came along... Even if you don't have a graphical depiction of your area on
your navigation device, just being able to plug in an airport's identifier
and knowing it's bearing and distance (no matter how much you got distracted
by checking out the things on the ground) did a lot to take a lot of the
effort out of navigating... Yeah, I've done my share of paper maps and
mapping my position in relation to VORs, but I've learned to enjoy having my
LORAN and letting it tell me how far I am from the various airports, VORs,
waypoints, etc... Combining that with a handheld GPS or moving map on a
laptop and for my flying, it's plenty of redundacy... Well, that plus my
probably out of date paper maps... grin

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...

Now compare that to the rate of change in aviation. What can you do
today in a cockpit that couldn't be done when you were born?


Stare at a GPS display plugged into the cigarette lighter to view my actual
track, groundspeed, ETA, ATA and get other route information along a VFR
airway.

After being in a 20-minute holding pattern in a cloud during my IFR
checkride, and then having the examiner look at his handheld GPS afterward
and say "Let's look at how well you held your racetrack pattern"...
*shudder*

Don't know if they had flight following back in the day, either.

-c

gatt writes:

Stare at a GPS display plugged into the cigarette lighter to view my actual
track, groundspeed, ETA, ATA and get other route information along a VFR
airway.

I thought the whole purpose of VFR was to look out the window.

After being in a 20-minute holding pattern in a cloud during my IFR
checkride, and then having the examiner look at his handheld GPS afterward
and say "Let's look at how well you held your racetrack pattern"...
*shudder*

That's after the flight, though.

My point is that however much computers and some other technologies
have changed or appeared, aviation has stayed very much the same.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
gatt writes:

Stare at a GPS display plugged into the cigarette lighter to view my
actual
track, groundspeed, ETA, ATA and get other route information along a VFR
airway.

I thought the whole purpose of VFR was to look out the window.

Spoken like some idiot who has never flown anything.

VFR is IFR in a clock tick. People who actually fly (especially cargo IFR)
anywhere accept this. You don't understand because you live in a world
where every experience must adhere to some rule. Reality is almost always
unfriendly and wholly non-negotiable.

With few exceptions:

No student prefers ADF to GPS at first glance.

No hopeful airline pilot, newly flying boxes, ten years ago, would turn down
the gift of a new handheld GPS.

No minted IFR flyer, with hobby habits, would turn down a glass panel in
favour of a vintage panel.

I could be wrong, but I'm not.

All it takes is qualified people to post differently.

moo

Happy Dog writes:

VFR is IFR in a clock tick.

If that were true, then there would be no distinction between the two
legally.

Obviously, in many cases VFR never becomes IFR.

All it takes is qualified people to post differently.

I look forward to it.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Now compare that to the rate of change in aviation. What can you do
today in a cockpit that couldn't be done when you were born?

You don't have to go back that far. Heck, everything has changed in
flying just since I earned my ticket 12 years ago.

When I first started flying, flight planning was laboriously done with
a sectional chart and a pencil. I would carefully plot my course,
figure out VOR frequencies, plan waypoints where I could triangulate my
position with multiple navaids, and make note of visual checkpoints. It
could take 20 minutes to plan a 1-hour flight. It could take DAYS to
plan a multi-day, truly "cross-country" trip.

Now, unless we're going somewhere far, far away, we hop in the plane,
punch in "Direct to" on our dual GPS's, and we've got more information
at our fingertips about where we are (and where we're going) than we
could possibly use. Every radio frequency, the runway diagrams, the
approaches, the restaurants on (and off) the field, where to spend the
night, phone numbers, the controlling airspace -- even the LIVE weather
-- is all there, for easy viewing. It's absolutely miraculous.

The other thing that has changed dramatically is a revolution that
often goes unnoticed: ANR headsets. When I used to get back from a
long cross country flight, I'd be exhausted, and often had a headache
from all the noise. Now, I arrive fresh as a daisy, even after flying
all day, thanks to my Lightspeed headsets. It's another miracle of the
modern age.

All of this makes it so hard to watch GA gradually withering -- we've
FINALLY got flying to the point where it's really quite safe, simple
and enjoyable to fly cross country, just in time for no one to want to
do it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:
You don't have to go back that far. Heck, everything has changed in
flying just since I earned my ticket 12 years ago.

When I first started flying, flight planning was laboriously done with
a sectional chart and a pencil. I would carefully plot my course,
figure out VOR frequencies, plan waypoints where I could triangulate my
position with multiple navaids, and make note of visual checkpoints. It
could take 20 minutes to plan a 1-hour flight. It could take DAYS to
plan a multi-day, truly "cross-country" trip.

Now, unless we're going somewhere far, far away, we hop in the plane,
punch in "Direct to" on our dual GPS's, and we've got more information
at our fingertips about where we are (and where we're going) than we
could possibly use. Every radio frequency, the runway diagrams, the
approaches, the restaurants on (and off) the field, where to spend the
night, phone numbers, the controlling airspace -- even the LIVE weather
-- is all there, for easy viewing. It's absolutely miraculous.

Hell, I've got nearly that with my LORAN... Flight from Houston to
Oshkosh consists of going to Airnav to get a couple of fuel stops and
checking the weather on Intellicast and the Unisys weather sites the day
of the flight... Mainly the Unisys weather site though since it shows
VFR / MVFR / IMC shaded areas and ceilings across the country... If
there is any weather to avoid, I choose one of the Airnav routes that
hopefully will allow me to avoid it...

Personally, I'm not so sure that having a GPS that does *everything* for
you is the best design... I prefer it to just be a source of coordinate
information and there to be another device that handles the database and
such... I guess I like a bit more distributed approach to the system...
Let's say that there are providers and displayers of information... One
could have GPS and LORAN both act as a provider and the moving map could
be the displayer... Of course, using this logic, perhaps the database
for the moving map should also be a provider subsystem so that other
subsystems could use it to lookup information...

On 10/30/06 5:41 PM, in article ,
"Grumman-581" wrote:


Personally, I'm not so sure that having a GPS that does *everything* for
you is the best design... I prefer it to just be a source of coordinate
information and there to be another device that handles the database and
such... I guess I like a bit more distributed approach to the system...
Let's say that there are providers and displayers of information... One
could have GPS and LORAN both act as a provider and the moving map could
be the displayer... Of course, using this logic, perhaps the database
for the moving map should also be a provider subsystem so that other
subsystems could use it to lookup information...

You don't *have* to use all the bells and whistles if you don't want to. But
it's nice to have them at your fingertips if you want...or need.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino

Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com

More Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

Jay Honeck writes:

When I first started flying, flight planning was laboriously done with
a sectional chart and a pencil. I would carefully plot my course,
figure out VOR frequencies, plan waypoints where I could triangulate my
position with multiple navaids, and make note of visual checkpoints. It
could take 20 minutes to plan a 1-hour flight. It could take DAYS to
plan a multi-day, truly "cross-country" trip.

Now, unless we're going somewhere far, far away, we hop in the plane,
punch in "Direct to" on our dual GPS's, and we've got more information
at our fingertips about where we are (and where we're going) than we
could possibly use. Every radio frequency, the runway diagrams, the
approaches, the restaurants on (and off) the field, where to spend the
night, phone numbers, the controlling airspace -- even the LIVE weather
-- is all there, for easy viewing. It's absolutely miraculous.

How does pressing "direct to" replace a detailed flight plan? What do
you do if the GPS fails?

The other thing that has changed dramatically is a revolution that
often goes unnoticed: ANR headsets. When I used to get back from a
long cross country flight, I'd be exhausted, and often had a headache
from all the noise. Now, I arrive fresh as a daisy, even after flying
all day, thanks to my Lightspeed headsets. It's another miracle of the
modern age.

Perhaps a greater miracle would be a cockpit quiet enough not to
require hearing protection.

All of this makes it so hard to watch GA gradually withering -- we've
FINALLY got flying to the point where it's really quite safe, simple
and enjoyable to fly cross country, just in time for no one to want to
do it.

It's more expensive and complicated than it has ever been, in many
respects, even if certain aspects of actually flying in the cockpit
have become easier.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.