[L.Adamson]

I Don't know if this is a dumb question or not. But I'm in a bit of an argument with a "flight instructor" on a flight sim forum. Within forums such as these, many participants (flight simmers) still believe that GPS is "cheating". I certainly disagree.

I myself, am a fan of GPS. I have been since Garmin released it's first moving map in the early 90's. It's my opinion, that the GPS is better all around, than using VOR's. However, this "flight instructor" (CFII) believes that I am complacent for not using the VOR system of setting up intersections, etc..... in addition to the GPS. He cannot believe that I suggest to others, that you don't need to be setting the OBS for cross-country flight, when we have a good moving map GPS.

He claims that it's our responsibility as pilots to use VORs & remain skilled at doing so. IMO, VORs are old school and will be eliminated. I see little use, except what's involved with IFR work. My aircraft has no NAV/OBS to start with.

I prefer direct routing, and he say's that we should be setting up VOR intersections to do that as well. Opinions are welcomed.

L.Adamson --- RV6A/ Garmin 696 with XM weather

 

[Auburntsts]

Well for VFR (not IFR rated so can't speak to it), the way I see it is there's no right or wrong answer here. Certainly nothing wrong with sticking to VORs as the primary means of nav, but there's no requirement to. By this CFII's logic then what everyone really should really be doing is pilotage and dead reckoning as electronic nav (in any form) is a crutch.

 

[Radomir]

He just may be right?? If you're not shooting stars.. you ain't playing by the rules..

In another example, using a tractor is really cheating too...

 

[RV8R999]

as has been discussed often in other threads it is not required by the REGs to have a VOR to fly under IFR so it is only his opinion, which is neither right nor wrong.

 

[scard]

I agree with "our responsibility as pilots to remain skilled", but it is not "your responsibility as a vfr pilot to USE a VOR." His arguments are simply absurd. Remain clear of this CFII as he certainly hasn't been keeping current with 'the system'.

 

[slyfox]

I agree watch for guys like this. I plan on using a cfII that is current in the latest greatest. He has a 210 and set up to the hilt. Garmin 530w, auto pilot, all the new stuff. Than there is a CFII I know and he rarely flies, has the old stuff in his plane. Guess who I put my dollars in and trust. I want the latest flying stuff. I want a pilot that is so current that trusting his abilities is a non issue. The fella I want uses IFR all the time. He goes over to Seattle and back. Just have to wait until the end of may for his CFII. Worth the wait.

 

[Don Jones]

Maybe the latest equipment.....

I agree watch for guys like this. I plan on using a cfII that is current in the latest greatest. He has a 210 and set up to the hilt. Garmin 530w, auto pilot, all the new stuff. Than there is a CFII I know and he rarely flies, has the old stuff in his plane. Guess who I put my dollars in and trust. I want the latest flying stuff. I want a pilot that is so current that trusting his abilities is a non issue. The fella I want uses IFR all the time. He goes over to Seattle and back. Just have to wait until the end of may for his CFII. Worth the wait.

......but be prepared for lots of VOR work anyway. The FAA makes us teach it whether you want to use it or not. No instructor in his right mind would sign someone off for a checkride without knowing that you can use the VOR system to maximum proficiency, since it's in the PTS it is all fair game for the examiner on the check ride.

Now to address Mr Adamson's questions. I for one love GPS, if(when) the VOR system goes away I wouldn't shed any tears. It's just one less antiquated thing to have to teach. If I am flying VFR I never even turn the stinking things on. The wife does cause she wants to keep her skills up.
I feel that a VFR pilot does not have to use VOR's as long as you know how to use them(if equipped) if the need should arise. Instrument guys better know how to use them well!

 

[L.Adamson]

For any clarification. The instructor does use GPS, but is not too familiar with WAAS since it's not in many instructional aircraft (panel) that he's flown. However, he does feel that I'm not being responsible (skill wise) as a pilot.........because I no longer use the VOR system. As stated, I don't a NAV/OBS to begin with.

And FWIW ----- I haven't had a GPS (lose signal) failure for an awful long time. The last three have been a 296, 496, & now the 696.

L.Adamson --- RV6A

 

[L.Adamson]

......but be prepared for lots of VOR work anyway. The FAA makes us teach it whether you want to use it or not. No instructor in his right mind would sign someone off for a checkride without knowing that you can use the VOR system to maximum proficiency, since it's in the PTS it is all fair game for the examiner on the check ride.

I agree with that. Until VORs are history, it will be part of the checkride.

L.Adamson --- RV6A

 

[Ron Lee]

My Garmin 430W will give VOR radial (actually TO radial and actual distance...not obtainable from VOR alone). I have given positions relative to a VOR yet not use the VOR capability of the unit.

I also have a backup GPS. I have a Air Chart Topo Atlas to maintain aware of position pilotage wise.

Would any esteemed instructor state that I am derelict in not tuning into a VOR to verify radial passage?

If I had to, I could navigate using the VOR. However since almost all flights are GPS direct, using the VOR to fly an actual trip is pointless.

 

[Don Jones]

Wish the FAA would catch up

I agree with that. Until VORs are history, it will be part of the checkride.

L.Adamson --- RV6A

****, we still teach ADF....wish the FAA would catch up! There are very few ADF approaches left! I had to do one on my CFII checkride a couple of years ago.

 

[slyfox]

just for clarification, my new panel will be 430W, d180, hs34, g696. This should do nice for what I want to do. For an instructor to bash the new stuff is kind of like the builders that bash the current builders and raz them for not getting the full affect because of the prepunched kits. Phooey, in IFR you go the easiest way, it cuts down on the work load thus making it safer. Oh and there is "what ifs" in everything we do. Maybe we should just stay on the ground and do nothing.

 

[rvbuilder2002]

Some pilots set a high priority on the use of the VOR system...some would never own an RV with a fixed pitch propeller...all depends on your viewpoint I guess.




(Sorry Larry...couldn't resist)

 

[pierre smith]

Wife and I just did 2 XC's....

...the first, IFR to Callaway Gardens (Ga.) and the second, VFR/flight following home.....so I primarily fly 430 GPS, direct both ways but monitor the VOR's on both the SL-30 and 430...for practise and accuracy check.

On arrival, the 430 showed me 6 feet right of runway centerline as we taxied...spot on! I've never seen a LOC or VOR with that kind of accuracy.

I'm an old dog learning new tricks and it's fun, exciting and incredibly easy.
No tears from me when VOR's die.

Best,

 

[slyfox]

The 430 can and will do the vor's. NOt the point on this thread. The point being that using a GPS is being, so to speak, a sissy. Phooey. Use what gets you there best. With GPS you have the option of direct flight, no can do with the vor only.

 

[Ironflight]

Well heck, if you don't know how to shoot a Low Frequency Range approach, you're just not up to snuff....

 

[yakdriver]

I love GPS but I always have a Sectional on my lap and know exactly where I am at all times. I flew a N3N for many years all over the west with a compass and a map. I did always have two Sectionals for my route because a lot of times it would rip a big chunk off the map when you were trying to read it or refold it in the open cockpit. I flew my friend's N from Texas to Idaho last year with my 396 and boy did that make the flight a lot easier. Did lose about 1/3 of one of the maps during the trip though. Don

 

[Steve Brown]

You are right, ..............

.............................
He claims that it's our responsibility as pilots to use VORs & remain skilled at doing so. IMO, VORs are old school and will be eliminated. I see little use, except what's involved with IFR work. My aircraft has no NAV/OBS to start with.
........
L.Adamson --- RV6A/ Garmin 696 with XM weather

But in a sense so is he. GPS is more accurate in in my opinion preferred. Plus, as you say, I think VOR is going away. However, if you have VOR it makes sense to stay proficient and use it as backup.

Additionally, for IFR pilots it is still a useful tool.

When I first started flying with GPS moving map I kept the discipline of keeping some VOR dialed in with OBS periodically centered. However, over time that discipline has substantially lapsed for VFR flying.

On a long trip I'll use the "nearest" function to find a VOR that lies approximately on course, then tune in and center the needle once. Then probably won't touch it until ready for the next station. Even this I do not practice religiously.

I use the spare time to check fuel assumptions, check my O2 levels, pee, and talk to my wife.

Does that make me a more dangerous pilot? I don't think so.

My main concern on a long trip is that the GPS would blink off and I have no clue where I am at. So, I think keeping track of position on a paper map or other electronic map is extremely important.

 

[L.Adamson]

I love GPS but I always have a Sectional on my lap and know exactly where I am at all times. I flew a N3N for many years all over the west with a compass and a map. I did always have two Sectionals for my route because a lot of times it would rip a big chunk off the map when you were trying to read it or refold it in the open cockpit. I flew my friend's N from Texas to Idaho last year with my 396 and boy did that make the flight a lot easier. Did lose about 1/3 of one of the maps during the trip though. Don

I always carry an up to date sectional also. In the side by side RV, of all places,..... I found that those fabric covered three piece knee boards work extremely well. I have never used knee boards in the past, but my wife was getting tired of thumbing through the Flight Guide. I now pull pages from the guide and copy a number of them to a sheet for the knee board.

L.Adamson ---- RV6A

 

[Flyfalcons]

Nothing wrong with using what's in front of your for a positional cross-reference (especially IFR). If you're VFR then the chart is your best friend.

 

[David Paule]

The simple answer, is to know how to use whatever capabilities your airplane has, and to use them when appropriate.

If you're deciding what navigation systems to install in a VFR airplane, the system which provides the most capability and offers the broadest options is currently GPS, so put that in. Back it up with maps, as Yakdriver suggested. With a map and a compass and a clock and a pencil you can navigate most anywhere, and learn an awful lot about the area, too.

VOR is a fair option if you have lots of space in the panel, but instead of that, get a handheld radio as a back-up communications device, and chose one with VOR capability. Then you'll have doubly redundant navigation as well. Note that the VOR won't help much if you don't have a map.
.

 

[Ron Lee]

I just remembered that I use my VOR radial/DME (GPS distance) to tell Flight Watch/Service where I am on initial call-up. Uses the 430W Nearest capability.

 

[Bubblehead]

I love GPS but I always have a Sectional on my lap and know exactly where I am at all times. I flew a N3N for many years all over the west with a compass and a map. I did always have two Sectionals for my route because a lot of times it would rip a big chunk off the map when you were trying to read it or refold it in the open cockpit. I flew my friend's N from Texas to Idaho last year with my 396 and boy did that make the flight a lot easier. Did lose about 1/3 of one of the maps during the trip though. Don

Years ago I was flying a cross country in a C-182, climbing to cruise altitude and put my elbow on the window ledge. My elbow hit the window latch, the window opened and the sectional got sucked out the window! Sure would have been nice to have any x96 at that point!

 

[L.Adamson]

BTW--- I'm still working at this instructors thought process. He believes that GPS is the dumbing down of American pilots. Even to the point, that a pilot who does not use and remain sharp at VOR skills.........is not a pilot. He does use GPS, but feels that it should just be a backup to VOR navigation.

I say that GPS will be mainstay for quite a while, & the VOR system will be a part of history. My claim is that GPS/ synthetic vision will ultimately be the safer way, all around. Unfortunately, my VFR RV is not equipped with a NAV/COM. Yet, I don't feel particularly dumb for owning a Garmin 696.

Of course, this is my personal opinion. I'm kind of a walking encyclopedia of "flight into terrain accidents" since the 1950's. Must be the reason I got excited about moving map GPS in the early 90's; and look to the future of synthetic vision.

L.Adamson

 

[Ron Lee]

GPS enabled synthetic vision

I have seen a few ads that may be synthetic vision. Looks neat. But how will it keep a VFR pilot from CFIT? I fly in the Rockies regularly and I look outside.

Now someone flying into Aspen IFR who otherwise is doing something that will cause a CFIT accident may benefit. I just don't see the utility for me unless I decide to let things get out of hand and scud run through the valleys.

I may have to see if I can fly under the hood through a valley system using my 430W terrain map.

 

[Daver]

old school CFI

My CFI is a bit "old school" as well.

But my plane will not have a VOR. I do have a hand held NAV-COMM I could use ..

During my long X/C training flight, I used the VOR, dead recogning, pilotage and, I just happen to have my cheap pocket GPS with me.

Gee, how did that get in there.....?

The VOR worked pretty well but it didn't give me info on distance or ground speed.

The cheap GPS did.

Seems like this aviation field is slow to accept new technology. My written test even had questions on ADFs.

So far, I have not even seen an ADF in an airplane.

I think I'll "cheat" and use the GPS.....

Dave
-9A almost done
N514R

 

[RV8R999]

if ATC clears you via a VOR radial and you are not equipped with a VOR it is a simple matter to state, "sorry sir, unable, GPS only" and you'll likely hear "roger, cleared direct to blah blah blah" or something like that. I fly this way every single day.

 

[John Clark]

Basics

Note that the VOR won't help much if you don't have a map.

Very true, and the map will work after the electrical system fails.

John Clark ATP, CFI
FAA FAAST Team Member
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA

 

[L.Adamson]

Now someone flying into Aspen IFR who otherwise is doing something that will cause a CFIT accident may benefit. I just don't see the utility for me unless I decide to let things get out of hand and scud run through the valleys.

Aspen IFR is one of my better examples for the benefit of synthetic vision.

Speaking of scud running, a WWII multi engine /forest fire aircraft crashed on the other side of the mountain from my home, this last year. The route was across several states, and for what ever reason they flew a scud run.
My 696 would have been screaming warnings like crazy, and synthetic vision would have been even better. However, I'd never promote any idea of scud running, regardless.

I do have a lot of accident cases involving whiteouts in other wise VFR conditions. For both day & night. Also what is known as "black hole" syndrome. In these cases, synthetic vision would have been a god send.

L.Adamson

 

[N526JS]

When transitioning the west side of the Class Bravo SFO airspace the controllers will frequently say "Pass west of the Woodside VOR". Not a problem as "OSI" is right there on my 430. This is in my C-182. The RV-9A is getting a 430 as well.

 

[Danny King]

ADF approaches

Well heck, if you don't know how to shoot a Low Frequency Range approach, you're just not up to snuff....

Paul,
I remember being P/O one dark night, when I had to fly an ADF approach to minimums in the old 727 at New Orleans. I figured if a town the size of New Orleans couldn't keep the ILS up and running, then they didn't deserve to have airline service! The only other ADF approaches I flew in a thirty eight year flying career were in the sim!

Flying non-precision approaches in the 777 were displayed and flown like a precision approach. Love that new technology!

 

[TSwezey]

if ATC clears you via a VOR radial and you are not equipped with a VOR it is a simple matter to state, "sorry sir, unable, GPS only" and you'll likely hear "roger, cleared direct to blah blah blah" or something like that. I fly this way every single day.

You can just put the VOR in your GPS. On a VFR FF flight to OSH last summer they gave me VOR to VOR routing to avoid the weather. Just put each VOR in GPS and away I went.

 

[Kevin Horton]

if ATC clears you via a VOR radial and you are not equipped with a VOR it is a simple matter to state, "sorry sir, unable, GPS only" and you'll likely hear "roger, cleared direct to blah blah blah" or something like that. I fly this way every single day.

Any IFR-approved GPS should have an OBS function that allows you to fly a desired track to or from any waypoint. This provides a relatively easy way to emulate flying a radial to or from a VOR.

 

[RV8R999]

Good point.

 

[L.Adamson]

Is GPS really dumbing down.....?

I say no, just the opposite. But once again, from this particular flight instructor...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I'll throw in my last opinion on this topic. Last, because coming from the 'side' that says GPS is NOT a reason to NOT use other navigational methods, often gets labeled anti-GPS.. which is silliness. I endorse, enjoy, embrace and relish all of the new technology.



This is a true statement. For those who can remember not having GPS; you know how much of a skill it is, to find your way across unfamiliar territory by dead-reckoning, pilotage, a sectional, and your eyeballs. In a tad of irony; you can even say that radio-navigation dumbs down your piloting skills (but I digress). The point is; if you allow dependency on GPS to let ANY skill degrade, you ARE, by simple logic, being dumbed down.

Now.. if you fly only for fun, and only in good weather, and are never in a position to be counted on to get something/someone somewhere, or never use an airplane for real transportation... the dumbing-down is not as big a problem (this where you, by your own initiative, should plug in respect for the responsibilities that come with the license). And for people who DO fly for those reasons; it's a non-issue, because they WILL be (or darn-well had better be), instrument-rated, and their radio-nav skills will be current... No debate, no problem..

Bottom line: If you've allowed GPS to make you into a pilot who can no longer (or never could) find their way cross-country; through or into complex airspace, or to a remote airport, or constantly monitor your position/progress, without that GPS... You have been dumbed down, whether you like to hear it, or not. And AGAIN.. if you're a recreational, VFR-only pilot, it's less of a concern, but none-the-less, disconcerning when you see a licensed pilot's face turn white, when you switch the GPS off.

In conclusion: By ALL means, embrace, master, avail, any technology you're able (I do).... but do NOT become dependent on it, to the point that your other skills deteriorate. And the funny (neat) aspect to this discussion; is that it's happening in a flight-sim forum.. and these flight simulators replicate radio (and visual) navigation so well.. you can practice it all without buying any 100LL "
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bahhhhhhhhh......
Perhaps I'm wrong, or it's just the "dumbing down" aspect of the whole thing...

L.Adamson --- RV6A/Garmin 696 --- and want DR's new setup...

 

[Bill Dicus]

Range appr.

Ironside mentioned a radio range approach - that's really old technology. Some jet jockeys I knew in the Air Force actually flew range approaches in the early F-86's!.Hard to imagine what that was like.... Not very much precision involved!

 

[Danny7]

Well for VFR (not IFR rated so can't speak to it), the way I see it is there's no right or wrong answer here. Certainly nothing wrong with sticking to VORs as the primary means of nav, but there's no requirement to. By this CFII's logic then what everyone really should really be doing is pilotage and dead reckoning as electronic nav (in any form) is a crutch.

everyone should be doing pilotage and ded reckoning, to many pilots are unable to locate important landmarks on the ground. if you use your gps to help with the ded reckoning no problem there.

 

[L.Adamson]

everyone should be doing pilotage and ded reckoning, to many pilots are unable to locate important landmarks on the ground. if you use your gps to help with the ded reckoning no problem there.

I frequently fly mountainous areas. In fact, around here, that's about all there is! For a long distance flight, that I have not flown before, I'll use flight planning software for distance, airports for fuel & rest stops, as well as emergencies. I can also figure in mountain passes due to altitudes, as I prefer not to be on oxygen just to stay above it all. In fact, altitudes well below that magic "12,500" can make you tired at the end of the day, if you've been flying without oxygen.

And one note here: The VOR system is line of sight. Doesn't work well at lower altitudes in mountain ranges.

But getting back to it..... I'll have the plan completed, check for any errors on a current sectional, then print it out. I'll then enter this flight plan into the Garmin 696. From that point, as the flight is in progress, I can easily see weather patterns in all directions from the XM Satellite weather, and make modifications as necessary. Since my fuel meter is tied to the GPS, I have instant updates on fuel usage, as well as what's required to get to the destination. Thanks to the GPS, I have more time to watch for traffic, as well as spotting towns, lakes, etc. that are much farther in the distance. This gives me the opportunity to cross check on the sectionals for a more informed reference of "dead reckoning". In other words, I'm now much more aware of the surroundings, and what's ahead. I can make more informed decisions as the flight progresses. I don't have to depend on the FSS weather info before flight, as well as in flight.............as I have all the info at a glance. I do check the weather in it's entirety before the flight.

So....................I'm really using the GPS as the form of navigation, and dead reckoning becomes the backup. That way, I'll be sure to miss all the surrounding ------restricted military airspace, as well as current TFR's. And if worse goes to worse, I'll have have some pre-warning in regards to terrain and obsticles. Besides, when flying hundreds of miles, I don't mind the auto-pilot flying the GPS derived course, as I take it all in, and monitor for traffic.

L.Adamson --- RV6A

 

[WhiskeyMike]

everyone should be doing pilotage and ded reckoning, to many pilots are unable to locate important landmarks on the ground. if you use your gps to help with the ded reckoning no problem there.

Completely agree....I accumulated over 1000 hrs of cross country glider time before GPS came on the scene. Typical flight was 250+ miles (with a few over 500) and flying from a variety of locations minimized the usefulness of "local knowledge" for navigation purposes. Back then you learned to relied on pilotage, a sectional chart and whiskey compass to get you there.

When flying gliders cross country you do not fly a constant heading or altitude, and must seek out lift sources that are sometime many miles "off course". This kind of flying can make it easier to lose track of where you are, but really teaches you pilotage and map reading skills!

In my opinion these are invaluable skills to have, as navigation technology can (and does) fail on occasion. The stories of folks that found themselves lost when their GPS stopped working should remind us that GPS and moving maps are great, but they should complement pilotage-based navigation skills...not replace them. I acknowledge this is an "old school" perspective, but still a good one...

 

[rvmills]

Larry,

Been watching this thread run, and I'm in your camp...as many are. Not really an old-school, new school thing, as both schools are good, and can co-exist. But it can be tough to swallow, or debate with those that talk in absolutes or advocate "one right way", no matter how they couch it. Here's some possible ammo for your debate:

During this thread's run time I've flown across the country and back twice at work, and am now finishing up a 2500NM RV X-C...and during that time, I've not tuned and/or centered up a VOR (OK, I centered up a few ILSs at work). Call me naive, but I'm not feeling particularly dumbed down, nor do I feel like I've been flying fat, dumb and happy.

Now my RV doesn't have a VOR, but as others have said, I carry charts, and even look at them occasionally to verify my position. My 396 sort of reminds me of a sectional chart on steroids, and I use the information to cross check my position visually on the ground as well. But I'm not tuning VORs and flying strictly from VOR to VOR, so I guess I'm an RV GPS cripple...not. Could I fix my position with pilotage and find my way somewhere...of course, and yes, I work it along with GPS nav all the time.

At work, one airplane version's FMS auto-tunes the VORs to provide one input to the LNAV computer. No moving map in that version either, but plenty of ways to check our position...one of which is the VOR/CDI, with other ways to get a range and bearing from a VOR via button-smashing on the display. Do I pull out a chart and cross-check my position every time the auto system retunes the VORs? No. Could I take the VOR out of the NAV mode and check my position on a chart? Yep (and I remember how!)

On the newer version of our jets, we have a moving map, with GPS as just one of the position fixing devices fed to the FMS. The VOR recievers send postion cross-checks as well, but in the background, so the VORs remain tunable. I occasionally tune a VOR to display the radial on the moving map, and certainly, if the map or the GPS failed, I'd know how to use the VOR to find my position and my way.

But should I navigate with VORs as the primary nav method (as the gent seems to advocate)...heck no. How much fuel do I save by navigating GPS or LNAV direct. In the RV its a fair amount. At work its eye-watering, and is a critical component of operating a profitable operation. Should I give that up to keep from being dumbed down...I don't think so...I like having a job, and I like saving $$ when flying the RV (and I doubt I can get any dumber anyway!).

It's kind of a "lack of the big picture" kinda thing, or maybe just looking at it from a narrow perspective.

One poster said it well (and I paraphrase)...the key is knowing how to utilize all of your technology, be it high- or low-tech...and knowing when to use each. Not using VORs as the primary source is not tantamount to forgetting how to use them, nor does it dumb one down, IMHO.

If we're going to operate in the modern ATC environment, and shoot approaches based on ground-based navaids as well as GPS guidance, we better know how and when to switch primary nav means.

Rhetorical Questions:

If I fly Radius to Fix or RNAV/GPS approaches to LNAV or LNAV/VNAV mins, rather than ILSs, LOCs, VORs or ADFs am I being dumbed down? (Ooops, they took the ADFs out...but I did once fly an NDB to a circle in a KingAir...at night...in a snow shower...to a non-towered airport. Did that make me smarter, or studlier...uh, no, though the guy that did it in a 727 is pretty studly...I had to do one in an interview sim ride in an MD-80, and it was not much fun!)

If I use the HUD on ILS approaches rather than the ADI, am I being dumbed down. Same question on the flight director...does that dumb me down?

Does the autopilot dumb me down if I use it as the primary stick and rudder during cruise? During departures/arrivals? During approaches?

Hey, if the guy thinks letting skills deteriorate is bad because your versatility and backup utilization ability or emergency preparedness suffers, OK, I buy that.

If he thinks using the best tech at your disposal is a bad idea because it may fail, and thus you should only use low-tech as primary, then I disagree, and feel he's leaving an awful lot of capability on the table.

I hope (and believe it to be the case) that today's CFIs are teaching students how to fly well with basic stick and rudder skills, and how and when to use all types of technology at their disposal, while not becoming dependent on any one...be it new or old, high- or low- tech. To do otherwise would not prepare them to operate in today's world (or tomorrow's).

Man, you (I) can write a lot when stuck on a X-C! Guess I'd be home by now if I was using a VOR!

Honestly not meant as a rant, but rather in the spirit of good debate!!

Cheers,
Bob

 

[pierre smith]

Bob said it well....

...since I did a 275 mile XC yesterday from Panama City home.

My Trutrak AP allowed me free time to explore the HSI views of VOR's on the way home. The airplane was obeying GPS commands from the 430W while I reviewed old times and did experiments to see whether the cat's whisker antenna driving the SL-30 bettered the Archer wingtip antenna that was driving the 430W, both in VOR mode (the 430W is capable of both VOR and GPS simultaneously), but you have to choose which to display since I only have one HSI on the Dynon.

I'm happy to report that the Archer wingtip outdid the cat's whisker by about 20 miles on the way down and pretty much equalled the cat's whisker on the way back.....yeah, no VOR's directly enroute but I remember how to use them but the GPS is oh-so easy.

Best,

 

[L.Adamson]

Larry,

Been watching this thread run, and I'm in your camp...as many are. Not really an old-school, new school thing, as both schools are good, and can co-exist. But it can be tough to swallow, or debate with those that talk in absolutes or advocate "one right way", no matter how they couch it. Here's some possible ammo for your debate:

Thanks for the info, and I enjoyed your trip report regarding the race. I know the areas, which it makes it all the better!

L.Adamson --- RV6A