Because I Said So, That's Why

[wabower]

The fact that you had your horse and cart in reverse order might also have contributed to the response.

I get all that, and if I was in the plane with Jesse, I would not have landed.

I would have climbed, and possibly figure out where I was.
I would have then called flight services, told them I was doing some training as a student, and asked them if they can locate me. They would probably help me, I would have located myself on the chart, and off we go. For that not to work, Jesse would have to of failed COM. Then it's an entirely different senario. One where I now have more problems then no GPS.

The VOR thing would be my fault for thinking it was down. I am not sure I would have thought that, but the student did, so I started where he did.

The issue that blew all this up into hundreds of posts, is I used the acronym GPS and the word iPhone somewhere within my decision tree, so somehow I am 100% reliant on it, and I must never be a pilot.

It's a ridiculous reaction from an obviously oversensitive community (I am not putting you in that category).

 

[MAKG1]

No, you said you would land FIRST -- anywhere -- if your GPS gave out. This tells us all that you consider the GPS to be essential equipment.

It's poor ADM. Assuming an emergency where there is none is not a good thing. You need an accurate assessment, not just giving up.

I once witnessed a Lake Buccanneer pilot have a gear failure in flight. Just as I was tying up after a cross-country, he overflew the field with flaps down and gear up. Then the fire department arrived -- he had declared an emergency. Sounds reasonable, right? Except a Lake is amphibious. And the Bay was just outside the fence. So, now the fire department has been called on a false alarm and the airspace cleared, and the airport could have been closed (only one runway with a disabled aircraft on it) if the pilot didn't come to his senses.

In the post-analysis, we found out he had hours of fuel. He had many options that were not emergencies, including flying an hour to a freshwater seaplane port, to save the corrosion. Even if he had been low on fuel, landing in the Bay was an option. He clearly panicked. Had there been any other failures, his goose might have been cooked.

The lesson here is not to panic, and to think the options through if you have the time to do so. An inflight fire is an example in the other direction -- but panicking and trying to land instantly with the electrical system on would still have been a wrong action.

 

[Geico266]

I wonder when and why we stopped teaching people how to saddle and ride a horse. Some day the car will break down and we will need to ride a horse again.

Or how about using a slide rule. Surely calculators are a passing fad doomed to failure.

Dinosaurs are dead for a reason, they could not adapt. Don't be a dinosaur.

 

[Mafoo]

No, you said you would land FIRST -- anywhere -- if your GPS gave out. This tells us all that you consider the GPS to be essential equipment.

It's poor ADM. Assuming an emergency where there is none is not a good thing. You need an accurate assessment, not just giving up.

I once witnessed a Lake Buccanneer pilot have a gear failure in flight. Just as I was tying up after a cross-country, he overflew the field with flaps down and gear up. Then the fire department arrived -- he had declared an emergency. Sounds reasonable, right? Except a Lake is amphibious. And the Bay was just outside the fence. So, now the fire department has been called on a false alarm and the airspace cleared, and the airport could have been closed (only one runway with a disabled aircraft on it) if the pilot didn't come to his senses.

In the post-analysis, we found out he had hours of fuel. He had many options that were not emergencies, including flying an hour to a freshwater seaplane port, to save the corrosion. Even if he had been low on fuel, landing in the Bay was an option. He clearly panicked. Had there been any other failures, his goose might have been cooked.

The lesson here is not to panic, and to think the options through if you have the time to do so. An inflight fire is an example in the other direction -- but panicking and trying to land instantly with the electrical system on would still have been a wrong action.

Post 45:

I would hope the point of the exercise is to make sure you are not going to injure someone when a senario like the one above happens.

It's a good exercise. In real life I would do one of the following:

Climb and look for something obvious.
Use my iPhone GPS.
Use my iPad GPS.
Call Flight following and tell them I was in IFR conditions for 30 minutes, and now I am lost.
Find a small airport, and land. I would pick small, because 99% of the time they are uncontrolled, so everyone there should fly like no one has a radio.

The last thing I want to do is fly around looking for landmarks, when I don't know where I am. I could be flying into a TFR, busy class B airspace, or other restricted areas (there is a good chance I am in it already if my 3 GPS systems aren't working).

It seems however, that none of the above solutions would allow Jesse to give me his signature.

I clearly stated before that post and I will state it again, that I will land if the entire grid goes dead. I will not land if the only problem I have is MY gps does not work.

Now many times do I have to say it?

 

[Sac Arrow]

Here ya go.....he's trolling, trying to stir up yet another argument that has been discussed ad naseum.

Here's the thing, I really don't understand what the argument is about. Honestly. Doesn't everybody agree that a GPS is a great navigational tool? Doesn't everybody agree that one should be able to function without it?

It seems like the debate is over minor, obscure, almost meaningless points. That's why I really wanted a very short, succinct breakdown of the issue.

 

[poadeleted20]

They don't. They set a minimum navigation standard in the PTS and require instructors to meet at least the minimums.

If that takes a student 2 hours or 20 hours or 200 hours to figure out, the FAA doesn't care.

Exactly.

 

[poadeleted20]

I like to think i'm not crusty in any sense of the word... Anyway, I look at it this way, lets say you've got two otherwise equal pilots who spend 10 hours of training doing cross country flights:

pilot A spent 1 hour doing pilotage/DR/VOR/ADF/whatever and 9 hours using GPS.
pilot B spent 9 hours doing pilotage/DR/VOR/ADF/whatever and 1 hour using GPS.

I'm claiming that navigating via GPS is so simple that both pilots will be more or less equally good at following the magenta line.
But pilot B is going to be far superior at the other forms of navigation. That makes pilot B a more qualified pilot. And more qualified is better than less qualified, right?

Insufficient evidence to say that. Everyone learns at a different rate, and often the same person learns different things at a different rate. Only way to tell what they know how to do better is to fly with them and see.

 

[Mafoo]

Here's the thing, I really don't understand what the argument is about. Honestly. Doesn't everybody agree that a GPS is a great navigational tool? Doesn't everybody agree that one should be able to function without it?

It seems like the debate is over minor, obscure, almost meaningless points. That's why I really wanted a very short, succinct breakdown of the issue.

The issue:

A senario was setup where someone is lost with no indication of how they got lost, through a clever technique used by there CFI. The intent was to get the student lost.

The issues, is at some ponts in the steps involved, I chose to use foreflight to try and figure out where I was.

When I was told I could not use it, because someone took down GPS for the world, I made a judgment call that in the event GPS goes down, I am lost and have no idea what traffic I am about to enter, and what state those aircraft are in (because all of them just lost GPS), that I would take the conservative approach, and land.

I was then told I am not cut out to be a pilot, and I refuse to agree with that assessment, so argument ensues.

That's pretty much it.

 

[MAKG1]

I clearly stated before that post and I will state it again, that I will land if the entire grid goes dead. I will not land if the only problem I have is MY gps does not work.

Now many times do I have to say it?

Maybe until you understand that it doesn't take the entire grid going dead to take out everyone's GPS over a large area. It is a complex technology with a number of failure modes. Like space weather, 30 year old satellites losing tracking, collisions with space junk, ground testing, and a whole bunch of other things that affect GPS and little else.

GPS outages are routine.

Right now, there are no enroute RAIM outage predictions, but the non-precision approach is AFU without baro-aiding over most of the US west of the Mississippi. This is what you would use in accidental IMC to find an airport. Which means your iPad could easily kill you, as you don't have the precision to avoid terrain. You would do much better with radar-assisted vectors. That is, assuming you can keep the blue side up on the AI (if you haven't done this yet, it's a lot harder than it sounds).

This is not due to WWIII. It's just normal ops. And no iPad has baro-aiding.

You can check it from official sources at any time, at http://www.raimprediction.net/ac90-100/

 

[wabower]

But surely that doesn't mean you would stoop to creating a scenario in which the student had to think his way through the problem without throwing in the towel at the first opportunity? Or does it?

Insufficient evidence to say that. Everyone learns at a different rate, and often the same person learns different things at a different rate. Only way to tell what they know how to do better is to fly with them and see.

 

[poadeleted20]

But surely that doesn't mean you would stoop to creating a scenario in which the student had to think his way through the problem without throwing in the towel at the first opportunity? Or does it?

All I said was that the number of hours of training someone has on each different means of navigation doesn't necessarily reflect their level of proficiency on each method.

As for your question, of course I create such scenarios, and if they "throw in the towel," they aren't ready for the practical test.

 

[Mafoo]

But surely that doesn't mean you would stoop to creating a scenario in which the student had to think his way through the problem without throwing in the towel at the first opportunity? Or does it?

wow, so you think the first thing I did was bail?

Climbed and looked for landmarks
used my handheld GPS
tried to call flight services (I am found, or COM is down)
Flew to the closest airport to land (and there is a good chance I figure out where I am at that point, and don't land).

If the above does not work, I land there.

However your saying the right thing to do, is with no COM, no GPS, no VOR (I realize this was an incorrect assumption, but it's where we started), the proper course of action is to not land at that airport, but to fly away from it in an attempt to figure out where you are?

 

[wabower]

The thinking part should have occurred prior to any of that.

wow, so you think the first thing I did was bail?

Climbed and looked for landmarks
used my handheld GPS
tried to call flight services (I am found, or COM is down)
Flew to the closest airport to land (and there is a good chance I figure out where I am at that point, and don't land).

If the above does not work, I land there.

However your saying the right thing to do, is with no COM, no GPS, no VOR (I realize this was an incorrect assumption, but it's where we started), the proper course of action is to not land at that airport, but to fly away from it in an attempt to figure out where you are?

 

[Mafoo]

The thinking part should have occurred prior to any of that.

lol, I don't even know what that means. You suggesting I read that off a list somewhere?

And you didn't answer the question.

 

[wabower]

Sure, if you consider reading and thinking are synonymous.

If the question is about bailing, the response stands.

lol, I don't even know what that means. You suggesting I read that off a list somewhere?

And you didn't answer the question.

 

[Threefingeredjack]

...... fly away from it in an attempt to figure out where you are?

If you had identified the airport, I would think that means you did know where you were. I have been munching the popcorn and trying to figure out where ll the heat in this thread is coming from. This is what I get from the comments, correct me if I'm wrong:

1.) You chose to land at the first available airport in order to ascertain the circumstances of the failures and to determine for certain your location.

Great. In real life operations that is a sound strategy if you find yourself overwhelmed. On the ground you have the luxury to consider all your options in total safety. No issue with that decision if that was the case.

2.) This was a training exercise. In that scenario I would consider anything the instructor did fair game. I have sweated in simulators under the most sadistic instructors on the planet who came to work that day determined to "kill" me and my crew. You must train for the worst. Period.

I do not agree, but perhaps I missed something, that others are questioning your ability because you rely on GPS. I have GPS in both my aircraft and use them every time I fly. I also have a clock, a wristwatch, a chart, a wet compass and eyeballs. It is a toolbox, and you use what you have. I think the others are having an issue with your decision to cut short the training exercise and your inability to see the value of what was being taught. Just my take on it.

 

[Sac Arrow]

The issue:

A senario was setup where someone is lost with no indication of how they got lost, through a clever technique used by there CFI. The intent was to get the student lost.

The issues, is at some ponts in the steps involved, I chose to use foreflight to try and figure out where I was.

When I was told I could not use it, because someone took down GPS for the world, I made a judgment call that in the event GPS goes down, I am lost and have no idea what traffic I am about to enter, and what state those aircraft are in (because all of them just lost GPS), that I would take the conservative approach, and land.

I was then told I am not cut out to be a pilot, and I refuse to agree with that assessment, so argument ensues.

That's pretty much it.

Okay thank you.

If you had identified the airport, I would think that means you did know where you were. I have been munching the popcorn and trying to figure out where ll the heat in this thread is coming from. This is what I get from the comments, correct me if I'm wrong:

1.) You chose to land at the first available airport in order to ascertain the circumstances of the failures and to determine for certain your location.

Great. In real life operations that is a sound strategy if you find yourself overwhelmed. On the ground you have the luxury to consider all your options in total safety. No issue with that decision if that was the case.

2.) This was a training exercise. In that scenario I would consider anything the instructor did fair game. I have sweated in simulators under the most sadistic instructors on the planet who came to work that day determined to "kill" me and my crew. You must train for the worst. Period.

I do not agree, but perhaps I missed something, that others are questioning your ability because you rely on GPS. I have GPS in both my aircraft and use them every time I fly. I also have a clock, a wristwatch, a chart, a wet compass and eyeballs. It is a toolbox, and you use what you have. I think the others are having an issue with your decision to cut short the training exercise and your inability to see the value of what was being taught. Just my take on it.

I don't really have anything more to add.

 

[Mafoo]

If you had identified the airport, I would think that means you did know where you were. I have been munching the popcorn and trying to figure out where ll the heat in this thread is coming from. This is what I get from the comments, correct me if I'm wrong:

1.) You chose to land at the first available airport in order to ascertain the circumstances of the failures and to determine for certain your location.

Great. In real life operations that is a sound strategy if you find yourself overwhelmed. On the ground you have the luxury to consider all your options in total safety. No issue with that decision if that was the case.

2.) This was a training exercise. In that scenario I would consider anything the instructor did fair game. I have sweated in simulators under the most sadistic instructors on the planet who came to work that day determined to "kill" me and my crew. You must train for the worst. Period.

I do not agree, but perhaps I missed something, that others are questioning your ability because you rely on GPS. I have GPS in both my aircraft and use them every time I fly. I also have a clock, a wristwatch, a chart, a wet compass and eyeballs. It is a toolbox, and you use what you have. I think the others are having an issue with your decision to cut short the training exercise and your inability to see the value of what was being taught. Just my take on it.

Thank you.

And as I said before somewhere in this sea of ego's, that I am 90% sure once I found an airport, I would know where I was (and not land if that was the case).

If I was under the hood for 30 minutes, and I know where I was when I went under it, and I know the max speed of the plane (not using the gauge, because it might be out too), and the direction and speed of the wind, I can draw a circle on my sectional of where I am.

I can then look at the runway numbers, and if I only have one airport on the map with that runway, I know where I am. If I have more then one, I can start looking for landmarks around those airports on the chart, and match them up.

If for some reason, none of that works, I am not flying away from the airport in an attempt to figure out where I am.

That seems to indicate to a few people here, that I am unfit to be a pilot

 

[GCA319]

I agree. however when it, your radio, and your nav fail, landing somewhere safe should not be considered taboo.

When my GPS failed in Jesse's senario, landing was not my first option. Only after a series of other failures happened, did I chose to land.

Ok. A radio failure is something you should land for, just make sure it is a suitable airport. This is where a cheap handheld radio can do wonders.

 

[MAKG1]

Now, you've drifted a bit. The direction is better now.

But you're still missing points. For instance, an airport can be a nice landmark, but it is not the best. They can be low-contrast and hard to spot if you aren't lined up with the runway. It's amazing how much an airport with a row of hangars in the boonies looks like an industrial farm with a road alongside, especially at low altitude.

Rivers, especially large lakes, large isolated mountains (not whole ranges unless there is only one), transmission lines, cities, large radio towers, and so on are all part of the toolkit.

It's absolutely key in any urgent situation (or any other one, for that matter) to remain calm and think through the situation to the extent it allows. If you have four hours of fuel for a 30 minute flight, you can circle for hours before it becomes an "I must land now" problem. That should be plenty of time to figure it out.

The glaring omission from your original statement was pulling out the sectional and trying to figure it out. There are places where landing at the nearest airport in sight might result in sniffing dirt. Even without visible military jets all over the place (e.g., a secret development lab in restricted airspace -- there are a couple of those "that don't exist"). To minimize the threat of airspace incursions, assuming you haven't already made one, you circle in place. Stay put. It's also possible that the big unidentified airport you spot might be closed and unsafe to land on. There are a fair number of closed former military airfields around (like Alameda NAS or NASA Crow's Landing). The majority of smaller airports are private use only. Some of these have significant hazards, such as wind patterns or obstructions or lack of snow removal equipment or lights, that you may not know about unless you've been in contact with the owner. Sometimes those are in the A/FD, sometimes not. Many of them are uncharted by request of the owner!

It's not foolproof -- operating near the edge of a sectional is an obvious place for confusion (and that's a reason to carry neighboring sectionals in your bag). But it's in your toolkit and you should be able to do it.

 

[Mafoo]

Ok. A radio failure is something you should land for, just make sure it is a suitable airport. This is where a cheap handheld radio can do wonders.

Yea, I have one of these in my flight bag:

http://www.amazon.com/Vertex-Standa...e=UTF8&qid=1349889089&sr=1-1&keywords=VXA-220

I was running the senario, as if I didn't have it.

 

[Mafoo]

Now, you've drifted a bit. The direction is better now.

But you're still missing points. For instance, an airport can be a nice landmark, but it is not the best. They can be low-contrast and hard to spot if you aren't lined up with the runway. It's amazing how much an airport with a row of hangars in the boonies looks like an industrial farm with a road alongside, especially at low altitude.

Rivers, especially large lakes, large isolated mountains (not whole ranges unless there is only one), transmission lines, cities, large radio towers, and so on are all part of the toolkit.

It's absolutely key in any urgent situation (or any other one, for that matter) to remain calm and think through the situation to the extent it allows. If you have four hours of fuel for a 30 minute flight, you can circle for hours before it becomes an "I must land now" problem. That should be plenty of time to figure it out.

The glaring omission from your original statement was pulling out the sectional and trying to figure it out. There are places where landing at the nearest airport in sight might result in sniffing dirt. Even without visible military jets all over the place (e.g., a secret development lab in restricted airspace -- there are a couple of those "that don't exist"). To minimize the threat of airspace incursions, assuming you haven't already made one, you circle in place. Stay put. It's also possible that the big unidentified airport you spot might be closed and unsafe to land on. There are a fair number of closed former military airfields around (like Alameda NAS or NASA Crow's Landing). The majority of smaller airports are private use only. Some of these have significant hazards, such as wind patterns or obstructions or lack of snow removal equipment or lights, that you may not know about unless you've been in contact with the owner. Sometimes those are in the A/FD, sometimes not. Many of them are uncharted by request of the owner!

It's not foolproof -- operating near the edge of a sectional is an obvious place for confusion (and that's a reason to carry neighboring sectionals in your bag). But it's in your toolkit and you should be able to do it.

I was under the impression that it was a given. If I am climbing, looking for landmarks, I need to have something to reference those against.

I have also stated somewhere in there, and in my quest to find an airport (following a road is I think what I said I would do), I am also continuously reference what I see outside against my sectional, in an attempt to locate my position at all times.

That was so obvious, I didn't think it was worth stating.

 

[jesse]

The problem Mafoo is that you have a very limited set of experience to form such absolute opinions on and don't seem to listen to those that have been there and done that. Instead you argue with them. That is something you really should think long and hard about.

I've flown more hours in a WEEKEND then you have total time. Think about that. You haven't seen much so I'd take the feedback of those that have. It's nothing personal against you, it's just the way it is.

I really don't like to pull out the "hours" card. But come on man, you need to be listening and learning and improving. Not trying to educate.

 

[zaitcev]

Yea, I have one of these in my flight bag (VXA-220)

Pardon for jacking this conversation, but did you ever get it working with your headset? If yes, did you buy the PTT harness? Which one?

I have a VXA-220 and it does not seem be compatible with my DC set. I still carry it for talking to rescuers once on the ground, but I gave up on using it in the air.

 

[Mafoo]

The problem Mafoo is that you have a very limited set of experience to form such absolute opinions on and don't seem to listen to those that have been there and done that. Instead you argue with them. That is something you really should think long and hard about.

I've flown more hours in a WEEKEND then you have total time. Think about that. You haven't seen much so I'd take the feedback of those that have. It's nothing personal against you, it's just the way it is.

I really don't like to pull out the "hours" card. But come on man, you need to be listening and learning and improving. Not trying to educate.

I am here to learn. It's why I am on these boards.

The arguments I have had, are not with the education. It's with the attitude from some that because I like GPS, I must be inferior at using any other form of navigation. and I must never be using my brain.

I thanked MAKG1 for explaining to me where my error in judgement was off with respect to how to conduct myself if I think there is a chance of fire.

My response by those not so hung up on GPS, have also been to agree with my assessment. When all those things fail GPS, COM, VOR, and I am lost, it's ok to land if in the process of finding an airport, you have yet figured out where you are.

I have not questioned your technique. I have complemented you half a dozen times on the trick. I just think this community can be far more judgmental then they should be.

I promise you, if you went for a ride with me, your opinion of me would be far different then what comes across on these pages.

 

[Mafoo]

Pardon for jacking this conversation, but did you ever get it working with your headset? If yes, did you buy the PTT harness? Which one?

I have a VXA-220 and it does not seem be compatible with my DC set. I still carry it for talking to rescuers once on the ground, but I gave up on using it in the air.

You know, I have not tried it yet... I have just listened on it. It came with all the accessories for my headset. I think I will give it a shot now. I will let you know.

 

[Mafoo]

Pardon for jacking this conversation, but did you ever get it working with your headset? If yes, did you buy the PTT harness? Which one?

I have a VXA-220 and it does not seem be compatible with my DC set. I still carry it for talking to rescuers once on the ground, but I gave up on using it in the air.

I just tried it,and the first time it didn't work. Then I realized the connector has threads on it, takes a little pressure, but push it in, and screw it in, and it works.

I guess all that is so the weather proofing still works.

 

[bbchien]

Time for all of us to stop. Mafoo knows all that is to be known.
Here's the problem. His original response was this:

Then I would have found the closest strip of runway, and landed. I DO NOT want to be in the air when GPS goes out.

...not that he would climb, find a road, a town, figure out where he was, find it on the sectional, then determine direction to an airport, and land.

How are you going to find the clsoest strip of runway without a sectional, knowledge of position, heading and speed?

Landing out in a field or on a road tends to have a great number of last second surprises.....I wonder how many times he has actually landed out.

When the military is playing with their local interruptors, all five GPS devices are gonna go Tummy up.

Time to stop. Reminds me of the Redboard's HWMNBN's aka Whirlwind (Jason H).

 

[Mafoo]

Time for all of us to stop. Mafoo knows all that is to be known.

How you can get this idea, out of all I have said, is beyond me.

The first part of your statement is correct however. Time for all of us to stop.

 

[Mafoo]

Time for all of us to stop. Mafoo knows all that is to be known.
Here's the problem. His original response was this:
...not that he would climb, find a road, a town, figure out where he was, find it on the sectional, then determine direction to an airport, and land.

How are you going to find the clsoest strip of runway without a sectional, knowledge of position, heading and speed?

Landing out in a field or on a road tends to have a great number of last second surprises.....I wonder how many times he has actually landed out.

When the military is playing with their local interruptors, all five GPS devices are gonna go Tummy up.

Time to stop. Reminds me of the Redboard's HWMNBN's aka Whirlwind (Jason H).

I should have stated that more accurately

"Then I would have found the closest strip of airport runway, and landed. I DO NOT want to be in unknown airspace when the entire GPS grid goes out."

nice how you skipped my first post:

I know I would have climbed. Not sure how long it would have taken me to realize my DG was off.

Also, odd he didn't use the sun at all as a reference. That would have told me rather quickly I was going the wrong way.

I would have also looked on the sectional, and tuned my radio, and asked for a mic check.

 

[bbchien]

I should have stated that more accurately

"Then I would have found the closest strip of airport runway, and landed. I DO NOT want to be in unknown airspace when the entire GPS grid goes out."

nice how you skipped my first post:

I know I would have climbed. Not sure how long it would have taken me to realize my DG was off.

Also, odd he didn't use the sun at all as a reference. That would have told me rather quickly I was going the wrong way.

I would have also looked on the sectional, and tuned my radio, and asked for a mic check.

You remind me of that larson cartoon where the cow says, "It's the rest of the herd, not me...."

Whatever you say, Mafoo. The point is, you are so superior to the rest of the herd, it's childlike. Have a great life.

 

[TMetzinger]

I guess the getting shot statement was a little dramatic. Though you never know I could get so lost and end up in Cuba.

Doug

Um... he didn't get shot. He DID end up with people pointing guns at him. He did end up getting himself and his plane thoroughly searched. He did end up getting interrogated (not tortured or beaten, just interviewed) for several hours. He got fingerprinted.

Once they were confident he was what he claimed to be, he was treated courteously, and was even allowed to fly the airplane off the field at a later time.

 

[Mafoo]

You remind me of that larson cartoon where the cow says, "It's the rest of the herd, not me...."

Whatever you say, Mafoo. The point is, you are so superior to the rest of the herd, it's childlike. Have a great life.

Let me see if I get this right...

you jump on me because I said I would use a GPS before I climbed, looked at a sectional, or tried to figure out what direction I was going by looking out the window.

I show you where I said I would try all of that before I ever even talked about GPS, and instead of apologizing to me for ripping on me for something I didn't do, you insult me and walk away?

Really?

 

[bbchien]

Let me see if I get this right...

you jump on me because I said I would use a GPS before I climbed, looked at a sectional, or tried to figure out what direction I was going by looking out the window.

I show you where I said I would try all of that before I ever even talked about GPS, and instead of apologizing to me for ripping on me for something I didn't do, you insult me and walk away?

Really?

Yup. Because you lack the perspective to see how ridiculous a discussion with you is. You clearly have no intent of even considering altering your opinion, or recognizing another's opinions as valid.

Remember, it's "BECAUSE YOU SAID SO, THAT's WHY".

No point in having a discussion. Bye.

 

[Mafoo]

Yup. Because you lack the perspective to see how ridiculous a discussion with you is. You clearly have no intent of even considering altering your opinion, or recognizing another's opinions as valid.

Remember, it's "BECAUSE YOU SAID SO, THAT's WHY".

No point in having a discussion. Bye.

Here is the crazy thing about all this. My opinion is pretty much the same as everyone else's, including yours. I am arguing because for some reason, people lock on that line, and all the sudden I am some dumb ass who only uses GPS.

This is the root of the issue: I think if I am lost, have yet to realize where I am or what airspace I am about to enter, and I find out the entire GPS grid goes down, I want to land.

I never said not wanting to land is bad, or any other choice anyone wants to make is the wrong one. This entire thread, has been me defending that if I chose to do that, it does not make me unfit to be a pilot. It might make me more conservative then you, or 90% of those who fly. It might even be something I would not end up doing after 200 hours.

But I refuse to be told that exiting the sky safely when you feel you're in a dangerous situation is the wrong answer.

In the future there is a good chance I will change what I think a dangerous situation is. But I will never ever change my opinion of what I think I should do when it happens. I also don't think that makes me unfit to fly.

 

[MAKG1]

Still missing the point.

The "entire" GPS "grid" (sic -- it's a "constellation" or a "system") becomes unusable over significant areas on a regular basis. It's not an emergency.

You're still assuming ultra-reliability, which is a fool's errand for any complex system (and even a large number of simple systems).

It's not that landing under emergency situations is wrong. It's that assuming a routine situation is an emergency is wrong.

 

[Jaybird180]

Here is the crazy thing about all this. My opinion is pretty much the same as everyone else's, including yours. I am arguing because for some reason, people lock on that line, and all the sudden I am some dumb ass who only uses GPS.

This is the root of the issue: I think if I am lost, have yet to realize where I am or what airspace I am about to enter, and I find out the entire GPS grid goes down, I want to land.

I never said not wanting to land is bad, or any other choice anyone wants to make is the wrong one. This entire thread, has been me defending that if I chose to do that, it does not make me unfit to be a pilot. It might make me more conservative then you, or 90% of those who fly. It might even be something I would not end up doing after 200 hours.

But I refuse to be told that exiting the sky safely when you feel you're in a dangerous situation is the wrong answer.

In the future there is a good chance I will change what I think a dangerous situation is. But I will never ever change my opinion of what I think I should do when it happens. I also don't think that makes me unfit to fly.

Mafoo, this thread isn't about you per se, you're just the meat of the month. My intent was to get ALL to try and see things from another perspective.

With all due respect Bruce (and some others) your disposition toward Mafoo shows that I FAILED to clearly communicate that intent. You only sought to beat him into submission. I will not try harder next time, I will try smarter.

But pilots are a stubborn lot....all of us.

 

[\__[Ô]__/]

The problem with your setup, is it implies you have a finite amount of training time, and to be proficient at GPS, you need to sacrifice other forms of navigation.

How about you spend XX number of hours training cross country flights, until you are as good at all forms of navigation as you can be?

I'm certainly not going to argue with training to proficiency in various methods. The OP asked what people say to the crowd that says only learn GPS (and i extended that to the use GPS almost exclusively crowd).

There's no doubt in my mind that pilots should be taught to use GPS. But IMO, in a training environment, relying on GPS most of the time is wasted opportunity. I think a student gains more from using non-GPS methods than just following the magic line.

GPS is the only one I would think people are grossly undertrained to use. Also, as time goes on, GPS units change. Once you upgrade GPS units, you need to retrain on them. I would bet 90% of people with a 430, only know how to use 30% of it's features.

For VFR flight, that 30% does most or all of what you need. And it's pretty simple to learn. It's diminishing returns after that. I don't think spending cross country flight training practising every little feature is very productive. Sure, it's good to know everything about the equipment. But that's something easily done on the ground. And maybe even best done on the ground.

And your comment brings up the point that the non GPS options are a reliable fallback when you're in a plane with an unfamiliar GPS system.

The intent behind all of this is to ensure that the pilot isn't crippled without GPS.

 

[Ghery]

And yes, a "wrong buttons" issue cost one local rated pilot a few weeks on the ground because he followed his GPS into the expanded Camp David area even though he knew it was active and was trying to use his GPS to avoid it. He fumble-thumbed a course adjustment and ended up with a D-> right through the outer area around P-40 (the expanded area not being displayed on his non-XM GPS). Had he used a sectional and DR/pilotage, he might have realized his GPS was taking him somewhere he did not wish to go.

On my instrument check ride (first try) I screwed up the button pushing on the 430W somewhere along the line and while established on the localizer for the ILS the 430W was trying to tell me to go the opposite direction. If I had blindly followed the GPS instructions I would have blown the ride then and there (instead of later). Instead, I recoognized that the GPS was in error due to something I had done and simply kept the needles centered (I knew I had the ILS tuned correctly and had identified the localizer) and flew the approach just fine. Know when the GPS is lying to you and have a backup.

I am a new pilot having got my PPL about in Mar 2011. Received my IFR in July this year, and now working on my commercial. I am also an older student(50). I have just over 325 hrs just over half of which has been training of some type. I have down just over 90 hours of cross country, about 50 hours of IMC of which 10 are actually IMC, and about 10 hours of night flight. I still consider myself a beginner pilot but I thin I have some insight into what I like and do not like.

Wow. 12 years and just over 360 hours. And my wife complains that all I want to do is fly.

The problem Mafoo is that you have a very limited set of experience to form such absolute opinions on and don't seem to listen to those that have been there and done that. Instead you argue with them. That is something you really should think long and hard about.

I've flown more hours in a WEEKEND then you have total time. Think about that. You haven't seen much so I'd take the feedback of those that have. It's nothing personal against you, it's just the way it is.

I really don't like to pull out the "hours" card. But come on man, you need to be listening and learning and improving. Not trying to educate.

Mafoo - listen to Jesse. Personally, his description of what he put his student through sounds like fun to me. Maybe I'm warped, but that sounded like an excellent exercise, even for a pilot with a few hours in the log. Sometime I may have to visit him and have him put me throught the ringer. Sounds like a great learning experience.

Time for all of us to stop. Mafoo knows all that is to be known.
Here's the problem. His original response was this:
...not that he would climb, find a road, a town, figure out where he was, find it on the sectional, then determine direction to an airport, and land.

How are you going to find the clsoest strip of runway without a sectional, knowledge of position, heading and speed?

Landing out in a field or on a road tends to have a great number of last second surprises.....I wonder how many times he has actually landed out.

When the military is playing with their local interruptors, all five GPS devices are gonna go Tummy up.

Time to stop. Reminds me of the Redboard's HWMNBN's aka Whirlwind (Jason H).

I thought HWMNBN also hung out here.

Mafoo, I'm not that old in my flying experience, but I learned in a plane that didn't have GPS. We (the club) added it a few years later. Are you saying I shouldn't have flown without it? Three of our four planes don't have approach certified GPS receivers installed and the one non-approach certified GPS has some annoying habits that cause me to not even play with it. I shouldn't fly our 182 or Arrow because they don't have GPS? I don't think so.

You've heard from a number of very experienced instructors in this thread. Listen to a non-instructor. I'll parrot some words from the DPE I did my instrument ride with when I said that the 430W was almost like cheating - "Use all the tools aviailable in the cockpit". He was right, don't be dependent on any one of them, know how to use all of them. BTW, that DPE was a former F-4 driver. He knew what he was talking about. Your GPS fails? So what? You have other tools at your disposal. A GPS failure should be nothing more than an inconvenience, not a reason to land and figure out where you are.

 

[Mafoo]

Still missing the point.

The "entire" GPS "grid" (sic -- it's a "constellation" or a "system") becomes unusable over significant areas on a regular basis. It's not an emergency.

You're still assuming ultra-reliability, which is a fool's errand for any complex system (and even a large number of simple systems).

It's not that landing under emergency situations is wrong. It's that assuming a routine situation is an emergency is wrong.

I get that what I think makes me want to not be flying, is less then others. I get that there is a good chance even I will feel differently about the situation someday. But let me ask you a direct question.

I have, for whatever reason, flown 30 minutes in an unknown direction. At the same time I realized I was lost my 430 goes dark, I climbed and looked for landmarks to reference against my sectional. I could not find anything obvious. I pull my iPhone out of my pocket, but no GPS single. I look over at my iPad, and I get the same response. Now I know the constellation is at least locally down. I slow down, and then calculate how far I have traveled, adjust for wind, and draw a circle on the chart. I know I am somewhere in that area. I look over at my compass, and realize my gauges are off far more then they should be. I then adjust them, and consider I might have a vacum problem. I assume my VOR is down (mistake, I know). I bring up COM 2, and call flight services. No response. I look for lakes, rivers, roads, and all I see distinguishable is a road. I follow it for 10 minutes, and come to a small town with an airport. I fly over the airport high enough to be out of the pattern, but low enough to read the numbers. It has one runway of 36-18 with no X's on it. I look on my chart (expanding my circle to include 10 minutes of flight) and see I have 7 airports this can be. I look around, and realize this could be any of 5 of them. All of them however are uncontrolled. I dial in traffic for each one, ask for a mic check, and get nothing.

At this point I can do one of two things. Leave this airport and search for landmarks to help me figure out which one it is, or land at it.

My question:

If I chose to land, am I unfit to be a pilot?