Nice new ForeFlight feature

I agree, but if you disable the GPS, dead batteries in a handheld, 1/2 way to destination. Can they still get there old school? I like your style, show me first that you can do it without GPS, then show me you can use GPS and still fly.

Why would most folks need to be able to "get there old school?" There are plenty of good reasons why a pilot would need to be able to read the chart, but "getting there" probably isn't one of them anymore. With panel-mounts, portables, smartphones, and tablets, GPS is perhaps the single most redundant capability in most light airplanes these days.

Sure, GPS cannot and should not be sole source during instruction, but let's be honest, it's most likely going to be the primary source in practice. In addition, most folks with EFBs probably aren't going to be drawing lines on charts, doing hand calculations, or any of that nonsense after the checkride. For maximum benefit, instruction needs to be adapted to the reality of technology in the cockpit, or instructors will be doing a substantial disservice to those whom they instruct.


JKG
 
Last edited:
Deep in a mountain canyon, loss of signal is very possible. Keep in mind, that most GPS receivers pick up eight to eleven satellites at any one time.
Nearly all of my flying is serious mountain country. You certainly need to know, where you are, despite GPS; but the odds of it working, are far greater than not. I know that from my experience, and the experiences of many others. It seems, that only a few CFIs have weekly GPS failures.
As I've previously mentioned............a good friend who fly's Boeings (in which GPS is the #1 nav system).......is now up to eleven years, with just one GPS loss of signal, of short duration. Of course, some Boeings still don't have the luxury of GPS.

Government jamming....sure it can be jammed. But when a foreign country knocks out all of our satellites, following a nuclear bombardment.........we'll most likely have to quit flying GA that day.

As to the workings of GPS............it's about time that some instructors become more familiar, and pass this info along to their students. I know for a fact, that some instructors are still not comfortable with all the varieties of GPS's. Happily, manufacturers are starting to make them more user friendly. We don't want anybody to blindly follow the magenta line.

If terrain obscures GPS line of sight to the settelites, then there could be barely few available to pint point rough location. Garmins for example don't have radar altimeter build in while Bendix King has. So King will need less satellites to get correct location. Just saying....

I have many friends consistently loosing GPS signal out of KSAN. Different airplanes, different GPS units, but the same result.

If we are talking about Boeings they have inertial refferene systems (IRS) coupled with GPS, if GPS singal lost they can still continue on IRS. So they less affected unless GPS signal outages will be pretty long.

Anyhow GPS helps but doesn't really substitutes traditional navigation. VOR and NDB provide necessary redundancy, so let's don't rush to decommission them
 
If terrain obscures GPS line of sight to the settelites, then there could be barely few available to pint point rough location. Garmins for example don't have radar altimeter build in while Bendix King has. So King will need less satellites to get correct location. Just saying....

You would have to be at the bottom of steep terrain, to obscure the satellites. At this point in time, thanks to GPS & terrain mapping databases, a pilot will get terrain warnings far in advance.........of what was possible with radar altimeter.

As to myself, I use SPOT for mountain flights, to let other people know flight paths. It at least leaves a good trail to follow, and if there is time.......you hit the button, which transmits a instant GPS location signal.
 
If terrain obscures GPS line of sight to the settelites, then there could be barely few available to pint point rough location. Garmins for example don't have radar altimeter build in while Bendix King has. So King will need less satellites to get correct location. Just saying....

I have many friends consistently loosing GPS signal out of KSAN. Different airplanes, different GPS units, but the same result.

If we are talking about Boeings they have inertial refferene systems (IRS) coupled with GPS, if GPS singal lost they can still continue on IRS. So they less affected unless GPS signal outages will be pretty long.

Anyhow GPS helps but doesn't really substitutes traditional navigation. VOR and NDB provide necessary redundancy, so let's don't rush to decommission them

GPS is effectively replacing "traditional" navigation for just about everyone. Even the FAA has acknowledged that fact. GPS costs less, is far more precise, and more reliable.

Most newer GPS receivers are also capable of receiving position information from the Russian GLONASS satellites as well.

I would agree that a basic ground-based navigation system should remain, although I am open to considering that I may be wrong. However, if the DoD considers GPS reliable enough to base weapon guidance on it, it should be plenty reliable for civilian aviation.


JKG
 
However, if the DoD considers GPS reliable enough to base weapon guidance on it, it should be plenty reliable for civilian aviation.


JKG

A> The DoD utilizes GPS weapon guidance in regions where they are perhaps not as concerned about collateral damage as you or I might be in the air.

B> I have lost GPS signal for extended periods of time in the SW, however due to the proximity of restricted or MOA airpspace, I assume the DoD (or equivalent) had something to do with it. Here's a data dump from my 296 near Lawson, OK showing a 3000 knot climb through 50,000' in a NA Bonanza. With 8 satellites linked and reporting. B)


8:05:08 AM 6592 ft 3135 mph 231° true
8:05:16 AM 6592 ft 3449 mph 229° true
8:05:25 AM 14,456 ft 3300 mph 229° true
8:05:34 AM 18,989 ft 3288 mph 229° true
8:05:47 AM 25,632 ft 3278 mph 229° true
8:06:02 AM 33,498 ft 3268 mph 229° true
8:06:13 AM 39,306 ft 3260 mph 230° true
8:06:24 AM 45,201 ft 3248 mph 230° true
8:06:35 AM 51,059 ft 3238 mph 230° true
8:06:44 AM 55,860 ft

I no longer have the same trust in GPS that I once had.
 
I have lost GPS signal for extended periods of time in the SW, however due to the proximity of restricted or MOA airpspace, I assume the DoD (or equivalent) had something to do with it. Here's a data dump from my 296 near Lawson, OK showing a 3000 knot climb through 50,000' in a NA Bonanza. With 8 satellites linked and reporting.

That is one honkin' fast Bonanza!
 
That is one honkin' fast Bonanza!

The left seat view wasn't nearly as impressive as the numbers would have suggested. :(



(it was fun to see the little simulated panel altimeter winding up as I flipped through the screens, however)
 
Last edited:
GPS is effectively replacing "traditional" navigation for just about everyone. Even the FAA has acknowledged that fact. GPS costs less, is far more precise, and more reliable.

Most newer GPS receivers are also capable of receiving position information from the Russian GLONASS satellites as well.

JKG

Garmin just released a portable receiver that will do this (GPS+GLONASS); it will also supply a position signal to the iPad via BlueTooth.

https://buy.garmin.com/shop/shop.do?pID=109826
 
A> The DoD utilizes GPS weapon guidance in regions where they are perhaps not as concerned about collateral damage as you or I might be in the air.

B> I have lost GPS signal for extended periods of time in the SW, however due to the proximity of restricted or MOA airpspace, I assume the DoD (or equivalent) had something to do with it. Here's a data dump from my 296 near Lawson, OK showing a 3000 knot climb through 50,000' in a NA Bonanza. With 8 satellites linked and reporting. B)


8:05:08 AM 6592 ft 3135 mph 231° true
8:05:16 AM 6592 ft 3449 mph 229° true
8:05:25 AM 14,456 ft 3300 mph 229° true
8:05:34 AM 18,989 ft 3288 mph 229° true
8:05:47 AM 25,632 ft 3278 mph 229° true
8:06:02 AM 33,498 ft 3268 mph 229° true
8:06:13 AM 39,306 ft 3260 mph 230° true
8:06:24 AM 45,201 ft 3248 mph 230° true
8:06:35 AM 51,059 ft 3238 mph 230° true
8:06:44 AM 55,860 ft

I no longer have the same trust in GPS that I once had.

In this case, was te SUA active? Were there NOTAMs for GOS interference, or did you not check? How do you know the 296 wasn't to blame?

Your 296 isn't legal to use as required navigation equipment. There is a reason for that. VORs and NDBs are less accurate and subject to even more interference than GPS. The bottom line is that GPS is the future of navigation, so I guess that you'll learn to trust it, or only fly when you can see where you're going.


JKG
 
VORs and NDBs are less accurate and subject to even more interference than GPS.

They're subject to exactly the same interference, and GPS is significantly weaker. It takes very little RF power to jam GPS.

NDB/ADF is actually quite difficult to jam but easy to fool the DF equipment.

VOR is simple to jam, but requires more RF power than GPS by at least an order of magnitude.

Who told you the above?
 
They're subject to exactly the same interference, and GPS is significantly weaker. It takes very little RF power to jam GPS.

NDB/ADF is actually quite difficult to jam but easy to fool the DF equipment.

VOR is simple to jam, but requires more RF power than GPS by at least an order of magnitude.

Who told you the above?
JG, I would suggest listening to Nate on subjects relating to radio transmission and GPS. Just sayin...
 
JG, I would suggest listening to Nate on subjects relating to radio transmission and GPS. Just sayin...

Nah, just another voice with some info. I don't spend much thought on jamming, and there're some bright folks out there who do.

I'm usually going for the opposite. Trying to find what stupid RF source is effectively jamming me. Doing weak signal VHF+ reception means I'm trying to drive the receiver sensitivity as high as I can. At a cost of lower selectivity.

Putting pre-amplifiers on RF receivers, is the same concept as turning up the gain on a microphone -- now everyone complains they can hear every little noise in the background of the room. So to get back the targeted audio only, you start adding filters to cut the surrounding noise. Eventually you run out of gain and filters and lose the audio entirely if the thing being recorded is just too far from the mic and the signal too weak. Same thing with antenna systems and receivers.

One can look up the theoretical noise floor for any particular wavelength and temperature in Kelvin at the antenna and use that as a goal. In big cities, you'll never get there. Too damn many noise sources.

I'm just an amateur. I like the stuff.

Did you know a number of the antennas that receive the signals in the Deep Space Network (the giant dishes we use to hear signals from Voyager 1 and 2, for example) are cryogenically cooled to reduce heat noise? Heat noise! Isn't that amazing? No one told me in school that you'd be able to HEAR HEAT at RF frequencies. (Well, mostly because I didn't study engineering or RF I'm school, but still...).

Hear heat!

That's just so damn cool (no pun intended), it warps my brain cells.

Yet another reason I will someday retire outside of a major city by a good distance. Low RF noise floor. ;)
 
They're subject to exactly the same interference, and GPS is significantly weaker. It takes very little RF power to jam GPS.

NDB/ADF is actually quite difficult to jam but easy to fool the DF equipment.

VOR is simple to jam, but requires more RF power than GPS by at least an order of magnitude.

Who told you the above?

If they were subject to "the exact same interference," the interference wouldn't be a valid reason to prefer one over the other (and I'm not arguing that it is, by the way.) The reality is that they aren't necessarily subject to the same interference in the same ways; for example, the frequency spectrum is quite different. Ground-based navigation is typically stationary and may be subject to local interference that may not necessarily affect satellite-based navigation. Interference, however, doesn't top my list of problems with ground-based navigation.

VORs and other ground-based navigation aids are also single points of failure for navigation purposes. If all or part of the facility is impacted, navigation ability from that facility is impacted as well. It happens more often than you probably realize. GPS position can be derived from multiple satellites, with variations in accuracy based upon the satellites being received. It is a more accurate, more reliable, and less expensive system to operate.


JKG
 
Last edited:
JG, I would suggest listening to Nate on subjects relating to radio transmission and GPS. Just sayin...

No worries, I never believe anything unless I hear it from Henning. :)

The reality is that it isn't a stretch to know that RF interference isn't universal. You can have interference with signals on one frequency and not another, for example. There is no question that any RF transmission can be jammed, but I made no statement about jamming or a specific transmission's susceptibility to it.

There are plenty of potential environmental causes of interference for ground-based transmitters which would have little to no impact on satellite-based transmissions, and the entire legacy navaid system itself lacks the ability to verify the accuracy of a particular transmission.


JKG
 
Heh. You kinda just need to go try it sometime, many of your beliefs are quite wrong.

Broadband RF noise is exceedingly easy to produce in signal levels high enough to jam just about anything. From afar.

All the stuff about environmentally produced noise is silly. A good rainstorm can wipe out GPS reception just as easily as NDB. VOR actually stands a slightly better chance of working in naturally produced RF noise. The power levels, distances, and band, as well as the modulation type, all picked for flying in clouds and storms.

GPS receivers today are awesome in the low levels of signal needed to be recoverable, but you're going to lose a couple of weaker birds when you penetrate precipitation. That's why there's so darn many satellites in the cluster.

And of course, if you consider the Sun natural, it can produce flares that can only harm GPS and rarely harm VOR or NDB reception. (Oceanic reception of NDB being an exception. A good flare can jack up the ionosphere enough that NDB long-range reception is wiped out.)

Thunderstorms also produce lighting which can affect all three, in brief bursts. Considering that lighting is just the world's largest known broadband spark-gap transmitter. ;)

They're ALL a lot more fragile than you realize. But your bias toward space based Nav being stronger against various forms of interference, really doesn't hold water.

I ain't trying to be a know it all. I've just chased a lot of interference sources. One particular bad electrical transformer on top of a Downtown Denver building wiped out 121.5 as a useful frequency around here for weeks until a crew of eight of us went out one Friday night and hunted it down for fun.

Confusing as hell to find, since all the gear would point toward Downtown until you'd drive into the steel and glass canyons and watch it bounce all over the darn place, off those buildings. We hunted for hours. We were all sick of hearing it on monitor receivers. FCC didn't do it, FAA cared even less. A bunch of geeks with DF gear fixed the problem on a Friday night. It took until 1AM so we never got the usual Mexican dinner we usually treated ourselves to with friends when we did big noise hunts.

Find the IF frequency of any receiver on board an aircraft and I can build ya a guaranteed jammer that'd completely take it out, in a circuit barely bigger than a postage stamp. The battery would be bigger. The distance-squared rule for power levels, rules the day. Attacking the IF of a reciver if you're close to it, instead of multiplying up to the real receiver frequency makes the job even easier.

There's no magic bullet in GPS. It's RF based and susceptible to the same kinds noise sources as the others. Only the frequency is different. No big deal to multiply up and make noise up there as easily as down low or in the middle.

Just take all the static wicks off the airplane and fly through a nice heavy dry snowstorm. They'll all be affected. I guarantee it.
 
And of course, if you consider the Sun natural, it can produce flares that can only harm GPS and rarely harm VOR or NDB reception.

And everytime we've had those solar flares for the last couple of years, I've waited in anticipation..........to hear the cries of all those with aviation GPS failures. It's just not happening.

Besides, the reason Alaska pushed GPS with the Capstone project, is to get around the line of sight reception problems associated with the VOR system & surrounding terrain. Anyone who flies a lot of mountainous area, knows exactly, the limitations of VOR. I certainly do..........and it never effects the reception of GPS..........with so many satellites at so many angles.

We can come up with all of the excuses in the world, but GPS still outshines the old methods, day after day.

L.Adamson
 
Never said it wasn't better suited to most missions. Just said it's as susceptible to bad juju as anything else.

It's scientific and historical fact that flare activity big enough to kill even ground-based systems does, and will, happen again.

And we wouldn't have RAIM if receivers always worked properly and enough satellites were always in view in all conditions to guarantee approach-quality reception.

If GPS were perfect, FAA wouldn't be keeping any of the VORs at all.

Like everything else in tech and aviation, it's a rationalization of the risks we're willing to take -- to say its "always" going to work or is "always" better.

No big deal if you keep a backup system of some sort on board. Airliners like Inertial Nav as their backup. Seems to meet their needs. ;)
 
In this case, was te SUA active? Were there NOTAMs for GOS interference, or did you not check? How do you know the 296 wasn't to blame?

Your 296 isn't legal to use as required navigation equipment. There is a reason for that. VORs and NDBs are less accurate and subject to even more interference than GPS. The bottom line is that GPS is the future of navigation, so I guess that you'll learn to trust it, or only fly when you can see where you're going.


JKG

Wow. Thanks for clearing that up for me. I never even considered the fact that a portable yoke mounted GPS might not be required navigation equipment in my plane.

I also didn't know that a signal in the order of up to a few kilowatts from a VOR would be more subject to interference than that GPS signal of 10 watts or so from earth orbit.

I guess that I'll just have to be resigned to drop any skepticism I have about any technology I use that could be part of "the future", since I obviously shouldn't rely on any backup technology when I fly.

You know, I think I might just go ahead and rip out my second mag, fuel pump, and my other redundant avionics, too. That would give me a little bonus payload while I'm following that little magenta line on the 3" screen. ;)
 
Back
Top