What to do with #2?

[TomRV4]

Jason,

I'm pretty sure the #1 radio crossfills to #2, but not vice versa (not 100% sure...I'll double check on Monday).

If I'm correct, it would seem loading #2 with the approach back into my departure airport on really cruddy days would keep me from having to twist knobs and push a lot of buttons...at least until I have a lot more experience...

Plus, my home airport has strictly GPS approaches, so no go on loading an ILS or VOR frequency before hand.

Tom

Are your 430's normally configured in auto crossfill? If so, GPS1 and GPS2 will provide the same course guidance so if you load an approach on one, it will be loaded on both.

I normally depart with the ILS or VOR freq in active or standby on NAV1 in case I have to return but do not load an approach for the departure airport.

 

[HPNPilot1200]

I'm pretty sure the #1 radio crossfills to #2, but not vice versa (not 100% sure...I'll double check on Monday).

In that case, #1 is probably set to auto crossfill and #2 is set to manual crossfill. If you set #2 to auto crossfill they will both talk to each other both ways. Note that both units have to be on the same database cycle number otherwise they won't crossfill.

If #2 is in manual crossfill, you can load the approach there on the ground, you just have to remember to view the correct nav source.

 

[Dr. O]

It is interesting that the statistics clearly indicate that the glass cockpits in otherwise identical airframes have a higher crash rate than steam gauges...
Reading this thread about how you set up and cross fill your Xbox, errrr, dual 430, gives me clues as to why...

denny-o

 

[HPNPilot1200]

It is interesting that the statistics clearly indicate that the glass cockpits in otherwise identical airframes have a higher crash rate than steam gauges...
Reading this thread about how you set up and cross fill your Xbox, errrr, dual 430, gives me clues as to why...

Yup, you have to make sure you are following the correct source!! I call the CDI button on the G1000 the "pass/fail button" on instrument checkrides. I can't tell you how many times I've heard people flying an approach using the wrong nav source.

 

[poadeleted20]

You're a sciolist Ron. You are an expert at Google/cut and paste, but your comprehension skills leave much to be desired. You'll twist anything to try to make your point.

And you are fond of posting your own personal ideas as official FAA policy even when HQ says the official policy is something else. I don't work for the FAA, so if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. You tell us you do work for the FAA, so you have a responsibility to be right about FAA policy. Either get it right or quit posting stuff without checking with the appropriate AFS HQ office or the Regional or Chief Counsel.

Still waiting for that "official guidance" which says "shall" when used in regulatory documents doesn't mean "mandatory" and that 14 CFR 1.3 doesn't mean what it says it means. The fact that your response is merely another ad hominem attack on me personally rather than a citiation of that "official guidance" tells me a lot.

 

[poadeleted20]

Thanks Tim, my point exactly.

One has to read the whole statement and put it into proper context. :wink2:

...and if you really read what I said originally in post #28, you'd see that what Tim said is no different than the statement I made with which you took great issue. Once again, your personal animosity towards me has clouded your reasoning.

 

[Jaybird180]

I fail to see the conflict. When I am PIC and I don't need the radio for other functions, I cannot justify a failure to monitor guard. Unfortunately I'm ususally on FF and haven't mastered the skill of listening to 2 sources simultaneously and devote my few brain cells to flying the airplane, thinking about my approach, monitoring weather, traffic, listening for my call sign and just don't have enough attention units leftover.

 

[gprellwitz]

I fail to see the conflict. When I am PIC and I don't need the radio for other functions, I cannot justify a failure to monitor guard. Unfortunately I'm ususally on FF and haven't mastered the skill of listening to 2 sources simultaneously and devote my few brain cells to flying the airplane, thinking about my approach, monitoring weather, traffic, listening for my call sign and just don't have enough attention units leftover.

FWIW, guard tends to be really quiet, so it's not hard to monitor it without getting distracted.

 

[denverpilot]

I was a good little boy and had my #2 on Guard as much as possible today.

We heard someone call KCOS Ground on it by accident.

Do I get a cookie?

 

[Anymouse]

FWIW, guard tends to be really quiet, so it's not hard to monitor it without getting distracted.

Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.

 

[poadeleted20]

Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.

'Specially around here, where you very often hear something like this...

"Aircraft 10 miles northwest of Westminster VOR heading 270 altitude 2800 squawking 1200 speed 100 knots, this is the United States Air Foce on Guard. You are approaching a flight restricted area 12 o'clock, 8 miles. Turn east to avoid this area."

"Aircraft 15 miles northwest of Westminster VOR heading 270 altitude 2800 squawking 1200 speed 100 knots, this is the United States Air Foce on Guard. You are approaching a flight restricted area 12 o'clock, 2 miles. Turn east immediately to avoid this area."

"Aircraft 18 miles northwest of Westminster VOR heading 270 altitude 2800 squawking 1200 speed 100 knots, this is the United States Air Foce on Guard. You have entered a flight restricted area. Contact FAA or exit the area. Nearest exit point heading 090."

"Aircraft 20 miles northwest of Westminster VOR heading 270 altitude 2800 squawking 1200 speed 100 knots, this is the United States Air Foce on Guard. You are being intercepted by armed military aircraft..."

"Aircraft tail number N12345, this is the armed interceptor aircraft on your right wing..."

If you're gonna screw up around the DC SFRA while not talking to ATC, at least have 121.5 up on your radio so you hear and heed the first transmission and don't cause the other four.

 

[Jaybird180]

"Aircraft tail number N12345, this is the armed interceptor aircraft on your right wing..."

If you're gonna screw up around the DC SFRA while not talking to ATC, at least have 121.5 up on your radio so you hear and heed the first transmission and don't cause the other four.

Or at least brush up on the intercept procedures. They don't take kindly to not following their directions. Ask me how I know.




j/k

 

[rhoab]

I set second to nearest airports when not in flight plan mode and monitor what my options are in case of emergency.

 

[RotorAndWing]

And you are fond of posting your own personal ideas as official FAA policy even when HQ says the official policy is something else.

I have just conveyed what my experience and background have taught me. Please show me where I asserted this was "official FAA policy". I simply stated a definition found in guidance.

As far "official policy from HQ" as you put it, there are multitudes of Notices, Orders and Memos in the FAA. Some of it concurs, some doesn't. And I'm 100% sure that you have never seen all the guidance.

I don't work for the FAA, so if I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

Thanks for admitting that as you tend to mislead people into thinking just the opposite.

You tell us you do work for the FAA, so you have a responsibility to be right about FAA policy. Either get it right or quit posting stuff without checking with the appropriate AFS HQ office or the Regional or Chief Counsel.

I do get it right, but it just doesn't set well with you. As far as my employment, there are several people here on this board that know me, so your feeble attempts to discredit me don't carry much water.

Your have a propensity to argue with and try to discredit individuals that are in positions with the experience and knowledge that you only have a layman's understanding of.

Still waiting for that "official guidance" which says "shall" when used in regulatory documents doesn't mean "mandatory" and that 14 CFR 1.3 doesn't mean what it says it means.

You're the Google/cut-n-paste guru here, look it up. But remember, not all FAA publications are available to the public.

The fact that your response is merely another ad hominem attack on me personally rather than a citiation of that "official guidance" tells me a lot.

Et tu Levy?

 

[denverpilot]

Not to interrupt a good ****ing match, but...

I've seen this "I'm at the FAA and we don't publish all of our guidance documents" line before in other threads. Not much but it's there or insinuated.

If you don't mind me saying so, it sure makes you guys look bad.

Think an FOIA request could "free" all that work we all paid for that you guys think hoarding is helpful or worth paying for in the first place?

It's just a general comment. Calling your customers "laymen" and insulting the people who pay you to do what you do, would certainly be considered extremely unprofessional at best out here in the real world. None of my customers would put up with that kind of attitude, for certain.

The helpful response would be to publish document names and reference numbers for Ron to file those aforementioned FOIA requests.

Saying, "We have documented proof that you're wrong that you paid us to work on, but we don't publish it" comes off really badly. Makes you and your employer look bad. Really bad.

I'm really glad you guys and gals are there doing the job, but this just comes off as totally wrong. What's the point if it's not published?

Anything not Classified that government pays for in Academia, gets published. Why not the FAA? If cost and distribution are the problem, one FOIA request and a privately funded webserver certainly fixes those problems in the modern Internet-connected world.

Now back to your regularly scheduled argument where the government guy tells off everyone else citing documents unavailable to those "served" by his employer...

Is that really the impression you want to leave us all with? Just saying...

Doesn't seem too smart to annoy us non-government-funded peasants who pay the bills...

 

[RotorAndWing]

Not to interrupt a good ****ing match, but...

I've seen this "I'm at the FAA and we don't publish all of our guidance documents" line before in other threads. Not much but it's there or insinuated.

If you don't mind me saying so, it sure makes you guys look bad.

Think an FOIA request could "free" all that work we all paid for that you guys think hoarding is helpful or worth paying for in the first place?

It's just a general comment. Calling your customers "laymen" and insulting the people who pay you to do what you do, would certainly be considered extremely unprofessional at best out here in the real world. None of my customers would put up with that kind of attitude, for certain.

The helpful response would be to publish document names and reference numbers for Ron to file those aforementioned FOIA requests.

Saying, "We have documented proof that you're wrong that you paid us to work on, but we don't publish it" comes off really badly. Makes you and your employer look bad. Really bad.

I'm really glad you guys and gals are there doing the job, but this just comes off as totally wrong. What's the point if it's not published?

Anything not Classified that government pays for in Academia, gets published. Why not the FAA? If cost and distribution are the problem, one FOIA request and a privately funded webserver certainly fixes those problems in the modern Internet-connected world.

Now back to your regularly scheduled argument where the government guy tells off everyone else citing documents unavailable to those "served" by his employer...

Is that really the impression you want to leave us all with? Just saying...

Doesn't seem too smart to annoy us non-government-funded peasants who pay the bills...

My point on the unpublished Orders and Notices are that because one can't obtain it on Google does not mean it doesn't exist.

If you don't mind me saying so, it sure makes you guys look bad.

Doesn't seem too smart to annoy us non-government-funded peasants who pay the bills...

You've made it a point time and time again your disdain for anyone serving in a public job and that somehow you feel you are above them. So be it.

Let's look at the flip side of the coin:

Why should a government employee sit back and take a bashing? Do you feel it's your (or anyone else's right) to stereotype and talk down to someone because they have a federal job??

It's just a general comment. Calling your customers "laymen" and insulting the people who pay you to do what you do, would certainly be considered extremely unprofessional at best out here in the real world. None of my customers would put up with that kind of attitude, for certain.

Please go look up the definition of laymen, I don't think using a standard definition of such is an "insult" but rather a statement of fact.

Anything not Classified that government pays for in Academia, gets published. Why not the FAA? If cost and distribution are the problem, one FOIA request and a privately funded webserver certainly fixes those problems in the modern Internet-connected world.

Do you really understand what a "classified" document is?

On the subject of government documents that aren't published to the public, there are hundreds of thousands of them. While some may be obtained via FOIA, there are others that are classified and for reason.

Does your company make all of it's documents available to the public? Does your company make all it's documents available to it's customers? I mean, after all, your customers are paying your salary, so shouldn't they have unbridled access to all of your data? Why not???

 

[denverpilot]

Here, let me quote myself...

"I'm really glad you guys and gals are there doing the job, but this just comes off as totally wrong. What's the point [of bringing it up] if it's not published?"

If I went to an online forum and had a personal beef with a customer and teased them with a statement that I had information they weren't allowed to have, I'd be fired. Instantly. I even signed a "social media" contract that says so.

I spent 5 months of 2011 paying the debt service of your employer. You probably did too. We didn't even touch the principal of the loans your bosses took out without our approval.

So, color me skeptical that it's a sustainable business model. And don't be too surprised if I question the costs involved in creating and maintaining a "shadow" information system within a public service organization. You brought it up. I didn't. I pointed out how inappropriate it was to use that as an argument outside your organization which is tasked with publishing such information.

Don't take it personally if I have disdain for that way of running an organization. There's a difference between disdain for the system and disdain for individuals working within that system.

If you feel personally attacked, that's your problem... and I've not done so. You can play the victim all you want, but I am the one who spent over 40% of my time working to pay your employer's bills. I'm sure you have too.

If you see "disdain" it's for that reason, not something you did or directed at you personally. Your employer wastes a lot of my time/money. They have all of my adult life.

I've simply asked why you feel it's appropriate to attack a customer who's trying to research things your employer deems important enough to study and create thousands of unpublished documents about, by saying "nyah, nyah, nyah... I can read them and you can't."

You say, "You can't find it on Google", and we say, "Why not? We paid for it."

If you have an issue with Mr. Levy, it's that he reads what's published by your employer, and attempts to utilize that knowledge (even if his opinions about it are sometimes flawed). You can't blame him if you guys don't publish the rest of the story. That's all I'm saying.

I only jumped into it because I pay for the database, the cataloging, the research, and your salary. So does Mr. Levy.

To see you in a public forum saying there's "secret" information that Mr. Levy doesn't have so he's wrong -- just says your organization is apparently very ineffective at getting the correct information into the hands of Mr. Levy, instead of hidden away internally, doesn't it?

You can't use unpublished information that Mr. Levy paid for, in an argument against Mr. Levy -- who's reading your organization's published information as his source. That's beyond ridiculous.

I hate hearing that your employer is hiding valuable information you claim proves Mr. Levy wrong. We all pay for that work to be published. Not hidden.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Here, let me quote myself...

"I'm really glad you guys and gals are there doing the job, but this just comes off as totally wrong. What's the point [of bringing it up] if it's not published?"

If I went to an online forum and had a personal beef with a customer and teased them with a statement that I had information they weren't allowed to have, I'd be fired. Instantly. I even signed a "social media" contract that says so.

I spent 5 months of 2011 paying the debt service of your employer. You probably did too. We didn't even touch the principal of the loans your bosses took out without our approval.

So, color me skeptical that it's a sustainable business model. And don't be too surprised if I question the costs involved in creating and maintaining a "shadow" information system within a public service organization. You brought it up. I didn't. I pointed out how inappropriate it was to use that as an argument outside your organization which is tasked with publishing such information.

Don't take it personally if I have disdain for that way of running an organization. There's a difference between disdain for the system and disdain for individuals working within that system.

If you feel personally attacked, that's your problem... and I've not done so. You can play the victim all you want, but I am the one who spent over 40% of my time working to pay your employer's bills. I'm sure you have too.

If you see "disdain" it's for that reason, not something you did or directed at you personally. Your employer wastes a lot of my time/money. They have all of my adult life.

I've simply asked why you feel it's appropriate to attack a customer who's trying to research things your employer deems important enough to study and create thousands of unpublished documents about, by saying "nyah, nyah, nyah... I can read them and you can't."

You say, "You can't find it on Google", and we say, "Why not? We paid for it."

If you have an issue with Mr. Levy, it's that he reads what's published by your employer, and attempts to utilize that knowledge (even if his opinions about it are sometimes flawed). You can't blame him if you guys don't publish the rest of the story. That's all I'm saying.

I only jumped into it because I pay for the database, the cataloging, the research, and your salary. So does Mr. Levy.

To see you in a public forum saying there's "secret" information that Mr. Levy doesn't have so he's wrong -- just says your organization is apparently very ineffective at getting the correct information into the hands of Mr. Levy, instead of hidden away internally, doesn't it?

You can't use unpublished information that Mr. Levy paid for, in an argument against Mr. Levy -- who's reading your organization's published information as his source. That's beyond ridiculous.

I hate hearing that your employer is hiding valuable information you claim proves Mr. Levy wrong. We all pay for that work to be published. Not hidden.

You've blown this way out of proportion.

And with that, I'm through posting on this thread.

We'll just agree to disagree.

 

[denverpilot]

Still refusing to answer the question. Got it. Thanks.

 

[poadeleted20]

I have just conveyed what my experience and background have taught me. Please show me where I asserted this was "official FAA policy".

Posts #31 and #33, where you asserted that:

shall v. in some statutes, "shall" is a direction but does not mean mandatory, depending on the context.

...was "official guidance." Please show me the official FAA source which says "shall" means what you say rather than what it says in 14 CFR 1.1 in the context of an FDC NOTAM which was the topic of discussion.

I simply stated a definition found in guidance.

No, you said it was in "official guidance," and your definition rather than my quotation of 14 CFR 1.1 was the one applicable to the discussion of the FDC NOTAM.

As far "official policy from HQ" as you put it, there are multitudes of Notices, Orders and Memos in the FAA. Some of it concurs, some doesn't. And I'm 100% sure that you have never seen all the guidance.

I'm sure of that too, but as you must know, no Notice, Order, or Memo can override an FAR.

I do get it right, but it just doesn't set well with you.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. So far, you've been wrong about the requirement for an installed clock in any airplane flown under IFR, the need for a flight manual in a pre 1978 aircraft when required by the TCDS, the requirement for examiners to notify applicants as soon as a practical test is failed, and a couple of others of which I have record but don't remember off the top of my head. I have the word those issues from the cognizant AFS offices at HQ including 350, 810, 830, and 640.

As far as my employment, there are several people here on this board that know me, so your feeble attempts to discredit me don't carry much water.

Any discrediting you do yourself by insisting on things contrary to written FAA directives and the guidance from AFS offices at HQ.

Your have a propensity to argue with and try to discredit individuals that are in positions with the experience and knowledge that you only have a layman's understanding of.

I'm not the one who resorts to personal insults when wrong -- you have that market cornered.

 

[Jaybird180]

Denverpilot- that was a clear, well-thought, lucid post. It is not cliche for me to say that I 'could not have said better myself'. I did not feel that it had rancour attached to it.

Bravo Zulu.

 

[denverpilot]

I never said it wasn't lucid. I said if I berated customers in an online forum the way he does, I'd be fired... instantly.

He lives in a different world than the rest of us. A world of "internal guidance" -- that we all paid for -- that he can also apparently use to berate Mr. Levy with. That was my only beef with it.

You can't play expert with information your customer paid for -- that you haven't released.

I'm not saying Ron's not annoying sometimes (Haha... are you REALLY keeping a tally of every time W&R is wrong, Ron? Heh... you guys have issues!), but at least he posts under his real name and doesn't hide behind a pseudonym and play "I am the Great Oz from the FAA, you peasants! The Great Oz has access to data you shall never see!" [insert smoke, mirrors, big floating heads].

That tactic tends to backfire when one of the other customers says, "So publish it. I paid for it too. In fact we all paid for it."

I know... I know... FAA doesn't work for us... I work 5 months out of every year to pay just the debt service on their salaries. I should be quiet and not complain.

I should not care what they do nor what someone who claims to be an employee says in public. Just get back to work to pay the bill.

 

[Jaybird180]

In case you missed it, I was paying you a compliment.

 

[denverpilot]

In case you missed it, I was paying you a compliment.

Ah. Yeah. Sorry. Missed it. I thought the lucid post you were referring to was W&R's post.

I honestly thought his comment may have been 100% accurate - its just goofy that he thinks it's ethically appropriate to utilize unpublished information to prove his point.

I think there's personal things going on here in public between these two. Oh well. Shows how broken the system is if a CFI and an FAA guy go at it like cats and dogs in public. Quite the show.

Anywhoo... Threads like this one make it fairly difficult to determine if one should take the time to write letters to Representatives to get permanent funding for FAA passed, or just to ignore the whole situation that FAA funding keeps getting extended ad nauseum.

On the one hand, I want to force policy makers to do their darn jobs and quit passing the buck.

On the other hand, I hear from W&R'S posts that FAA isn't releasing "guidance" and think that's a sign of a bureaucracy that is completely out of control, and in need of a severe budget cut.

The recent chart distribution debacle adds to the latter impression.

It's blatantly obvious that FAA has both an enormous PR problem as well as HQ having completely lost control of subordinate offices if subordinates can talk to the Press without an HQ PIO involved.

Gut feel: Something's very very wrong at FAA.

Strategy: Support 'em to support aviation? Or tell Congress to whack 'em with a budget hatchet?

(Don't get me started on Congress. $170K a year plus perks earned by only 5 years of service while soldiers in the military have to serve 20 for less? And legalized insider trading. I'd gladly take a budget hatchet to that if there were a way to do it. Congressmen in military barracks eating military chow would be entertaining.)

W&R's posts don't give me a lot of confidence that FAA has their house in order.

I can't decide if he's speaking out of line or if it's just the tip of the iceberg. Not enough information. Not a good external impression though.

 

[airdale]

Denverpilot- that was a clear, well-thought, lucid post.

Agreed.

W&R's posts don't give me a lot of confidence that FAA has their house in order.

I don't have any experience with FAA folks in enforcement mode, but having spent a number of hours plugged in at TRACON and Center positions as a guest I have found them to be uniformly great guys. Other FAA employees I have also found to be decent, though often bureaucratic. No sign of the W&R attitude, fortunately.

(For those here who live within driving distance of a TRACON or an ARTCC, I encourage you to call and ask to spend a few hours plugged in on a sector. You'll learn a lot.)

Now, back to the usual thread drift:

Or at least brush up on the intercept procedures.

The intercept procedures, like the light gun signals and other arcana that I can't trust myself to remember in a time of need, are on my kneeboard crib sheets.