YIPPEE! I'm now a private pilot!

I took and passed, the private pilot checkride on Tuesday.
What a relief! It wasn't nearly as bad as I thought I'd
be, and went very well.

Now I need an aviation GPS and 'Guest Headset', and I'm
hoping that readers of this list will have recommendations
about what to get, and where to buy it. Yes, I've seen
the eBay auctions, and I'm thinking of a higher end GPS,
maybe even color.

Any suggestions or experiences with specific models and
vendors will greatly help!

Regards,
Joe.

I got a Garmin 295, which is now discontinued. You might be able to get one
cheap. It's a little slow, but it is an excellent piece of equipment. I
use it in a Sundowner, and I've never had to use an external antenna. I've
had very little trouble with satellite reception. It's an absolute
lifesaver. I would guess the 296 is even better, faster and with terrain
and obstructions.

Les

"C. Osbourne" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> YIPPEE! I'm now a private pilot!
>
> I took and passed, the private pilot checkride on Tuesday.
> What a relief! It wasn't nearly as bad as I thought I'd
> be, and went very well.
>
> Now I need an aviation GPS and 'Guest Headset', and I'm
> hoping that readers of this list will have recommendations
> about what to get, and where to buy it. Yes, I've seen
> the eBay auctions, and I'm thinking of a higher end GPS,
> maybe even color.
>
> Any suggestions or experiences with specific models and
> vendors will greatly help!
>
> Regards,
> Joe.
>
>

In article >,
"C. Osbourne" > wrote:
> Now I need an aviation GPS and 'Guest Headset', and I'm
> hoping that readers of this list will have recommendations
> about what to get, and where to buy it. Yes, I've seen
> the eBay auctions, and I'm thinking of a higher end GPS,
> maybe even color.


Well, I have a Garmin GPSMAP 195 (with original packaging, PC cable,
yoke mount, etc.) that I am willing to sell for a reasonable price.

If you are thinking of springing for a color unit, and are computer
savvy, I would suggest looking into a product like AnywhereMap in
combination with the Garmin GPS10. The system will probably set you
back $1100 or so, but it offers you future capabilities (such as the
ability to add weather uplink, solid state AI, etc.) that a Garmin or
Lowrance handheld does not offer.



JKG

I've been a big Garmin fan until I tried out the Lowrance GPS (great unit
and they include everything you need with the unit (unlike garmin, where
everything is an optional accessory - like an external antenna RIGHT!).

As for your passenger headset. You can find some great deals on the
lightspeed website (they sell some of their refurbed units that have been
turned in by pilots taking advantage of their 'trade-up' program.

Congratulations!

--
--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil
PP-ASEL-IA
Student - CP-ASEL

Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -
"C. Osbourne" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> YIPPEE! I'm now a private pilot!
>
> I took and passed, the private pilot checkride on Tuesday.
> What a relief! It wasn't nearly as bad as I thought I'd
> be, and went very well.
>
> Now I need an aviation GPS and 'Guest Headset', and I'm
> hoping that readers of this list will have recommendations
> about what to get, and where to buy it. Yes, I've seen
> the eBay auctions, and I'm thinking of a higher end GPS,
> maybe even color.
>
> Any suggestions or experiences with specific models and
> vendors will greatly help!
>
> Regards,
> Joe.
>
>

It's only a month until Oshkosh. If you can go, that is the best place in the
world to look at alternatives. Don't overlook the option of a tablet PC that
serves both in flight and as your regular PC. I bought an HP TC1100 and
rationalized it that way. I am now thinking, though, I should have bought a
Motion as the HP screen is more difficult to read in glare/sunlight conditions.

eBay is the place for guest headsets. I have a low-end Telex that I bought in a
package of pilot gear. Sold off what I didn't want and got about what I paid
for the package. Ended up with a "free" headset and some other stuff.

On 6/30/2005 9:56 PM, C. Osbourne wrote the following:
>
> YIPPEE! I'm now a private pilot!
>
> I took and passed, the private pilot checkride on Tuesday.
> What a relief! It wasn't nearly as bad as I thought I'd
> be, and went very well.
>
> Now I need an aviation GPS and 'Guest Headset', and I'm
> hoping that readers of this list will have recommendations
> about what to get, and where to buy it. Yes, I've seen
> the eBay auctions, and I'm thinking of a higher end GPS,
> maybe even color.
>
> Any suggestions or experiences with specific models and
> vendors will greatly help!
>
> Regards,
> Joe.
>
>

Get a Garmin GPS 196. It's WAAS capable and often has an accuracy of
less than 9 ft with WASS enabled. As an IFR flyer I found the panel
page an important backup in case I lose all my onboard instruments.

On 6/30/05 10:56 PM, in article , "C.
Osbourne" > wrote:

>
>
> YIPPEE! I'm now a private pilot!
>
> I took and passed, the private pilot checkride on Tuesday.
> What a relief! It wasn't nearly as bad as I thought I'd
> be, and went very well.
>
> Now I need an aviation GPS and 'Guest Headset', and I'm
> hoping that readers of this list will have recommendations
> about what to get, and where to buy it. Yes, I've seen
> the eBay auctions, and I'm thinking of a higher end GPS,
> maybe even color.
>
> Any suggestions or experiences with specific models and
> vendors will greatly help!
>
> Regards,
> Joe.
>
The Lowrance 2000c meets with my approval most wholeheartedly. The
color-coded terrain awareness feature is very comforting.
--
Jeff "The Wizard of Draws" Bucchino
Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
www.wizardofdraws.com
www.cartoonclipart.com
Lowrance 2000C is very good.

Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>> What a relief! It wasn't nearly as bad as I thought it"d
>>> be, and it went very well.
>
> I seem to remember saying this to myself after the first time I had sex!!!
> :-))
> Dudley Henriques



You've had sex?






Sorry, couldn't help myself. <G>


--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>>>>What a relief! It wasn't nearly as bad as I thought it"d
>>>>be, and it went very well.
>>
>>I seem to remember saying this to myself after the first time I had sex!!!
>>:-))
>>Dudley Henriques
>
>
>
>
> You've had sex?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sorry, couldn't help myself. <G>
>
>
Had to sit on a special cushion for a week afterwards - poor chap.

("Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote)
> You've had sex?


Nothing unusual about that, except (years later), him using a GI-Joe and a
Barbie doll, attached to long sticks, to reenact the encounter.


Montblack :-)

>> YIPPEE! I'm now a private pilot!

>> Now I need an aviation GPS ....

No, Joe, you do not "need" a GPS.

At the risk of sounding like an old curmudgeon, let me suggest that
what you now have is permission to practice flying. What you REALLY
need is a great deal of practice reading an aeronautical chart so that
you can find your way on the day that expensive GPS you want to buy
craps out and you're up there all alone with no idea where the hell
you are. (And you're about to blunder into a area where the F-16s will
come looking for you.)

If you can't navigate with depending on a GPS, you're an aeronautical
cripple.

vince norris

Vincent,

> No, Joe, you do not "need" a GPS.

Well, let me take the opposite position: In today's airspace, flying wihtout a GPS is IMHO irresponsible. There simply doesn't need to be any connection between card reading abilities and having a GPS - unless you are an irresponsible pilot to start with.

> so that
> you can find your way on the day that expensive GPS

That "expensive" GPS is around 350 bucks or so. And yes, something can always crap out. The GPS, the VOR, the chart, when it flies out the window. So what?

> If you can't navigate with depending on a GPS, you're an aeronautical
> cripple.

Having a GPS and not being able to navigate without it are two completely different things.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
MessageEnd:
;-;

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Vincent,
>
>> No, Joe, you do not "need" a GPS.
>
> Well, let me take the opposite position: In today's airspace, flying
> wihtout a GPS is IMHO irresponsible. There simply doesn't need to be any
> connection between card reading abilities and having a GPS - unless you
> are an irresponsible pilot to start with.
>

I'm not sure I go along with the irresponsible part, but I certainly
agree with the benefits of the GPS. For the same reason I tap danced on the
desks (figuratively) of our local school administration 30 years ago to make
sure computer litereacy reached our school's curriculum.
The basic concepts are unarguably absolute essentials. Once an aviator
has those, then bring on the technology.
Just today, my Lowrance 2000C let me turn around the southwest corner of
R-2505 and shave six to ten miles off what used to be the "safe margin" to
avoid the restricted area. There ain't no line painted on the ground to show
you where the boundaries are.

Go Fly!!

Casey

If my GPS died, I'd squawk 7700, broadcast a mayday on 121.5, and, if in a
suitably-equipped aircraft, pull the ejection handle. I think most people
flying in and near the Washingto ADIZ would agree. My last flight required
me to thread between two restricted areas, and then I was told to remain
clear of the ADIZ until my number came up. I probably could have done it
with VORs and a chart, but I wouldn't have been comfortable. I'd still be
waiting to see if that letter came.


"vincent > If you can't navigate with depending on a GPS, you're an
aeronautical
> cripple.
>
> vince norris

>Well, let me take the opposite position: In today's airspace, flying wihtout a GPS is IMHO irresponsible.

Please explain why it's irresponsible. I understand that very few
domestic airliners and commuters have GPS. Does every mililtary
aircraft have GPS? Is it irressponsible to fly a J-3 NORDO, even into
OSH?
>
>That "expensive" GPS is around 350 bucks or so.
>
The poster said, "I'm thinking of a higher end GPS, maybe even color."

>Having a GPS and not being able to navigate without it are two completely different things.

The poster said he NEEDED a GPS. That suggests dependency. And if you
have been flying long, you know that a new pilot with a GPS will
quickly become dependent and will never develop pilotage skills.

It's common knowledge that many recently trained pilots have not
learned to navigate well. It's often been discussed here.

vince norris

On 6/19/06 11:51 PM, in article
t, "Dudley Henriques"
> wrote:

>
> "Wizard of Draws" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 6/30/05 10:56 PM, in article , "C.
>> Osbourne" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> YIPPEE! I'm now a private pilot!
>>>
>>> I took and passed, the private pilot checkride on Tuesday.
>
> Congratulations Jeff.
>
>
>>> What a relief! It wasn't nearly as bad as I thought it"d
>>> be, and it went very well.
>
> I seem to remember saying this to myself after the first time I had sex!!!
> :-))
> Dudley Henriques
>
>

While I appreciate the sentiments Dudley, I've had my ticket for a bit now
and will hit 300 hours in the next flight or two. Congratulations on the sex
though.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino

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

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

I see what happened :-))) I cleared out OE of messages over a week old and
your reply o Osbourne came up as the first message in a thread. I missed the
(re;)
Anyway, congratulations on your 300 hours!
:-))))))
Dudley


"Wizard of Draws" > wrote in
message news:C0BF7439.7CEBC%jeffbREMOVETHIS@REMOVEALSOwiza rdofdraws.com...
> On 6/19/06 11:51 PM, in article
> t, "Dudley Henriques"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> "Wizard of Draws" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 6/30/05 10:56 PM, in article , "C.
>>> Osbourne" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> YIPPEE! I'm now a private pilot!
>>>>
>>>> I took and passed, the private pilot checkride on Tuesday.
>>
>> Congratulations Jeff.
>>
>>
>>>> What a relief! It wasn't nearly as bad as I thought it"d
>>>> be, and it went very well.
>>
>> I seem to remember saying this to myself after the first time I had
>> sex!!!
>> :-))
>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>>
>
> While I appreciate the sentiments Dudley, I've had my ticket for a bit now
> and will hit 300 hours in the next flight or two. Congratulations on the
> sex
> though.
> --
> Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino
>
> Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
> http://www.wizardofdraws.com
>
> More Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
> http://www.cartoonclipart.com
>

Vincent,

> Please explain why it's irresponsible. I understand that very few
> domestic airliners and commuters have GPS. Does every mililtary
> aircraft have GPS? Is it irressponsible to fly a J-3 NORDO, even into
> OSH?

Well, I think I gave the reason. Remember the two bozos flying over Washington, DC and how much they hurt all
of us?
Airliners have other RNAV equipment. The military too. Do I think a NORDO J-3 should have a handheld GPS?
Yes, I'd strongly recommend it.

> The poster said he NEEDED a GPS. That suggests dependency.

Not to me.

> It's common knowledge that many recently trained pilots have not
> learned to navigate well. It's often been discussed here.

I don't know. Sounds a lot like the "When I was young, x was better" fallacy.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

> Well, I think I gave the reason. Remember the two bozos flying over Washington, DC and how much they hurt all
> of us?

Let's get this straight. The pilots didn't "hurt" anybody. The feds
hurt all of us, using those pilots as an excuse.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

>> Please explain why it's irresponsible.
>
>Well, I think I gave the reason. Remember the two bozos flying over Washington, DC and how much they hurt all
>of us?

They did that because they were incompetent, not because they didn't
have a GPS. I've flown for half a century in the Middle Atlantic
states, which are full of various kinds of special use airpspace, and
managed to stay out of trouble. So have thousands --perhaps tens of
thousands -- of other pilots.

Simple map reading skills would have kept those "bozos" out of
trouble. The had only to stay on the correct side of a sizeable
river; they failed to do it. If they coulnd't read a sectional, why do
you suppose they could have read a GPS screen?

>Airliners have other RNAV equipment.
I asked a retired American Airlines 747 captain about this at lunch
today. He said that until 1990 or '95, the planes he flew had only
"basic" instruments; inferior to the equipment in many private
aircraft.

>> The poster said he NEEDED a GPS. That suggests dependency.
>
>Not to me.

Well, I'm "depending" on the definition of the word in the dictionary.

>I don't know. Sounds a lot like the "When I was young, x was better" fallacy.

Some things were, some things were not.

The old Adcock ranges were not better than VORs; ADF approaches (as
we then called them) were not better than the ILS. But some things,
such as the average private pilot's pilotage skills, certainly were.
They had little or nothing else to get them to their destination.

vince norris

Vincent,

> But some things,
> such as the average private pilot's pilotage skills, certainly were.
>

How about they were just different? I think a pilot who is not able to
work the Garmin 430 in his airplane is lacking skills. But it's a
different set of skills than the one needed to work the ADF.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

vincent p. norris wrote:
>> Vincent,
>>
>>> But some things,
>>> such as the average private pilot's pilotage skills, certainly were.
>>>
>>> How about they were just different? I think a pilot who is not able to
>> work the Garmin 430 in his airplane is lacking skills. But it's a
>> different set of skills than the one needed to work the ADF.
>
> My point is that a new private pilot who does not have an IFR rating
> does not need an ADF, either! He needs to learn basic skills.

Good luck convincing anyone of that....

Absolutely. Someone who does NOT know where they are without their GPS
is one electrical problem (or electronic failure) away from having no
positional awareness.

The plane I fly most times has a VFR GPS, which occasionally works, and
when it does work, I have it on. When it doesn't work I still make
damn sure I know where I am by virtue of the sectional and when accurate
distances are needed by the DME.

No excuse for not knowing where you are. I doubt that "well my GPS
failed" would work as an excuse in a certificate action for busting
airspace.

vincent p. norris wrote:
>>Vincent,
>>
>>
>>>But some things,
>>>such as the average private pilot's pilotage skills, certainly were.
>>>
>>>How about they were just different? I think a pilot who is not able to
>>
>>work the Garmin 430 in his airplane is lacking skills. But it's a
>>different set of skills than the one needed to work the ADF.
>
>
> My point is that a new private pilot who does not have an IFR rating
> does not need an ADF, either! He needs to learn basic skills.
>
> He will not learn them if he can crank a destination into a GPS and
> fly there as is led by the hand.
>
> I think he'll get a lot more pleasure, satisfaction, and a sense of
> accomplishment from finding his destination without the help of
> gadgets (unless you consider a compass and a chart as "gadgets").
>
> And he'll be a safer pilot, less likely to have to make a forced
> landing after his GPS fails and he runs out of fuel trying to figure
> out where he is.
>
> And if you think it's reasonable to say a pilot is lacking skills if
> he can't operate a Garmin 430, then I'll suggest you're incompetent
> because you can't do celestial navigation.
>
> vince norris

Vincent,

> I think he'll get a lot more pleasure, satisfaction, and a sense of
> accomplishment from finding his destination without the help of
> gadgets (unless you consider a compass and a chart as "gadgets").

I agree with the first part. I vehemently disagree with the end: If a
GPS is a "gadget", then chart and compass are, too. GPS is an integral
part of the world of today's pilots. Get over it.

> And he'll be a safer pilot, less likely to have to make a forced
> landing after his GPS fails and he runs out of fuel trying to figure
> out where he is.

That scenario has nothing to do with GPS use.

> And if you think it's reasonable to say a pilot is lacking skills if
> he can't operate a Garmin 430, then I'll suggest you're incompetent
> because you can't do celestial navigation.

Apples and oranges...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Robert,

> Someone who does NOT know where they are without their GPS
>

Nobody ever doubted that.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

> If a
> GPS is a "gadget", then chart and compass are, too.

If a chart and compass are gadgets, then so are wings and tail. In my
book, the "gadgetness" of an aviation object has some relationship to
its necessity, complexity, and pronocity for failure. That which is
fundamentally necessary has lower gadgetocity. That which is fluff,
complex, and only peripherally related to the fundamental object in
question has higher gadgetocity.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote
> If a chart and compass are gadgets, then so are wings and tail. In my
> book, the "gadgetness" of an aviation object has some relationship to its
> necessity, complexity, and pronocity for failure. That which is
> fundamentally necessary has lower gadgetocity. That which is fluff,
> complex, and only peripherally related to the fundamental object in
> question has higher gadgetocity.

As a gadgetologist, I love gadgets -- especially aviation gadgets -- and the
higher the gagetocity the better. No single gadget has given me more
pleasure than my Garmin 296, both in the plane and in the car.

To the OP: I think you need an aviation GPS.

"Jon Woellhaf" wrote:

> No single gadget has given me more pleasure than my Garmin 296, both in
> the plane and in the car.
>

Beware the 396, then. It might be more than you can stand.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"vincent p. norris" > wrote
>
> And if you think it's reasonable to say a pilot is lacking skills if
> he can't operate a Garmin 430, then I'll suggest you're incompetent
> because you can't do celestial navigation

If you have a Garmin 430 in your panel, you had better be able to use it,
while you are taking your private checkride, or BFR, or you won't pass,
right?

Skills are skills, and using a GPS to help you find your place on the
charts, or find the nearest airport, or where the special area's boundaries
are today, are *today's* skills, like it or not.
--
Jim in NC

>Skills are skills, and using a GPS to help you find your place on the
>charts, or find the nearest airport, or where the special area's boundaries
>are today, are *today's* skills, like it or not.

Skills are skills? The skill of the first-grader who can sing two
verses of "America" is equivalent to that of the teenager who can play
Tchaikovsky's First Piano Concerto?

The statement that using a GPS is a "skill" is almost humorous. Using
a GPS demands only slightly more skill than turning on an electric
light.

I'm not condemning the GPS; I'm disagreeing with the view expressed in
the post that initiated this thread that a brand new private pilot
"needs" a GPS--i.e., that it is a "necessity."

I live in central PA, where "Sentimental Journey" was just concluded
at Lock Haven airport. This year, as often before, some pilots flew
their J-3s from CALIFORNIA to central PA without GPS, without radios.
Obviously, GPS is not a "necesssity."

I have a Garmin 396; before that, a 195. For one reason: If I have a
radio or an electrical failure in IMC, I'll have a back-up. In VMC,
it's just an expensive toy.

vince norris

> The statement that using a GPS is a "skill" is almost humorous. Using
> a GPS demands only slightly more skill than turning on an electric
> light.

I rather strongly beg to differ. The simple stuff ("direct to" and
follow the purple line) requires little skill, but getting into the more
esoteric modes (which can happen by accident) can really increase the
pucker factor if you are relying on the box.

> I'm disagreeing with the view expressed in
> the post that initiated this thread that a brand new private pilot
> "needs" a GPS--i.e., that it is a "necessity."

I agree with you there. GPS is not a necessity. I will say it's real
nice in complex airspace though. But nice is... well, just "nice".
Seat cushions are nice too. The most important display unit VFR is the
WAPDU (Wide Angle Plexiglass Display Unit)

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

vincent p. norris wrote:
> The statement that using a GPS is a "skill" is almost humorous. Using
> a GPS demands only slightly more skill than turning on an electric
> light.


Exuse me for cutting in but I have to utter a hearty "Bull****!".

I was out of flying for 15 years after flying every day for various part 135
outfits. Let me tell you, today's panel looks different from what I was used
to. I climbed into a retrofitted C-172 for my BFR last year when I started
flying again and found that although I had several hundred hours in C-172s that
I couldn't figure out the panel. I could fly the airplane just fine... but I
couldn't figure out how to change frequencies, etc. The primary radio in that
airplane happened to be a Garmin 430.

I ended up taking dual *just* on the Garmin; then buying a manual and installing
a GPS sim on my computer. I learned how to do a few things with it but don't
fly enough any more to retain the lesser used functions. I probably only use
10% of what that GPS is capable of doing.

Don't tell me that operating the GPS doesn't require skills.

I say that while still remembering how to navigate with just a map and the
compass and I can still fly a very decent ILS or ADF approach. Those require
skills too... just different ones.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

Agreed.

Seems to me that if you want to fly beyond local pattern hops, you need
to be skilled in basic navigation (i.e. using a map and compass), and an
electronic navigation system (GPS if you have it, something less like a
VOR or ADF if you are flying something with lesser equipment.)

On the other hand, you should be proficient in using whatever is
installed in the aircraft or perhaps it should be turned off.

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
> vincent p. norris wrote:
>
>>The statement that using a GPS is a "skill" is almost humorous. Using
>>a GPS demands only slightly more skill than turning on an electric
>>light.
>
>
>
> Exuse me for cutting in but I have to utter a hearty "Bull****!".
>
> I was out of flying for 15 years after flying every day for various part 135
> outfits. Let me tell you, today's panel looks different from what I was used
> to. I climbed into a retrofitted C-172 for my BFR last year when I started
> flying again and found that although I had several hundred hours in C-172s that
> I couldn't figure out the panel. I could fly the airplane just fine... but I
> couldn't figure out how to change frequencies, etc. The primary radio in that
> airplane happened to be a Garmin 430.
>
> I ended up taking dual *just* on the Garmin; then buying a manual and installing
> a GPS sim on my computer. I learned how to do a few things with it but don't
> fly enough any more to retain the lesser used functions. I probably only use
> 10% of what that GPS is capable of doing.
>
> Don't tell me that operating the GPS doesn't require skills.
>
> I say that while still remembering how to navigate with just a map and the
> compass and I can still fly a very decent ILS or ADF approach. Those require
> skills too... just different ones.
>
>
>

>Exuse me for cutting in but I have to utter a hearty "Bull****!".

You're not "cutting in," you're joining the discussion. Welcome.
>
>I was out of flying for 15 years after flying every day for various part 135
>outfits.

I had a somewhat similar experience. I could not afford to fly at my
expense when I got out of the marine corps after six years and went
back to college then had a mortgage and four kids to feed.

Seventeen years later my two boys got out of school and enlisted.
Suddenly there was money left at the end of the month! I could afford
to start flying again.

The difference was amazing. I had never seen a VOR or an ILS. I had
never heard "...radar contact seven miles north of...."

I had to learn the new instruments and the new rules. But it was a
hell of a lot easier! IFR flying was now child's play compared to
what it had been in the days of Acock ranges and ADF approaches.

In a similar way, GPS has made it a hell of a lot easier.

> I probably only use 10% of what that GPS is capable of doing.

True of me, too. But that's all the new private pilot who ''needs" a
GPS would use, too.

vince norris

Vincent,

> > I probably only use 10% of what that GPS is capable of doing.
>
> True of me, too. But that's all the new private pilot who ''needs" a
> GPS would use, too.
>

Right. Just like running the engine at 10 percent power, closing the
doors only 10 percent, landing well only 10 percent of the time and so
on.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

I agree. Anyone who thinks using a GPS correctly in the context of aerial
navigation is like turning on an electric light needs some dual on the
basics of what constitutes proper flight instruction .
I take particular notice of the following comment from the same source;

"And if you
have been flying long, you know that a new pilot with a GPS will
quickly become dependent and will never develop pilotage skills.

It's common knowledge that many recently trained pilots have not
learned to navigate well. It's often been discussed here."

Whether this comment is true or false in its entirety isn't my main concern
..

What concerns me is the first part of this comment which states a habit
pattern as fact that I have not seen in properly trained pilots in all the
years I've been associated with flight instruction.

I totally disagree with the idea that new pilots using a GPS will quickly
become dependent and will never develop pilotage skills.
Any pilot properly trained will have been taught basic piloting skills and
know how to use them. That pilot will also, if using a GPS, have been
instructed in the proper use of a GPS in the TOTAL CONTEXT of the aerial
navigation problem. That properly trained pilot will be using his/her GPS
with all the backup associated with it's proper use.
There is absolutely no basis in fact that I have seen anyway, that
pre-supposes a new pilot will use a GPS at the expense of normal backup
navigation skills.
Any properly trained pilot will consider a GPS as just another tool to be
used accordingly and ALONG WITH the other necessary navigation tools
available to produce a safe flight.
Now if we're talking improperly trained pilots........that's another story!
:-))
Dudley Henriques




"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in message
. ..
> vincent p. norris wrote:
>> The statement that using a GPS is a "skill" is almost humorous. Using
>> a GPS demands only slightly more skill than turning on an electric
>> light.
>
>
> Exuse me for cutting in but I have to utter a hearty "Bull****!".
>
> I was out of flying for 15 years after flying every day for various part
> 135 outfits. Let me tell you, today's panel looks different from what I
> was used to. I climbed into a retrofitted C-172 for my BFR last year when
> I started flying again and found that although I had several hundred hours
> in C-172s that I couldn't figure out the panel. I could fly the airplane
> just fine... but I couldn't figure out how to change frequencies, etc.
> The primary radio in that airplane happened to be a Garmin 430.
>
> I ended up taking dual *just* on the Garmin; then buying a manual and
> installing a GPS sim on my computer. I learned how to do a few things
> with it but don't fly enough any more to retain the lesser used functions.
> I probably only use 10% of what that GPS is capable of doing.
>
> Don't tell me that operating the GPS doesn't require skills.
>
> I say that while still remembering how to navigate with just a map and the
> compass and I can still fly a very decent ILS or ADF approach. Those
> require skills too... just different ones.
>
>
>
> --
> Mortimer Schnerd, RN
>
>
>
>

> Anyone who thinks using a GPS correctly in the context of
>aerial navigation is like turning on an electric light needs some dual on the
>basics of what constitutes proper flight instruction .

I have a pretty good idea of what constitutes proper flight
instruction, Dud; mine was courtesy of the United States Navy. I
understand it's generally considered a fairly rigorous program.

>I take particular notice of the following comment from the same
>source;

>>It's common knowledge that many recently trained pilots have not
>>learned to navigate well. It's often been discussed here."

>Whether this comment is true or false in its entirety isn't my main
>concern.

That is the essential notion being discussed here, Dud. You're
changing the subject. And if it's not your main concern, why do you
take particular notice of it?

>Any pilot properly trained will have been taught basic piloting skills
>and know how to use them.

You're begging the question, saying a properly trained pilot has been
properly trained. Duh!

Why would a brand-new private pilot who was "properly trained," and
has confidence in his ability to navigate by DR and Pilotage, think
that the first thing he needs is a GPS?

>There is absolutely no basis in fact that I have seen anyway, that
>pre-supposes a new pilot will use a GPS at the expense of normal
>backup navigation skills.

You seem to have it backwards. It's the GPS that is supposed to be
the "backup."

>Any properly trained pilot…..

>Now if we're talking improperly trained pilots........that's another
>story!

We are. Some young pilots I've talked with in recent years cannot get
from here to there without using VORs. If they depend VORs to navigate
in VMC, you expect me to believe they won't depend on GPS, which is
even easier?

I strongly suspect some young CFIs are not very good at pilotage
either.

Don't forget, Dud, that 50% of all CFIs are below average. ((:-))

vince norris

"vincent p. norris" > wrote in message
...
>> Anyone who thinks using a GPS correctly in the context of
>>aerial navigation is like turning on an electric light needs some dual on
>>the
>>basics of what constitutes proper flight instruction .
>
> I have a pretty good idea of what constitutes proper flight
> instruction, Dud; mine was courtesy of the United States Navy. I
> understand it's generally considered a fairly rigorous program.

I have no problem with Navair, and the training you have received or not
received is not at issue here.What I'm addressing is your statement that
asserts something as fact that I don't believe is fact based on my direct
exposure to the environment in which you have chosen to assert yourself;
that being the training environment from the instructor's side of the coin.
The simple truth is that you have stated the following;

>" if you have been flying long, you know that a new pilot with a GPS will
>quickly become dependent and will never develop pilotage skills."

......and I take exception to that. It's simply not true enough to be
presented as a glittering generalization like this.
In my experience as an instructor over time, the exact opposite would be
indicated unless the pilot in question was trained improperly. You are
attempting to convey with this statement that a new pilot with a GPS is
likely to become dependent on that GPS. My contention is that any properly
trained pilot will use a GPS simply as one more available tool to be used in
conjuction with other navigational skills, pilotage being one of these
skills.

>>I take particular notice of the following comment from the same
>>source;
>
>>>It's common knowledge that many recently trained pilots have not
>>>learned to navigate well. It's often been discussed here."
>
>>Whether this comment is true or false in its entirety isn't my main
>>concern.
>
> That is the essential notion being discussed here, Dud. You're
> changing the subject. And if it's not your main concern, why do you
> take particular notice of it?

I'm not changing the subject. The subject I addressed in my initial post was
simply an opposition comment to your direct statement. My comment was
direct, in context, and to the point.

>
>>Any pilot properly trained will have been taught basic piloting skills
>>and know how to use them.
>
> You're begging the question, saying a properly trained pilot has been
> properly trained. Duh!

Quite to the contrary, it is YOUR statement that a new pilot who has a GPS
in his/her navigational equation will become dependent on that GPS to the
point of not developing normal navigational skills that begs the question;
"has this pilot been properly trained?"

I'm begging nothing. I'm telling you that any properly trained pilot will
have been trained to use all the navigational skills especially the basics
and the backups to the basics, and will have been taught to develop the
habit patterns necessary to use those skills.
For you to pre-suppose that the insertion of a GPS into such a pilot's
navigational environment would cause that pilot to neglect all that he/she
has been trained to do is in my opinion patently absurd on it's face.
>
> Why would a brand-new private pilot who was "properly trained," and
> has confidence in his ability to navigate by DR and Pilotage, think
> that the first thing he needs is a GPS?
A "properly trained pilot" thinking the "first thing he needs is a GPS" is
the oxymoron of the day.
The fact is that NO properly trained pilot will NEED a GPS. The GPS, as I
have sated for the properly trained pilot, will be simply an additional
navigational tool to be used in conjection with whatever backup is necessary
for that GPS to produce a safe flight under the conditions present
concerning that flight.
>
>>There is absolutely no basis in fact that I have seen anyway, that
>>pre-supposes a new pilot will use a GPS at the expense of normal
>>backup navigation skills.
>
> You seem to have it backwards. It's the GPS that is supposed to be
> the "backup."

Actually, since I've been saying from the onset of this discussion that the
GPS is in fact just one more navigational tool, it appears that it might be
you who has things backwards :-)
>
>>Any properly trained pilot...
>
>>Now if we're talking improperly trained pilots........that's another
>>story!
>
> We are. Some young pilots I've talked with in recent years cannot get
> from here to there without using VORs. If they depend VORs to navigate
> in VMC, you expect me to believe they won't depend on GPS, which is
> even easier?

I have no doubt that there are pilots out here who rely on one basic system
for navigation and that doing this is bad juju, be it VOR, ADF, of GPS for
that matter. No one is arguing that issue. These pilots exist as we all
know. I am arguing your statement that this type of pilot constitutes a
majority
as you indicate with your use of the phrase "a new pilot with a GPS will
quickly become dependent"
You are taking what I consider the exception and projecting that exception
as the rule, and in my opinion, you are wrong. Hence the opening discourse
on what constitutes proper training.
>
> I strongly suspect some young CFIs are not very good at pilotage
> either.

I wouldn't argue this. Notice you correctly used the word "some".
>
> Don't forget, Dud, that 50% of all CFIs are below average. ((:-))

I'm sorry you have such a low opinion of flight instructors.

Dudley Henriques

Dudley,

> > Don't forget, Dud, that 50% of all CFIs are below average. ((:-))
>
> I'm sorry you have such a low opinion of flight instructors.
>

Uhm, Vince is alluding to the surprise of President Roosevelt (I think)
about the fact that 50 percent of the US population had (and have) a
below-average intelligence. This, as Vince's statement, is inherent in
the definition of "average" - well, not exactly, I know, but kind of,
assuming an equal distribution around the average.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

In article >,
Thomas Borchert > wrote:

> Uhm, Vince is alluding to the surprise of President Roosevelt (I think)
> about the fact that 50 percent of the US population had (and have) a
> below-average intelligence.

Given that time frame, are you implying that the "dumb" ones immigrated
from Europe to North America while the "smart" ones stayed in Europe?
:-))

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Dudley,
>
>> > Don't forget, Dud, that 50% of all CFIs are below average. ((:-))
>>
>> I'm sorry you have such a low opinion of flight instructors.
>>
>
> Uhm, Vince is alluding to the surprise of President Roosevelt (I think)
> about the fact that 50 percent of the US population had (and have) a
> below-average intelligence. This, as Vince's statement, is inherent in
> the definition of "average" - well, not exactly, I know, but kind of,
> assuming an equal distribution around the average.

Mr. Norris' (all inclusive) statement about new pilots and how they "WILL"
interface with a GPS is in my opinion incorrect. If this statement WAS
correct, it would directly address the training issue as I have stated.
There will certainly be individual new pilots who could become dependent on
a single navigational tool as indicated by Mr. Norris. This again directly
addresses the training issue, as these pilots will have been improperly
trained.
In my opinion, the individual pilots who could become GPS dependent as the
result of improper training are far below the statistic level needed to
meet the generalized statement made by Mr. Norris......Mr. Norris and Mr.
Roosevelt notwithstanding that is :-)))))))) .
Dudley Henriques

>>>..... is like turning on an electric light needs some dual on
>>>the asics of what constitutes proper flight instruction .
>>
>> I have a pretty good idea of what constitutes proper flight
>> instruction, Dud; mine was courtesy of the United States Navy. I
>> understand it's generally considered a fairly rigorous program.
>
>I have no problem with Navair, and the training you have received or not
>received is not at issue here.

You made it an issue, Dud. Read what you said, quoted above. You said
I don't know "what constitutes proper flight instruction"--although I
experienced what is probably the best flight instruction available to
any American.

>What I'm addressing is your statement that asserts something as fact..

No, Dud, it's a statement of my opinion. To be more precise, the
expression that something is "like turning on an electric light" is a
simile. Similes are never "facts."
>
>.....and I take exception to that.

And that's your opinion, and of course you're entitled to it.

> It's simply not true enough to be presented as a glittering generalization..

Dud, you don't know what a "glittering generalization is."

>I My contention is that any properly trained pilot will use a GPS simply as one more available tool to be used in
>conjuction with other navigational skills, pilotage being one of these
>skills.

You made that point, or came close to it, in your previous post. No
need to repeat it.
>
>> You're begging the question, saying a properly trained pilot has been
>> properly trained. Duh!
>
>Quite to the contrary.... I'm begging nothing...

Dud, you don't know what "begging the question" means, either.
>
>>it is YOUR statement that a new pilot who has a GPS
>in his/her navigational equation will become dependent on that GPS to the
>point of not developing normal navigational skills that begs the question;
>"has this pilot been properly trained?"

Dud, "begging the question" does NOT mean what you think it means. It
is the name of a logical fallacy in which one's conclusion is
contained in his premise. Such as saying "A properly trained pilot
has been properly trained"--which is what you said above, even though
you changed the wording a little.

>The fact is that NO properly trained pilot will NEED a GPS.

Dud, for crying out loud, DON'T YOU REALIZE YOU ARE AGREEING WITH
WHAT I SAID IN MY RESPONSE TO THE ORIGINAL POST?

Did you read the thread before barging in? Go back and read the
original post, and read my response to it.

I would offer one more comment on your posting: You may "properly
train" a student but you have no idea what he's going to go out and do
when you're not there. Why do so many pilots kill themselves doing
stupid things?

vince norris

>> > Don't forget, Dud, that 50% of all CFIs are below average. ((:-))
>>
>> I'm sorry you have such a low opinion of flight instructors.
>
>Uhm, Vince is alluding to the surprise of President Roosevelt (I think)
>about the fact that 50 percent of the US population had (and have) a
>below-average intelligence.

Right. I don't know about FDR, but the statement that "50% of all
_______ are below average" is a favorite of math and statistics
teachers.

>This, as Vince's statement, is inherent in the definition of "average" -
> well, not exactly, I know, but kind of, assuming an equal distribution around the average.

Most statistics books I've seen say the median and the mode are, like
the arithmetic mean, "averages." But you got the right idea; half of
all cfi's are below the arithmetic mean only if the population is
normally distributed. Quite unlikely.

vince norris

John,

> are you implying that the "dumb" ones immigrated
> from Europe to North America

No, I was just pointing out how statistics work. However, you may be
right ;-)

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Dudley,

> Mr. Norris' (all inclusive) statement about new pilots and how they "WILL"
> interface with a GPS is in my opinion incorrect.
>

I fully agree.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Vincent,

> But you got the right idea; half of
> all cfi's are below the arithmetic mean only if the population is
> normally distributed.
>

And a few extremely smart pilots can make up for a ton of a "just a
little dumb" ones.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert > writes:
> Vincent,
>
> > But you got the right idea; half of
> > all cfi's are below the arithmetic mean only if the population is
> > normally distributed.
> >
>
> And a few extremely smart pilots can make up for a ton of a "just a
> little dumb" ones.

"Make up for" how? The extremely smart (good?) ones will
skew the data and make even more below average.

Mort,
Thank God someone else had the same problems I'm dealing with
now. I was out of flying for over 18 years (and actually have a LF Range
approach in my log book from before that), and am facing a tough
learning curve on the new GPS panels. I've discovered that the
communications procedures are all still relevant -- even with the
changes in terminology for airspace designations, and the airplanes
still fly the same in knots as they used to in miles per hour.

I'm going to end up getting dual on the Garmin stuff so I can
use it instead of just turning it off as a distraction. The old steam
gauges sure looked familiar, but that GPS with the itty-bitty screen is
a challenge.

On the topic the original poster mentioned -- "need" can be a
strong indicator of dependency but often isn't as I explain to my
grandkids. "Want" is probably what he meant to write. I can't fault him
for wanting a nice GPS and 2nd headset.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mortimer Schnerd, RN ]
> Posted At: Monday, June 26, 2006 04:38
> Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
> Conversation: I passed the checkride, now need a good GPS and
passenger
> headset
> Subject: Re: I passed the checkride, now need a good GPS and passenger
> headset
>
....
>
> Exuse me for cutting in but I have to utter a hearty "Bull****!".
>
> I was out of flying for 15 years after flying every day for various
part
> 135
> outfits. Let me tell you, today's panel looks different from what I
was
> used
> to. I climbed into a retrofitted C-172 for my BFR last year when I
> started
> flying again and found that although I had several hundred hours in
C-172s
> that
> I couldn't figure out the panel. I could fly the airplane just
fine...
> but I
> couldn't figure out how to change frequencies, etc. The primary radio
in
> that
> airplane happened to be a Garmin 430.
>
> I ended up taking dual *just* on the Garmin; then buying a manual and
> installing
> a GPS sim on my computer. I learned how to do a few things with it
but
> don't
> fly enough any more to retain the lesser used functions. I probably
only
> use
> 10% of what that GPS is capable of doing.
>
> Don't tell me that operating the GPS doesn't require skills.
>
> I say that while still remembering how to navigate with just a map and
the
> compass and I can still fly a very decent ILS or ADF approach. Those
> require
> skills too... just different ones.
>
>
>
> --
> Mortimer Schnerd, RN
>
>

> The condescending repetitive "Dud's, duh's and the vitriolic CAPS...

There was only one "duh" and the caps were not vitriolic, but intended
to try to make sure you noticed what I said, since you failed to see
it in my previous post. I would have used italics, the normal way of
emphasizing words and phrases, but I don't know of they would appear
on my posting.

>. I gather from your rather cogent posting you disagree somewhat
>with my analysis :-)

Yeah, but you disagree with mine, so we're even. The internet would be
a dull place if we all agreed about everything.

> >You have a nice evening up there in College Park...

Thank you, actually University Park; College Park is the U. of
Maryland and, I think, one of the Texas schools.

> and all the best to you.

And the same to you.

vince norris