How do most of you pilots set up a flight plan and what nav-aids doyou use.

[Bob Nixon]

1st of all my only piloting is with ,46-1.0cu inch internal combustion
piston engine powered radio control airplanes but in my recent quest
for some military knowledge I was treated decently here and directed
to the proper group by more than one of your members.

My question is; when you file a flight plan nowadays is it mostly
using a GPS box or do many of you still use VOR stations to
triangulate your course or ADF for that matter. I realize that not all
personal aviation planes are equipped with all the gear for IFR flight
but most probably do use some electronic aids for VFR flight as well.

Back in 1973 when I was on something called "project transition" with
only six months left in the USAF I worked part time at a small field
in Concord Calif in the SFBA. Anyway my job was to install and repair
VHF/VOR/landing localize radios, UHF glide-slope, transponders, ADF,
emergency UART locators, and just about anything else in private
aviation prior to the GPS era. I know a couple of guys who fly private
AC and one is a fireman that built his own kit plane power by a
standard Lycoming 4 cylinder boxer engine. The only nav-aids he has is
a GPS receiver-display and a required UART G force tripped box flying
out of now civilian Williams AFB. If he flew closer and or higher
toward Phoenix Sky Harbor airport he would be required to also have a
transponder so that the Sky Harbor GCA could track his airplane and
altitude and he'd have to tune his VHF radio to the GCA when in
commercial airspace.

Another question would be; these days, a VHF radio, GPS unit, UART &
maybe a transponder would be all that would be required for a VFR
flight. Is this the case or did I miss something obvious like a guy
sitting in the pilot seat with flight schooling and pilot's license +
his AC certified for flight by an FAA inspector?,-:)

Thanks, Bob Nixon Chandler, AZ

[Mike Ash]

In article
>,
Bob Nixon > wrote:

> Another question would be; these days, a VHF radio, GPS unit, UART &
> maybe a transponder would be all that would be required for a VFR
> flight. Is this the case or did I miss something obvious like a guy
> sitting in the pilot seat with flight schooling and pilot's license +
> his AC certified for flight by an FAA inspector?,-:)

Actually, if you stay away from big airports, you don't need any of
those items. Radio is optional, GPS is definitely optional, I don't even
know what a UART is, and a transponder is optional. The radio and
transponder can become mandatory if you go into airspace that requires
it, but there's plenty that doesn't.

No comment on your flight plan questions, because as a glider pilot my
"flight plans" tend to be considerably different and more informal than
the usual kind.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Bob Nixon" wrote:

> My question is; when you file a flight plan nowadays is it mostly
> using a GPS box or do many of you still use VOR stations to
> triangulate your course or ADF for that matter. I realize that not all
> personal aviation planes are equipped with all the gear for IFR flight
> but most probably do use some electronic aids for VFR flight as well.

Pretty much GPS for everything, nowadays. I may have VORs in the flight
plan, but I won't generally use the receivers in the airplane to navigate to
them unless I just feel like practicing. Their days are numbered and ADFs
are already disappearing fast.

> UART G force tripped box

What the heck is that?


> Another question would be; these days, a VHF radio, GPS unit, UART &
> maybe a transponder would be all that would be required for a VFR
> flight.

As Mike Nash said, you don't need any of those things if you stay out of
certain kinds of airspace.

--
Dan

T182T at 4R4

[Brian Whatcott]

Bob Nixon wrote:
>
> My question is; when you file a flight plan nowadays is it mostly
> using a GPS box or do many of you still use VOR stations to
> triangulate your course or ADF for that matter.
>
> Thanks, Bob Nixon Chandler, AZ

An instructor turned me on to a free flight planning/weather brief
site: http://www.fltplan.com

Give it a try with a start point and end point and it will give forecast
winds at altitude waypoints etc.

Brian W

[Bob Nixon]

On Nov 10, 5:09*pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
> "Bob Nixon" *wrote:
> > My question is; when you file a flight plan nowadays is it mostly
> > using a GPS box or do many of you still use VOR stations to
> > triangulate your course or ADF for that matter. I realize that not all
> > personal aviation planes are equipped with all the gear for IFR flight
> > but most probably do use some electronic aids for VFR flight as well.
>
> Pretty much GPS for everything, nowadays. *I may have VORs in the flight
> plan, but I won't generally use the receivers in the airplane to navigate to
> them unless I just feel like practicing. *Their days are numbered and ADFs
> are already disappearing fast.
>
> > UART G force tripped box
>
> What the heck is that?
>
> > Another question would be; these days, a VHF radio, GPS unit, UART &
> > maybe a transponder would be all that would be required for a VFR
> > flight.
>
> As Mike Nash said, you don't need any of those things if you stay out of
> certain kinds of airspace.
>
> --
> Dan
>
> T182T at 4R4

The UART that I used to install back in 73 was a yellow colored snap-
on or Velcro battery powered emergency location crash transmitter box.
If the plan went down in the peaks of a mountain it could be located
several hundred miles away. I had though it would have been manditory
by now but apparently not I was California so maybe it was a local
requirment or not at all.

Thanks for responding folks

Bob Nixon..

[Bob Nixon]

On Nov 10, 2:21*pm, Mike Ash > wrote:
> In article
> >,
> *Bob Nixon > wrote:
>
> > Another question would be; these days, a VHF radio, GPS unit, UART &
> > maybe a transponder would be all that would be required for a VFR
> > flight. Is this the case or did I miss something obvious like a guy
> > sitting in the pilot seat with flight schooling and pilot's license +
> > his AC certified for flight by an FAA inspector?,-:)
>
> Actually, if you stay away from big airports, you don't need any of
> those items. Radio is optional, GPS is definitely optional, I don't even
> know what a UART is, and a transponder is optional. The radio and
> transponder can become mandatory if you go into airspace that requires
> it, but there's plenty that doesn't.
>
> No comment on your flight plan questions, because as a glider pilot my
> "flight plans" tend to be considerably different and more informal than
> the usual kind.

My ex-brother in law took me up for a glider towed ride near Fremont
Ca. mission peak (known to have good thermals) and the experience
seemed very natural with less fear than a small powered airplane.BYW,
dad's company in the 50's in Omaha before we moved to the SFBA owned a
plane and as a kid I frew in in many times. I think it was a Cessna
150 or similar.

Bob Nixon..

[Jim Logajan]

Bob Nixon > wrote:
> The UART that I used to install back in 73 was a yellow colored snap-
> on or Velcro battery powered emergency location crash transmitter box.

Aha! Perhaps you mean AN/URT beacon set radio, right? As in this:

http://www.tpub.com/1ase2/43.htm

To me, UART means "Universal Asynchronous Receiver/Transmitter" and was a
handy chip to have when one wanted to convert serial bit stream to parallel
byte streams and vice versa (as in modems and such.) Sure beat wiring
together (and debugging) discrete TTL chips to accomplish the same thing.

[Mike Ash]

In article
>,
Bob Nixon > wrote:

> My ex-brother in law took me up for a glider towed ride near Fremont
> Ca. mission peak (known to have good thermals) and the experience
> seemed very natural with less fear than a small powered airplane.BYW,
> dad's company in the 50's in Omaha before we moved to the SFBA owned a
> plane and as a kid I frew in in many times. I think it was a Cessna
> 150 or similar.

I always like to say, with no engine there are simply fewer things to go
wrong. And of course with a 40+:1 glide ratio it's a lot easier to stay
within gliding range of a landable spot than in a typical light airplane.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
"Dan Luke" > wrote:

> > Another question would be; these days, a VHF radio, GPS unit, UART &
> > maybe a transponder would be all that would be required for a VFR
> > flight.
>
> As Mike Nash said, you don't need any of those things if you stay out of
> certain kinds of airspace.

While I enjoy the sound of "Nash" and am not complaining at all, I would
like to point out that you've added an extraneous N.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[[email protected]]

From the context and description, I think what he's calling the UART is what
we call an ELT.
Scott Wilson

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Mike Ash" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Dan Luke" > wrote:
>
>> > Another question would be; these days, a VHF radio, GPS unit, UART &
>> > maybe a transponder would be all that would be required for a VFR
>> > flight.
>>
>> As Mike Nash said, you don't need any of those things if you stay out of
>> certain kinds of airspace.
>
> While I enjoy the sound of "Nash" and am not complaining at all, I would
> like to point out that you've added an extraneous N.
>
> --
> Mike Ash
> Radio Free Earth
> Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

Oops.

Sorry, Mike.

--
Dan

T182T at 4R4

[Brian Whatcott]

Jim Logajan wrote:
> Bob Nixon > wrote:
>> The UART that I used to install back in 73 was a yellow colored snap-
>> on or Velcro battery powered emergency location crash transmitter box.
>
> Aha! Perhaps you mean AN/URT beacon set radio, right? As in this:
>
> http://www.tpub.com/1ase2/43.htm

Aha! I was wondering 'bout that.

BrianW

[Æslop]

"Bob Nixon" > wrote in message
...
> The only nav-aids he has is
> a GPS receiver-display and a required UART G force tripped box flying
> out of now civilian Williams AFB. If he flew closer and or higher
> toward Phoenix Sky Harbor airport he would be required to also have a
> transponder so that the Sky Harbor GCA could track his airplane and
> altitude and he'd have to tune his VHF radio to the GCA when in
..

If he is flying out of Williams Gateway, he is under the PHX Mode C veil.

[Bob Nixon]

On Nov 10, 6:10*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> Bob Nixon > wrote:
> > The UART that I used to install back in *73 was a yellow colored snap-
> > on or Velcro battery powered emergency location crash transmitter box.
>
> Aha! Perhaps you mean AN/URT beacon set radio, right? As in this:
>
> http://www.tpub.com/1ase2/43.htm
>
> To me, UART means "Universal Asynchronous Receiver/Transmitter" and was a
> handy chip to have when one wanted to convert serial bit stream to parallel
> byte streams and vice versa (as in modems and such.) Sure beat wiring
> together (and debugging) discrete TTL chips to accomplish the same thing.

I must have gotten those acronyms messed up over the years, How about
ELT for emergency location transmitter?

[Jim Logajan]

Bob Nixon > wrote:
> On Nov 10, 6:10*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
>> Bob Nixon > wrote:
>> > The UART that I used to install back in *73 was a yellow colored
>> > snap
> -
>> > on or Velcro battery powered emergency location crash transmitter
>> > box.
>>
>> Aha! Perhaps you mean AN/URT beacon set radio, right? As in this:
>>
>> http://www.tpub.com/1ase2/43.htm
>>
>> To me, UART means "Universal Asynchronous Receiver/Transmitter" and
>> was a handy chip to have when one wanted to convert serial bit stream
>> to parall
> el
>> byte streams and vice versa (as in modems and such.) Sure beat wiring
>> together (and debugging) discrete TTL chips to accomplish the same
>> thing.
>
> I must have gotten those acronyms messed up over the years, How about
> ELT for emergency location transmitter?

Works for me.

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
Jim Logajan > wrote:

> Bob Nixon > wrote:
> > On Nov 10, 6:10*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> >> Bob Nixon > wrote:
> >> > The UART that I used to install back in *73 was a yellow colored
> >> > snap
> > -
> >> > on or Velcro battery powered emergency location crash transmitter
> >> > box.
> >>
> >> Aha! Perhaps you mean AN/URT beacon set radio, right? As in this:
> >>
> >> http://www.tpub.com/1ase2/43.htm
> >>
> >> To me, UART means "Universal Asynchronous Receiver/Transmitter" and
> >> was a handy chip to have when one wanted to convert serial bit stream
> >> to parall
> > el
> >> byte streams and vice versa (as in modems and such.) Sure beat wiring
> >> together (and debugging) discrete TTL chips to accomplish the same
> >> thing.
> >
> > I must have gotten those acronyms messed up over the years, How about
> > ELT for emergency location transmitter?
>
> Works for me.

Me too. Of course this is also optional equipment in many
circumstances....

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[Brian Whatcott]

Mike Ash wrote:
>>> How about
>>> ELT for emergency location transmitter?

>> Works for me.

> Me too. Of course this is also optional equipment in many
> circumstances....
>

There are ELTs and ELTs...
the usual article may have a remote switch, but emits on 121.5 and 243
MHz I watched the fellow in the next hangar testing his g switch:
he replaced the battery, then swung the ELT smartly against a tire.
At 5 to the hour, naturally... There was a recent alert about stuck g
switches, I hear.

The later article features 406MHz emissions I hear. I must find out more
about them.

Brian W

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
>
> Mike Ash wrote:
> >>> How about
> >>> ELT for emergency location transmitter?
>
> >> Works for me.
>
> > Me too. Of course this is also optional equipment in many
> > circumstances....
> >
>
> There are ELTs and ELTs...
> the usual article may have a remote switch, but emits on 121.5 and 243
> MHz I watched the fellow in the next hangar testing his g switch:
> he replaced the battery, then swung the ELT smartly against a tire.
> At 5 to the hour, naturally... There was a recent alert about stuck g
> switches, I hear.
>
> The later article features 406MHz emissions I hear. I must find out more
> about them.

You should - 'cos yer a bit out of date on the info thesedays. 406Mz
ELT's are manditory in most countries now.

Also the monitoring Cospass-Sarsat satellites will not find you with a
121.5Mz ELT as they don't monitor it anyymore. You'd better hope for a
nearby commercial aircraft that's monitoring 121.5 - it's about your
only chance now days.

The 406Mz system is also lots more accurate for position determination,
and, the beacons must be registered (registration of 121.5Mz devices was
never manditory).

--
Duncan.

[Brian Whatcott]

Dave Doe wrote:
....
>
> You should - 'cos yer a bit out of date on the info thesedays. 406Mz
> ELT's are manditory in most countries now.
>
> Also the monitoring Cospass-Sarsat satellites will not find you with a
> 121.5Mz ELT as they don't monitor it anyymore. You'd better hope for a
> nearby commercial aircraft that's monitoring 121.5 - it's about your
> only chance now days.
>
> The 406Mz system is also lots more accurate for position determination,
> and, the beacons must be registered (registration of 121.5Mz devices was
> never manditory).
>

Hi, User posting as Dave,

do you know how to relate emission frequency
to the length of a corresponding quarter wave whip?

Brian W

[MikeW]

g'day Brian,

Call frequency "f". Speed of light c = 3*10^8 metres/second. Wavelength =
c/f in metres. Quarter-wave antenna length then is c/4*f.

So, 406 MHz, call it 400 to simplify a bit. Wavelength = 3*10^8/400*10^6 =
3*10^8/4*10^8 = 0.75 metres. Quarter wave a bit under 20 cm, which would be
a bit under 8 inches old scale.

Cheers ... MikeW.

"brian whatcott" > wrote in message
...
> Dave Doe wrote:
> ...
>>
>> You should - 'cos yer a bit out of date on the info thesedays. 406Mz
>> ELT's are manditory in most countries now. Also the monitoring
>> Cospass-Sarsat satellites will not find you with a 121.5Mz ELT as they
>> don't monitor it anyymore. You'd better hope for a nearby commercial
>> aircraft that's monitoring 121.5 - it's about your only chance now days.
>>
>> The 406Mz system is also lots more accurate for position determination,
>> and, the beacons must be registered (registration of 121.5Mz devices was
>> never manditory).
>>
>
> Hi, User posting as Dave,
>
> do you know how to relate emission frequency
> to the length of a corresponding quarter wave whip?
>
> Brian W

[Brian Whatcott]

Yes indeed, Mike. Or close enough. If you buy the copper tape antenna
and stoppers from the avionics guru who lurks on r.a.homebuilt he will
want to sell you something to trim a little shorter to account for the
local speed of light (<c) on a 1/4 .

My nose was a little out of joint initially with yet another slightly
snippy and mis-spelled note from an anonymous poster on this
crap-infested group. [Brings to mind the idea of adolescent poseurs
with dirty ears and dirtier mouths...]
....But he was in fact doing me a service in prompting me to look out the
requirements for 406MHz ELTs in the US.

These turn out to include the requirement for a 406MHz ELT on NEW light
aircraft and ANY light aircraft going international (if I got it right).
This could happen, I suppose. I have made the Oshkosh pilgrimage, and I
am fixing to visit Corpus Christi in the other direction....
I am not thrilled by the prices however. Surely there must be cheaper
examples out there than the $800 specimens? A new Ameriking dual Fx
costs $150 after all....

The initial point was that a glance at a light aircraft will show
whether it is equipped for 121.5 (or 121.5 and 243Mz) or 406Mhz.
The great majority of aircraft that I see, have a 20+ inch whip or rod.

Brian W


MikeW wrote:

> g'day Brian,
>
> Call frequency "f". Speed of light c = 3*10^8 metres/second. Wavelength =
> c/f in metres. Quarter-wave antenna length then is c/4*f.
>
> So, 406 MHz, call it 400 to simplify a bit. Wavelength = 3*10^8/400*10^6 =
> 3*10^8/4*10^8 = 0.75 metres. Quarter wave a bit under 20 cm, which would be
> a bit under 8 inches old scale.
>
> Cheers ... MikeW.
>
/snip/
>>>
>> Hi, User posting as Dave,
>>
>> do you know how to relate emission frequency
>> to the length of a corresponding quarter wave whip?
>>
>> Brian W
>
>

[MikeW]

Hi Brian,

I've just bought a new 406MHz EPIRB for the boat, cost me AUD400, so about
$350 of your variety I think. The "real" problem is that the COSPAS/SARSAT
constellation of satellites had the 121.5/243MHz capability turned off at
the beginning of this year, which suggests tht the 20 inch whip is basically
useless unless there's an aircraft monitoring 121.5 within line of sight.
We've all had to re-equip during this year to cope (I've managed to leave it
until the beginning of our summer, when new stocks became available).
Incidentally, just measured the antenna: 175 mm from the top of the case so
rough approximation not too bad in this case.

Cheers ... MikeW

"brian whatcott" > wrote in message
...
> Yes indeed, Mike. Or close enough. If you buy the copper tape antenna
> and stoppers from the avionics guru who lurks on r.a.homebuilt he will
> want to sell you something to trim a little shorter to account for the
> local speed of light (<c) on a 1/4 .
>
> My nose was a little out of joint initially with yet another slightly
> snippy and mis-spelled note from an anonymous poster on this crap-infested
> group. [Brings to mind the idea of adolescent poseurs
> with dirty ears and dirtier mouths...]
> ...But he was in fact doing me a service in prompting me to look out the
> requirements for 406MHz ELTs in the US.
>
> These turn out to include the requirement for a 406MHz ELT on NEW light
> aircraft and ANY light aircraft going international (if I got it right).
> This could happen, I suppose. I have made the Oshkosh pilgrimage, and I am
> fixing to visit Corpus Christi in the other direction....
> I am not thrilled by the prices however. Surely there must be cheaper
> examples out there than the $800 specimens? A new Ameriking dual Fx costs
> $150 after all....
>
> The initial point was that a glance at a light aircraft will show whether
> it is equipped for 121.5 (or 121.5 and 243Mz) or 406Mhz.
> The great majority of aircraft that I see, have a 20+ inch whip or rod.
>
> Brian W
>
>
> MikeW wrote:
>
>> g'day Brian,
>>
>> Call frequency "f". Speed of light c = 3*10^8 metres/second. Wavelength
>> = c/f in metres. Quarter-wave antenna length then is c/4*f.
>>
>> So, 406 MHz, call it 400 to simplify a bit. Wavelength = 3*10^8/400*10^6
>> = 3*10^8/4*10^8 = 0.75 metres. Quarter wave a bit under 20 cm, which
>> would be a bit under 8 inches old scale.
>>
>> Cheers ... MikeW.
>>
> /snip/
>>>>
>>> Hi, User posting as Dave,
>>>
>>> do you know how to relate emission frequency
>>> to the length of a corresponding quarter wave whip?
>>>
>>> Brian W
>>

[Brian Whatcott]

I reset my search to PSBs: personal Survival Beacons.
I think this is the style of device that you are using.
These are more reasonable. $300-$400 - but the ones with GPS built in
seem to run $600.
They seem to come in two flavors: those with built in GPS, and those
with an interface to an external GPS source which are cheaper.

Some beacons feature 121.5 AND 406.1xxx because a coordinate
transmission gets rescue in the near ball park but (for aircraft at
least) a 121.5 transmission can be homed right to the (hidden by
trees?)site.

However, the climber/backpacker version PSB/EPIRB is probably not
approved for aircraft use - it's duration is certainly more limited.
The revised regs DID say a survival 406 ELT may be used for light
aircraft though.

Brian W

MikeW wrote:
> Hi Brian,
>
> I've just bought a new 406MHz EPIRB for the boat, cost me AUD400, so about
> $350 of your variety I think. The "real" problem is that the COSPAS/SARSAT
> constellation of satellites had the 121.5/243MHz capability turned off at
> the beginning of this year, which suggests that the 20 inch whip is basically
> useless unless there's an aircraft monitoring 121.5 within line of sight.
> We've all had to re-equip during this year to cope (I've managed to leave it
> until the beginning of our summer, when new stocks became available).
> Incidentally, just measured the antenna: 175 mm from the top of the case so
> rough approximation not too bad in this case.
>
> Cheers ... MikeW

[MikeW[_2_]]

Yes Brian, pretty much true. My device is guaranteed for 48 hours
transmission after activation as it's intended for off-shore use, but no
GPS interface. But it doesn't need it - the satellite(s) works that out to
within 6km radius within an hour or so and then the inbuilt 121.5 MHz
secondary homes the aircraft in on the signal. That's how most of the
deep-water sailors (think British Ocean Challenge, Whitbread Round the
World, etc) get home when things go pear shaped. We've got some very good
maritime search aircraft that can damn near reach Antarctica if they've got
an EPIRB report. As indeed do your people. So why re-invent the wheel each
time when there's a perfectly good spare in the shop next door?

Unfortunately it's been a long time since I had the prop in front of me, but
I've kept an interest.

Cheers ... MikeW


"brian whatcott" > wrote in message
...
>I reset my search to PSBs: personal Survival Beacons.
> I think this is the style of device that you are using.
> These are more reasonable. $300-$400 - but the ones with GPS built in seem
> to run $600.
> They seem to come in two flavors: those with built in GPS, and those with
> an interface to an external GPS source which are cheaper.
>
> Some beacons feature 121.5 AND 406.1xxx because a coordinate transmission
> gets rescue in the near ball park but (for aircraft at least) a 121.5
> transmission can be homed right to the (hidden by trees?)site.
>
> However, the climber/backpacker version PSB/EPIRB is probably not approved
> for aircraft use - it's duration is certainly more limited.
> The revised regs DID say a survival 406 ELT may be used for light aircraft
> though.
>
> Brian W
>
> MikeW wrote:
>> Hi Brian,
>>
>> I've just bought a new 406MHz EPIRB for the boat, cost me AUD400, so
>> about $350 of your variety I think. The "real" problem is that the
>> COSPAS/SARSAT constellation of satellites had the 121.5/243MHz capability
>> turned off at the beginning of this year, which suggests that the 20 inch
>> whip is basically useless unless there's an aircraft monitoring 121.5
>> within line of sight. We've all had to re-equip during this year to cope
>> (I've managed to leave it until the beginning of our summer, when new
>> stocks became available). Incidentally, just measured the antenna: 175 mm
>> from the top of the case so rough approximation not too bad in this case.
>>
>> Cheers ... MikeW