RNAV vs IFR GPS

[PaulaJay1]

Coming into CLE the other day the controller ask if I had RNAV and I said no,
that I was /G ,that is, IFR GPS. He said that it was the same and gave me
direct.....
Is it the same, should I have answered yes to his question? Of course I can
navigate direct but do I have "RNAV"?

Chuck

[John R. Copeland]

"PaulaJay1" > wrote in message =
...
> Coming into CLE the other day the controller ask if I had RNAV and I =
said no,
> that I was /G ,that is, IFR GPS. He said that it was the same and =
gave me
> direct.....
> Is it the same, should I have answered yes to his question? Of course =
I can
> navigate direct but do I have "RNAV"?
>=20
> Chuck

Yes, Yes, and Yes.
I doubt the controller cared *which* kind of RNAV you had,
only that you had the navigation capability.
Even if you'd had only LORAN, you'd still have answered "Yes".
---JRC---

[Richard Hertz]

You are filing /G and you don't know the answer to this?

Where do people get their IFR 'training' these days?


"PaulaJay1" > wrote in message
...
> Coming into CLE the other day the controller ask if I had RNAV and I said
no,
> that I was /G ,that is, IFR GPS. He said that it was the same and gave me
> direct.....
> Is it the same, should I have answered yes to his question? Of course I
can
> navigate direct but do I have "RNAV"?
>
> Chuck

[Bob Gardner]

I feel your pain. Since the FAA lumped GPS, Loran, and VOR-DME into one
basket labelled RNAV, I have been going nuts trying to keep my books up to
date. The KNS-80 and its ilk are still around, so I have to discuss that
kind of RNAV, but because there are so many approaches labelled RNAV (GPS),
the potential for confusion is there. It all boils down to the fact that if
you can fly a random route using any one of the three, you have RNAV.

Bob Gardner

"PaulaJay1" > wrote in message
...
> Coming into CLE the other day the controller ask if I had RNAV and I said
no,
> that I was /G ,that is, IFR GPS. He said that it was the same and gave me
> direct.....
> Is it the same, should I have answered yes to his question? Of course I
can
> navigate direct but do I have "RNAV"?
>
> Chuck

[john smith]

Richard Hertz wrote:
> You are filing /G and you don't know the answer to this?
> Where do people get their IFR 'training' these days?


That's not necessarily a fair criticism.
For those of us who have been flying since the 70's, we still think and
refer to airspace as TCA's, TRSA's and ARSA's. So we still remember RNAV
as VOR/DME, while LORAN and GPS are essentially global navigation
systems (although, technically, that's still another, different form
altogether).

[John R. Copeland]

Amen, Bob!
A Foster RNAV 511-G came out of my airplane when my CNX80 went in!
(Admittedly, a KLN88 Loran came out at the same time, though.)
---JRC---

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message =
news:nwQ%b.424998$na.813278@attbi_s04...
> I feel your pain. Since the FAA lumped GPS, Loran, and VOR-DME into =
one
> basket labelled RNAV, I have been going nuts trying to keep my books =
up to
> date. The KNS-80 and its ilk are still around, so I have to discuss =
that
> kind of RNAV, but because there are so many approaches labelled RNAV =
(GPS),
> the potential for confusion is there. It all boils down to the fact =
that if
> you can fly a random route using any one of the three, you have RNAV.
>=20
> Bob Gardner
>=20
> "PaulaJay1" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Coming into CLE the other day the controller ask if I had RNAV and I =
said
> no,
> > that I was /G ,that is, IFR GPS. He said that it was the same and =
gave me
> > direct.....
> > Is it the same, should I have answered yes to his question? Of =
course I
> can
> > navigate direct but do I have "RNAV"?
> >
> > Chuck
>=20
>

[David Brooks]

VOR-DME is RNAV too? Now I'm confused.

When can we get those updates, Bob? (I note that asa2fly.com is a little
sparse in the "textbook updates" department).

-- David Brooks

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
news:nwQ%b.424998$na.813278@attbi_s04...
> I feel your pain. Since the FAA lumped GPS, Loran, and VOR-DME into one
> basket labelled RNAV, I have been going nuts trying to keep my books up to
> date. The KNS-80 and its ilk are still around, so I have to discuss that
> kind of RNAV, but because there are so many approaches labelled RNAV
(GPS),
> the potential for confusion is there. It all boils down to the fact that
if
> you can fly a random route using any one of the three, you have RNAV.
>
> Bob Gardner
>
> "PaulaJay1" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Coming into CLE the other day the controller ask if I had RNAV and I
said
> no,
> > that I was /G ,that is, IFR GPS. He said that it was the same and gave
me
> > direct.....
> > Is it the same, should I have answered yes to his question? Of course I
> can
> > navigate direct but do I have "RNAV"?
> >
> > Chuck
>
>

[[email protected]]

john smith wrote:

> Richard Hertz wrote:
> > You are filing /G and you don't know the answer to this?
> > Where do people get their IFR 'training' these days?
>
> That's not necessarily a fair criticism.
> For those of us who have been flying since the 70's, we still think and
> refer to airspace as TCA's, TRSA's and ARSA's. So we still remember RNAV
> as VOR/DME, while LORAN and GPS are essentially global navigation
> systems (although, technically, that's still another, different form
> altogether).

I;ve been flying since the late 1950s and I adjust. TCA, and ARSAs seem
quite alien to me these days. Then again TRSAs don't because we still have
those.

I think the criticism is quite justified.

[[email protected]]

He did not say that right. There is VOR/DME-RNAV as well as INS RNAV, IRS RNAV,
GPS RNAV, and LORAN RNAV.

VOR/DME RNAV still has some crummy approaches in the system.

David Brooks wrote:

> VOR-DME is RNAV too? Now I'm confused.
>
> When can we get those updates, Bob? (I note that asa2fly.com is a little
> sparse in the "textbook updates" department).
>
> -- David Brooks
>
> "Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
> news:nwQ%b.424998$na.813278@attbi_s04...
> > I feel your pain. Since the FAA lumped GPS, Loran, and VOR-DME into one
> > basket labelled RNAV, I have been going nuts trying to keep my books up to
> > date. The KNS-80 and its ilk are still around, so I have to discuss that
> > kind of RNAV, but because there are so many approaches labelled RNAV
> (GPS),
> > the potential for confusion is there. It all boils down to the fact that
> if
> > you can fly a random route using any one of the three, you have RNAV.
> >
> > Bob Gardner
> >
> > "PaulaJay1" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Coming into CLE the other day the controller ask if I had RNAV and I
> said
> > no,
> > > that I was /G ,that is, IFR GPS. He said that it was the same and gave
> me
> > > direct.....
> > > Is it the same, should I have answered yes to his question? Of course I
> > can
> > > navigate direct but do I have "RNAV"?
> > >
> > > Chuck
> >
> >

[Teacherjh]

>> VOR-DME is RNAV too? Now I'm confused.

Not by itself, but RNAV can be based on VOR, DME, and a computer to put it all
together. In fact I believe that was the first system.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[[email protected]]

Teacherjh wrote:

> >> VOR-DME is RNAV too? Now I'm confused.
>
> Not by itself, but RNAV can be based on VOR, DME, and a computer to put it all
> together. In fact I believe that was the first system.
>
> Jose

Naw, they took four-course low-frequency range stations and ran them through an
IBM .2 mainframe to derieve RNAV tracks and bearings.

[Travis Marlatte]

"John R. Copeland" > wrote in message
...

"PaulaJay1" > wrote in message
...
> Coming into CLE the other day the controller ask if I had RNAV and I said
no,
> that I was /G ,that is, IFR GPS. He said that it was the same and gave me
> direct.....
> Is it the same, should I have answered yes to his question? Of course I
can
> navigate direct but do I have "RNAV"?
>
> Chuck

Yes, Yes, and Yes.
I doubt the controller cared *which* kind of RNAV you had,
only that you had the navigation capability.
Even if you'd had only LORAN, you'd still have answered "Yes".
---JRC---

What do you mean only LORAN? Just kidding. I realize that it is now ancient
technology but it works just fine.

RNAV means that you can navigate random routes. LORAN and GPS both provide
that capability.

How come there is no designator for an approach certified GPS? /G only means
that you have at least an enroute and terminal certified GPS. I presume that
pilots who have an approach certified GPS have to ask for a specific
approach.
-------------------------------
Travis

[John R. Copeland]

> wrote in message ...
>=20
>=20
> john smith wrote:
>=20
> > Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > You are filing /G and you don't know the answer to this?
> > > Where do people get their IFR 'training' these days?
> >
> > That's not necessarily a fair criticism.
> > For those of us who have been flying since the 70's, we still think =
and
> > refer to airspace as TCA's, TRSA's and ARSA's. So we still remember =
RNAV
> > as VOR/DME, while LORAN and GPS are essentially global navigation
> > systems (although, technically, that's still another, different form
> > altogether).
>=20
> I;ve been flying since the late 1950s and I adjust. TCA, and ARSAs =
seem
> quite alien to me these days. Then again TRSAs don't because we still =
have
> those.
>=20
> I think the criticism is quite justified.
>=20
>=20
Me too, Sammy.
I've been flying since the middle fifties, and I've adjusted pretty =
well, too.
GPS approaches are a far cry from 4-course Range orientations,
and the Range Approaches that I learned to do without an ADF.
(Follow the edge of a leg into the cone of silence, then turn to xxx=BA =
and descend.)
Oooh, those were fun!
And why do I remember 3023.5 kHz? (Except they were kc back then.)
---JRC---

[Teacherjh]

>>
Naw, they took four-course low-frequency range stations and ran them through an
IBM .2 mainframe to derieve RNAV tracks and bearings.
<<

That never worked because they used the Pentium processor.

2+2=3.99992423 for small values of 2

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"PaulaJay1" > wrote in message
...
>
> Coming into CLE the other day the controller ask if I had RNAV
> and I said no, that I was /G ,that is, IFR GPS. He said that it was
> the same and gave me direct.....
> Is it the same, should I have answered yes to his question? Of course
> I can navigate direct but do I have "RNAV"?
>

RNAV is any form of area navigation, GPS is just one example. Had you filed
/G?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Richard Hertz" > wrote in message
et...
>
> You are filing /G and you don't know the answer to this?
>

If he's filing /G why does the controller have to ask if he has RNAV?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"David Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> VOR-DME is RNAV too? Now I'm confused.
>

No, he's referring to a VOR/DME based form of RNAV that was initially called
a Course Line Computer, then it was called RNAV specifically, then the term
RNAV was expanded to include all area navigation systems.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message ...
>
> He did not say that right. There is VOR/DME-RNAV as well as
> INS RNAV, IRS RNAV, GPS RNAV, and LORAN RNAV.
>

IRS RNAV?

[John R. Copeland]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message =
...
> >>
> Naw, they took four-course low-frequency range stations and ran them =
through an
> IBM .2 mainframe to derieve RNAV tracks and bearings.
> <<
>=20
> That never worked because they used the Pentium processor.
>=20
> 2+2=3D3.99992423 for small values of 2
>=20
> Jose

Those were the days of 650s, and later 709s.
Vacuum triodes, man... Lots of 'em! And magnetic drums, too.
If I remember right, the 7090/7094s were the first solid-state IBM =
mainframes.
(There's gotta be some old IBMer here with reliable info about that.)

Our 650 was the envy of everyone in the region.
It had 64 *words* of high-speed magnetic-core scratchpad memory!
---JRC---

[John R. Copeland]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message =
hlink.net...
>=20
> > wrote in message =
...
> >
> > He did not say that right. There is VOR/DME-RNAV as well as
> > INS RNAV, IRS RNAV, GPS RNAV, and LORAN RNAV.
> >
>=20
> IRS RNAV?
>=20
>=20

Not commonly used, because of the high tax rate, maybe?

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> > wrote in message ...
>
>>He did not say that right. There is VOR/DME-RNAV as well as
>>INS RNAV, IRS RNAV, GPS RNAV, and LORAN RNAV.
>>
>
>
> IRS RNAV?
>
>

Yes, a straight line is the fastest way to get away from the IRS.

Matt

[Richard Hertz]

My apologies - I was overly critical.

"Richard Hertz" > wrote in message
et...
> You are filing /G and you don't know the answer to this?
>
> Where do people get their IFR 'training' these days?
>
>
> "PaulaJay1" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Coming into CLE the other day the controller ask if I had RNAV and I
said
> no,
> > that I was /G ,that is, IFR GPS. He said that it was the same and gave
me
> > direct.....
> > Is it the same, should I have answered yes to his question? Of course I
> can
> > navigate direct but do I have "RNAV"?
> >
> > Chuck
>
>

[[email protected]]

"John R. Copeland" wrote:

> > wrote in message ...
> >
> >
> > john smith wrote:
> >
> > > Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > > You are filing /G and you don't know the answer to this?
> > > > Where do people get their IFR 'training' these days?
> > >
> > > That's not necessarily a fair criticism.
> > > For those of us who have been flying since the 70's, we still think and
> > > refer to airspace as TCA's, TRSA's and ARSA's. So we still remember RNAV
> > > as VOR/DME, while LORAN and GPS are essentially global navigation
> > > systems (although, technically, that's still another, different form
> > > altogether).
> >
> > I;ve been flying since the late 1950s and I adjust. TCA, and ARSAs seem
> > quite alien to me these days. Then again TRSAs don't because we still have
> > those.
> >
> > I think the criticism is quite justified.
> >
> >
> Me too, Sammy.
> I've been flying since the middle fifties, and I've adjusted pretty well, too.
> GPS approaches are a far cry from 4-course Range orientations,
> and the Range Approaches that I learned to do without an ADF.
> (Follow the edge of a leg into the cone of silence, then turn to xxxº and descend.)
> Oooh, those were fun!
> And why do I remember 3023.5 kHz? (Except they were kc back then.)
> ---JRC---

Right, that was before Ms. Hertz took over from Mr. Cycle.

I remember 3023.5, except I can't recall what it was for. Was it a common HF tower
frequency even though most of the equppage was VHF by then? Perhaps you had a VHF
receiver, but only an HF transmitter? From the day I started the aircraft I flew
either had no radios or they had VHF transceivers (perhaps with only a few transmit
crystals and an analog receiver turner.) I remember my first IFR set well, the Narco
Omnigator. Did a lot of ATCS en route communications with that equipment.

[[email protected]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> > wrote in message ...
> >
> > He did not say that right. There is VOR/DME-RNAV as well as
> > INS RNAV, IRS RNAV, GPS RNAV, and LORAN RNAV.
> >
>
> IRS RNAV?

Not in the airplanes you fly, Steve. In the big ships, three IRUs that
provide the attitude platform and the basic inertial reference. If the GPS
failes, the DME/DME fails, the VOR/DME fails, and the VOR/VOR fails then a
slightly degraded, but noneless very good position is provided by the IRUs
via the FMS, which in combination is known as the IRS (inertial reference
system), which in turn is IRS RNAV when all external sensors are not
available.

[[email protected]]

>

From Chapter 7 of the current FAA Instrument Flying Handbook:

INS Components
INS is considered a stand-alone navigation system, especially when more than
one independent unit is onboard. The airborne equipment consists of an
accelerometer to measure acceleration—which, when integrated with time,
gives velocity—and gyros to measure direction.
Later versions of the INS, called IRS (inertial reference systems) utilize
laser gyros and more powerful computers; therefore, the accelerometer
mountings no longer need to be kept level and aligned with true north. The
computer system can handle the added workload of dealing with the
computations necessary to correct for gravitational and directional errors.
Consequently, these newer systems are sometimes called strapdown systems, as
the accelerometers and gyros are strapped down to the airframe, rather than
being mounted on a structure that stays fixed with respect to the horizon
and true north.
INS Errors
The principal error associated with INS is degradation of position with
time. INS computes position by starting with an accurate position input
which is changed continuously as accelerometers and gyros provide speed and
direction inputs. Both the accelerometers and the gyros are subject to very
small errors; as time passes, those errors likely will accumulate.
While the best INS/IRS display errors of 0.1 to 0.4 NM after flights across
the North Atlantic of 4 to 6 hours, smaller and less expensive systems are
being built that show errors of 1 to 2 NM per hour. This accuracy is more
than sufficient for a navigation system that can be combined with and
updated by GPS. The synergy of a navigation system consisting of an INS/IRS
unit in combination with a GPS resolves the errors and weaknesses of both
systems. The GPS is accurate all the time it is working but may be subject
to short and periodic outages. The INS is made more accurate because it is
continually updated and will continue to function with good accuracy if the
GPS has moments of lost signal.

[Stan Gosnell]

wrote in :

> I remember 3023.5, except I can't recall what it was for. Was it a
> common HF tower frequency even though most of the equppage was VHF by
> then? Perhaps you had a VHF receiver, but only an HF transmitter?
> From the day I started the aircraft I flew either had no radios or
> they had VHF transceivers (perhaps with only a few transmit crystals
> and an analog receiver turner.) I remember my first IFR set well, the
> Narco Omnigator. Did a lot of ATCS en route communications with that
> equipment.

3023.5 KHz is 3.0235 MHz, and I doubt this is what you remember. 3023.5 Hz
is possible, since this is in the HF band, being just over 3 KHz.
MegaHertz band receivers weren't in general use in the 50's.

--
Regards,

Stan

[[email protected]]

Stan Gosnell wrote:

> wrote in :
>
> > I remember 3023.5, except I can't recall what it was for. Was it a
> > common HF tower frequency even though most of the equppage was VHF by
> > then? Perhaps you had a VHF receiver, but only an HF transmitter?
> > From the day I started the aircraft I flew either had no radios or
> > they had VHF transceivers (perhaps with only a few transmit crystals
> > and an analog receiver turner.) I remember my first IFR set well, the
> > Narco Omnigator. Did a lot of ATCS en route communications with that
> > equipment.
>
> 3023.5 KHz is 3.0235 MHz, and I doubt this is what you remember. 3023.5 Hz
> is possible, since this is in the HF band, being just over 3 KHz.
> MegaHertz band receivers weren't in general use in the 50's.
>
>

Like I said, the equipment I used had the same basic VHF comm frequencies we
use today, except there were a maximum of 90 channels (100 KC spacing?). Most
of the equipment I used had 4 to 27 transmitting crystals and a continuous
tuning receiver. Those were around in late 1956, for sure.

I only remember seeing 3023.5 on the charts, and I presume, as you say, it was
Cycles, not KiloCycles (no Ms. Hertz back then ;-)

[John R. Copeland]

"Stan Gosnell" > wrote in message =
...
> wrote in :
>=20
> > I remember 3023.5, except I can't recall what it was for. Was it a
> > common HF tower frequency even though most of the equppage was VHF =
by
> > then? Perhaps you had a VHF receiver, but only an HF transmitter?=20
> > From the day I started the aircraft I flew either had no radios or
> > they had VHF transceivers (perhaps with only a few transmit crystals
> > and an analog receiver turner.) I remember my first IFR set well, =
the
> > Narco Omnigator. Did a lot of ATCS en route communications with =
that
> > equipment.=20
>=20
> 3023.5 KHz is 3.0235 MHz, and I doubt this is what you remember. =
3023.5 Hz=20
> is possible, since this is in the HF band, being just over 3 KHz. =20
> MegaHertz band receivers weren't in general use in the 50's.
>=20
> --=20
> Regards,
>=20
> Stan
>=20
No, Stan, it was 3023.5 kHz AM, in the HF Aeronautical Mobile band,
which spans 2850-3155 kHz even to this day.
3.0235 kHz would be VLF, with a 100-km wavelength!
As VHF gear began to be emplaced in the 1950s,
they couldn't just suddenly abandon HF communications.

And as Sammy said, it was either the common Tower frequency,
or the common "Radio" frequency (meaning Flight Service Station).
I *think* 3023.5 kHz was for calling "Radio", who could respond
either on VHF or on the local LF/MF 4-course Adcock Range station.
If that's right, then 3105 kHz probably was the frequency for calling =
the Tower,
who could respond on the fixed frequency of 278 kHz as standard,
or on a small number of alternative HF frequencies if other towers were =
nearby.

Whew. I'd have to dig through some old stuff to remember this exactly,
but I'd lay money on Steven P. McNicoll's ability to turn it up easily.
---JRC---

[[email protected]]

"John R. Copeland" wrote:

> "Stan Gosnell" > wrote in message ...
> > wrote in :
> >
> > > I remember 3023.5, except I can't recall what it was for. Was it a
> > > common HF tower frequency even though most of the equppage was VHF by
> > > then? Perhaps you had a VHF receiver, but only an HF transmitter?
> > > From the day I started the aircraft I flew either had no radios or
> > > they had VHF transceivers (perhaps with only a few transmit crystals
> > > and an analog receiver turner.) I remember my first IFR set well, the
> > > Narco Omnigator. Did a lot of ATCS en route communications with that
> > > equipment.
> >
> > 3023.5 KHz is 3.0235 MHz, and I doubt this is what you remember. 3023.5 Hz
> > is possible, since this is in the HF band, being just over 3 KHz.
> > MegaHertz band receivers weren't in general use in the 50's.
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> >
> > Stan
> >
> No, Stan, it was 3023.5 kHz AM, in the HF Aeronautical Mobile band,
> which spans 2850-3155 kHz even to this day.
> 3.0235 kHz would be VLF, with a 100-km wavelength!
> As VHF gear began to be emplaced in the 1950s,
> they couldn't just suddenly abandon HF communications.
>
> And as Sammy said, it was either the common Tower frequency,
> or the common "Radio" frequency (meaning Flight Service Station).
> I *think* 3023.5 kHz was for calling "Radio", who could respond
> either on VHF or on the local LF/MF 4-course Adcock Range station.
> If that's right, then 3105 kHz probably was the frequency for calling the Tower,
> who could respond on the fixed frequency of 278 kHz as standard,
> or on a small number of alternative HF frequencies if other towers were nearby.
>
> Whew. I'd have to dig through some old stuff to remember this exactly,
> but I'd lay money on Steven P. McNicoll's ability to turn it up easily.
> ---JRC---

I have some 1945 WACs for Southern California. I don't see that frequency on those charts. I do see
126.18 all over the place, and some 140+ MHz. And, some really low frequency stuff as well.

[[email protected]]

"John R. Copeland" wrote:

> And as Sammy said, it was either the common Tower frequency,
> or the common "Radio" frequency (meaning Flight Service Station).

Air Traffic Communications Station, not FSS. ;-)

[Bob Gardner]

Just look in a book of approach plates, David, and you will see approaches
listed as VOR/DME RNAV.

I have nothing to do with the publication of updates. ASA policy is that
only "safety of flight" information will be updated...everything else waits
for the next edition.

Bob Gardner

"David Brooks" > wrote in message
...
> VOR-DME is RNAV too? Now I'm confused.
>
> When can we get those updates, Bob? (I note that asa2fly.com is a little
> sparse in the "textbook updates" department).
>
> -- David Brooks
>
> "Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
> news:nwQ%b.424998$na.813278@attbi_s04...
> > I feel your pain. Since the FAA lumped GPS, Loran, and VOR-DME into one
> > basket labelled RNAV, I have been going nuts trying to keep my books up
to
> > date. The KNS-80 and its ilk are still around, so I have to discuss that
> > kind of RNAV, but because there are so many approaches labelled RNAV
> (GPS),
> > the potential for confusion is there. It all boils down to the fact that
> if
> > you can fly a random route using any one of the three, you have RNAV.
> >
> > Bob Gardner
> >
> > "PaulaJay1" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Coming into CLE the other day the controller ask if I had RNAV and I
> said
> > no,
> > > that I was /G ,that is, IFR GPS. He said that it was the same and
gave
> me
> > > direct.....
> > > Is it the same, should I have answered yes to his question? Of course
I
> > can
> > > navigate direct but do I have "RNAV"?
> > >
> > > Chuck
> >
> >
>
>

[Scott]

In article >, paulajay1
@aol.com says...
> Coming into CLE the other day the controller ask if I had RNAV and I said no,
> that I was /G ,that is, IFR GPS. He said that it was the same and gave me
> direct.....
> Is it the same, should I have answered yes to his question? Of course I can
> navigate direct but do I have "RNAV"?

It's interesting in that /G does not distinguish between being approved
foro enroute vs. approach. I suppose if you were truly /G and this was
in the enroute environment that it's the same.

Scott
www.privacytactics.com <-- Protect Your Personal Infomration Assets

[John R. Copeland]

> wrote in message ...
>=20
>=20
> "John R. Copeland" wrote:
> >
> > And as Sammy said, it was either the common Tower frequency,
> > or the common "Radio" frequency (meaning Flight Service Station).
> > I *think* 3023.5 kHz was for calling "Radio", who could respond
> > either on VHF or on the local LF/MF 4-course Adcock Range station.
> > If that's right, then 3105 kHz probably was the frequency for =
calling the Tower,
> > who could respond on the fixed frequency of 278 kHz as standard,
> > or on a small number of alternative HF frequencies if other towers =
were nearby.
> >
> > Whew. I'd have to dig through some old stuff to remember this =
exactly,
> > but I'd lay money on Steven P. McNicoll's ability to turn it up =
easily.
> > ---JRC---
>=20
> I have some 1945 WACs for Southern California. I don't see that =
frequency on those charts. I do see
> 126.18 all over the place, and some 140+ MHz. And, some really low =
frequency stuff as well.
>=20
OK, Sammy, I dug up a 1955 Albany Sectional (price 25 cents!), and I =
couldn't find any reference to 3023.5 or 3105 on it, either.
But "Albany Radio" could transmit on the Albany LF/MF Range station at =
263 kHz, as well as Albany VOR at 116.9 MHz.
Albany Tower's transmitting frequencies were 278 kHz, 118.7 MHz, and =
257.8 MHz.
Nearby Schenectady Tower transmitted on 284 kHz, 126.18 MHz, and 257.8 =
MHz.

Elmira Tower used LF 278 kHz, too, but its neighboring Binghamton Tower =
used LF 332 kHz.
Both Syracuse and Rochester Towers, up to the north, were far enough =
separated to re-use 278 kHz again.
I gotta stop this nostalgic stuff. I'm forcing this thread out of =
control.
---JRC---

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message ...
>
> Air Traffic Communications Station, not FSS. ;-)
>

Air Traffic Communications Stations only for a brief time. These facilities
were named Airway Radio Stations when the Department of Commerce assumed
responsibility for the transcontinental airway from the Post Office in 1927.
They were renamed Airway Communications Stations in 1938 and later
Interstate Airway Communications Stations. They became Air Traffic
Communications Stations after the FAA was created in August 1958 and were
renamed Flight Service Stations in March 1960.

[[email protected]]

> They became Air Traffic
> Communications Stations after the FAA was created in August 1958 and were
> renamed Flight Service Stations in March 1960.

That could be. But, that was the period in which I got my instrument rating and
did my early IFR X-Countries.

[Stan Gosnell]

"John R. Copeland" > wrote in
:

> No, Stan, it was 3023.5 kHz AM, in the HF Aeronautical Mobile band,
> which spans 2850-3155 kHz even to this day.

You're right, I was having momentary retreating brain stall. 3 to 30 MHz,
not kHz, is the HF band. 3025 kHz is near the bottom of the band.

--
Regards,

Stan

[John R. Copeland]

"Stan Gosnell" > wrote in message =
...
> "John R. Copeland" > wrote in
> :=20
>=20
> > No, Stan, it was 3023.5 kHz AM, in the HF Aeronautical Mobile band,
> > which spans 2850-3155 kHz even to this day.
>=20
> You're right, I was having momentary retreating brain stall. 3 to 30 =
MHz,=20
> not kHz, is the HF band. 3025 kHz is near the bottom of the band.
>=20
>=20
Ooooh! A "retreating brain stall". This fixed-wing pilot liked that.

No problem, Stan. I guessed about as much.
We all get occasional senior moments :-)
---JRC---