G430 Display/Numbers or Pictures?

[Mitty]

The "Cheating the ILS" thread prompts my curiosity:

I fly with a single G430 and rarely use the map display. Almost
always I am set on the Nav1 "numbers" screen, which tells me pretty
much everything I need to know. I have talked to a number of
commercial pilots with lots of G430 experience, and this seems to be
the consensus.

The tone of the OP on the "Cheating the ILS" seems to be that his use
of this screen is unusual. I use the TRK number on the Nav1 screen
routinely to help on ILS approaches and have never thought anything of
it. I fly my best approaches this way because I do not have to cut &
try to get a heading that holds the needle centered.

So ... Do you normally fly looking at Nav1 or at the map? Cruise?
Approaches? Why? And what is your experience level with the G430?

[Paul kgyy]

En route I usually use the map page. However, I find the numbers page
very useful for approaches. It's also excellent backup for partial
panel flying. I did so well with it on my checkride that the examiner
made me turn to another page for partial panel.

[Dane Spearing]

I've had my GNS 430 for about two years, and I love it.

I toggle back and forth between the Nav1 CDI (or "numbers" screen, as you
call it) and the map depending on what mode of flight I'm in and what
I want out of the display.

While in cruise, I usually use the CDI screen for keeping the heading
a close as I can.

When getting vectors to the ILS, I'll put it in map mode so that I can
readily see how far from the ILS I am (given that the ILS CDI is usually
a full deflection until you're close to it), and then switch back to the CDI
screen again once I'm established on the ILS.

For non-precision approaches, I usually use the map screen.

-- Dane

In article >,
Mitty > wrote:
>The "Cheating the ILS" thread prompts my curiosity:
>
>I fly with a single G430 and rarely use the map display. Almost
>always I am set on the Nav1 "numbers" screen, which tells me pretty
>much everything I need to know. I have talked to a number of
>commercial pilots with lots of G430 experience, and this seems to be
>the consensus.
>
>The tone of the OP on the "Cheating the ILS" seems to be that his use
>of this screen is unusual. I use the TRK number on the Nav1 screen
>routinely to help on ILS approaches and have never thought anything of
>it. I fly my best approaches this way because I do not have to cut &
>try to get a heading that holds the needle centered.
>
>So ... Do you normally fly looking at Nav1 or at the map? Cruise?
>Approaches? Why? And what is your experience level with the G430?

[Thomas Borchert]

Mitty,

> Do you normally fly looking at Nav1 or at the map? Cruise?
> Approaches? Why?
>

Map. Always, VFR and IFR. Why? Because all the data fields I need can
be displayed on that screen - and the map gives a ton of additional
information. The CDI is in the panel - why replicate it on the G430?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Jose[_1_]]

I use the map most of the time, with a few numeric fields displayed.
I'll have to try the DTK/ATK trick on an approach next time.

I do find however that my navigation is more precise when I'm on the CDI
field and less precise when I'm on the map field. With the larger scale
it takes longer to see a flight deviation.

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

[Bill[_4_]]

I see guys walk into the cafeteria and read the menu
posted on the wall in detail.

I walk in and look at the food. I think it depends
on how your brain works... you must be a left-half
guy.

The visual type guys always want the map and track
up too.

Bill Hale BPPP instructor -- seen all types.


de
Mitty wrote:
> The "Cheating the ILS" thread prompts my curiosity:
>
> I fly with a single G430 and rarely use the map display. Almost
> always I am set on the Nav1 "numbers" screen, which tells me pretty
> much everything I need to know. I have talked to a number of
> commercial pilots with lots of G430 experience, and this seems to be
> the consensus.
>
> The tone of the OP on the "Cheating the ILS" seems to be that his use
> of this screen is unusual. I use the TRK number on the Nav1 screen
> routinely to help on ILS approaches and have never thought anything of
> it. I fly my best approaches this way because I do not have to cut &
> try to get a heading that holds the needle centered.
>
> So ... Do you normally fly looking at Nav1 or at the map? Cruise?
> Approaches? Why? And what is your experience level with the G430?

[Mitty]

On 9/4/2006 1:46 PM, Bill wrote the following:
>
> The visual type guys always want the map and track
> up too.

Track up drives me nuts! :-) It's on my checklist to make sure the
thing is north up before I take off.

[Matt Barrow]

"Mitty" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> On 9/4/2006 1:46 PM, Bill wrote the following:
>>
>> The visual type guys always want the map and track
>> up too.
>
> Track up drives me nuts! :-) It's on my checklist to make sure the thing
> is north up before I take off.

For me, it's track up, symbol at the bottom (I want to see where I'm heading
and what I'm heading INTO)

YMMV

[A Lieberma]

Mitty > wrote in :

>
>
> On 9/4/2006 1:46 PM, Bill wrote the following:
>>
>> The visual type guys always want the map and track
>> up too.
>
> Track up drives me nuts! :-) It's on my checklist to make sure the
> thing is north up before I take off.

Bet you will find extreme opinions on this :-)

For me, North up drives me nuts, as when I turn right, I want to see the
little plane turn right along with me.

As far as the original poster's question, for the initial approach phase, I
use the map to help with situational awareness. Once I am established on
the IA fix, I change over to the CDI page for extra localizer assistance.

Just did a GPS approach into OWB just above GPS minimums Saturday. 430
made the approach a breeze with the help of smooth air in the clouds.

Allen

[Andrew Sarangan[_1_]]

Mitty wrote:
> The "Cheating the ILS" thread prompts my curiosity:
>
> I fly with a single G430 and rarely use the map display. Almost
> always I am set on the Nav1 "numbers" screen, which tells me pretty
> much everything I need to know. I have talked to a number of
> commercial pilots with lots of G430 experience, and this seems to be
> the consensus.
>
> The tone of the OP on the "Cheating the ILS" seems to be that his use
> of this screen is unusual. I use the TRK number on the Nav1 screen
> routinely to help on ILS approaches and have never thought anything of
> it. I fly my best approaches this way because I do not have to cut &
> try to get a heading that holds the needle centered.
>
> So ... Do you normally fly looking at Nav1 or at the map? Cruise?
> Approaches? Why? And what is your experience level with the G430?


I use the Nav2 (map) screen and the panel mounted CDI. The CDI display
on Nav1 is pretty useless because it is not a real CDI. Although it has
more data fields, the nav2 screen can be reprogrammed for the most
important numbers. I typically use the default setting with the Nav2
screen - DTK, DIS and GS. I switch to Nav1 if I need to know the ETE.

[Peter R.]

Mitty > wrote:

> So ... Do you normally fly looking at Nav1 or at the map? Cruise?
> Approaches? Why? And what is your experience level with the G430?

I toggle between NAV1 and Flight Plan 0 page, with FP0 set to show
cumulative time and distance. I find that FP0 aids in SA by giving me the
upcoming waypoints in time and distance, which I use especially on
approach.

Oh, and perhaps my answer should be stricken from your survey because in my
aircraft the GNS430 feeds a separate MX20 moving map, which I also scan
heavily on approach (in track up mode, of course).


--
Peter

[Jose[_1_]]

> The CDI display
> on Nav1 is pretty useless because it is not a real CDI.

I don't know what that means. When I use the CDI display (page 1 on the
nav screen) I find it quite effective.

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

[Andrew Sarangan[_1_]]

Jose wrote:
> > The CDI display
> > on Nav1 is pretty useless because it is not a real CDI.
>
> I don't know what that means. When I use the CDI display (page 1 on the
> nav screen) I find it quite effective.
>
> Jose
>

That means you are not using the CDI to its full potential. A CDI gives
a _course_ to turn to, not a left/right indication. For that to work,
you need a full circle of numbers around the CDI.
If you have never encoutered this concept before, you should read this:
http://www.sarangan.org/aviation/articles/vor-article.pdf

[Roy Smith]

In article om>,
"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote:

> Jose wrote:
> > > The CDI display
> > > on Nav1 is pretty useless because it is not a real CDI.
> >
> > I don't know what that means. When I use the CDI display (page 1 on the
> > nav screen) I find it quite effective.
> >
> > Jose
> >
>
> That means you are not using the CDI to its full potential. A CDI gives
> a _course_ to turn to, not a left/right indication. For that to work,
> you need a full circle of numbers around the CDI.
> If you have never encoutered this concept before, you should read this:
> http://www.sarangan.org/aviation/articles/vor-article.pdf

Andrew,

I just read your article. The big problem with it is that it equates
"heading" and "track". For example, you talk about an OBS set to 210, with
a centered needle and a "FROM" (downward-pointing arrow) indication and say:

"030 lies in the direction of the station. This is the heading we need to
fly to track the course towards the station."

I'll agree that turning to a heading of 030 is a reasonable first estimate
until you figure out the right WCA, but as written, the article is just
plain wrong.

I also take exception to the general tone of the article, which is that the
CDI is a wonderfully designed instrument and whole generations of pilots
and instructors are idiots for not using it the way it was intended to be
used. It certainly is a cleverly designed instrument -- it's the best that
the brightest minds of the aviation world could come up with using the
technology of 50 years ago. You say things like:

"Given the simplicity of this technique, it is somewhat mysterious why this
is seldom taught during flight training".

There's really only two possible answers. One is that we're all idiots,
the other is that it's not really as simple as you make out. You think
it's simple, but, you're a college professor with a PhD. How many of your
students have this level of education?

You say:

"There might be a lesson in this. Some things are better left the way they
are. The VOR system might be a 50-year old technology, but it is one of
the greatest inventions in aeronautical navigation. It is really too bad
that we won¹t have them for much longer"

I can't disagree more. People vote with their feet. The VOR/CDI combo WAS
indeed a great invention. It was better than the ADF because it presented
better information to the pilot. The VOR/HSI was an improvement on that,
for the same reason, but never really penetrated the GA market because of
the high cost. The moving map GPS is an even bigger step up in
presentation (although the UI's for programming them still pretty much
suck).

People's brains have evolved over thousands (millions?) of years to process
visual information. If we're going to have good interfaces to people's
brains, we need to present them with information in the way those brains
are used to processing it. 50,000 years ago, some ancestor of mine could
look at the tree he was walking towards and understand that if he wanted to
get to the tree, he needed to turn left. Given a choice between inventing
technology to match my 50,000 years of visual experience, or training my
brain to understand what a 50 year old electro-mechanical gizmo is telling
me, I'll go with the GPS moving map.

[Jose[_1_]]

> That means you are not using the CDI to its full potential. A CDI gives
> a _course_ to turn to, not a left/right indication. For that to work,
> you need a full circle of numbers around the CDI.
> If you have never encoutered this concept before, you should read this:
> http://www.sarangan.org/aviation/articles/vor-article.pdf

Interesting article. I have come across this before, and yes, I wish it
were taught early in my flying career. However, the nav page of the 430
also gives a course to turn to. DTK.

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

[Andrew Sarangan[_1_]]

Roy Smith wrote:
> In article om>,
> "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote:
>
> > Jose wrote:
> > > > The CDI display
> > > > on Nav1 is pretty useless because it is not a real CDI.
> > >
> > > I don't know what that means. When I use the CDI display (page 1 on the
> > > nav screen) I find it quite effective.
> > >
> > > Jose
> > >
> >
> > That means you are not using the CDI to its full potential. A CDI gives
> > a _course_ to turn to, not a left/right indication. For that to work,
> > you need a full circle of numbers around the CDI.
> > If you have never encoutered this concept before, you should read this:
> > http://www.sarangan.org/aviation/articles/vor-article.pdf
>
> Andrew,
>
> I just read your article. The big problem with it is that it equates
> "heading" and "track". For example, you talk about an OBS set to 210, with
> a centered needle and a "FROM" (downward-pointing arrow) indication and say:
>
> "030 lies in the direction of the station. This is the heading we need to
> fly to track the course towards the station."
>
> I'll agree that turning to a heading of 030 is a reasonable first estimate
> until you figure out the right WCA, but as written, the article is just
> plain wrong.
>
> I also take exception to the general tone of the article, which is that the
> CDI is a wonderfully designed instrument and whole generations of pilots
> and instructors are idiots for not using it the way it was intended to be
> used. It certainly is a cleverly designed instrument -- it's the best that
> the brightest minds of the aviation world could come up with using the
> technology of 50 years ago. You say things like:
>
> "Given the simplicity of this technique, it is somewhat mysterious why this
> is seldom taught during flight training".
>
> There's really only two possible answers. One is that we're all idiots,
> the other is that it's not really as simple as you make out. You think
> it's simple, but, you're a college professor with a PhD. How many of your
> students have this level of education?
>
> You say:
>
> "There might be a lesson in this. Some things are better left the way they
> are. The VOR system might be a 50-year old technology, but it is one of
> the greatest inventions in aeronautical navigation. It is really too bad
> that we won¹t have them for much longer"
>
> I can't disagree more. People vote with their feet. The VOR/CDI combo WAS
> indeed a great invention. It was better than the ADF because it presented
> better information to the pilot. The VOR/HSI was an improvement on that,
> for the same reason, but never really penetrated the GA market because of
> the high cost. The moving map GPS is an even bigger step up in
> presentation (although the UI's for programming them still pretty much
> suck).
>
> People's brains have evolved over thousands (millions?) of years to process
> visual information. If we're going to have good interfaces to people's
> brains, we need to present them with information in the way those brains
> are used to processing it. 50,000 years ago, some ancestor of mine could
> look at the tree he was walking towards and understand that if he wanted to
> get to the tree, he needed to turn left. Given a choice between inventing
> technology to match my 50,000 years of visual experience, or training my
> brain to understand what a 50 year old electro-mechanical gizmo is telling
> me, I'll go with the GPS moving map.


You are right that I did not address the wind correction aspect.
However, that is not too difficult; just take a heading on the side of
the needle. I did not want to confuse the concept by adding too many
variables.

I think you are being way too sensitive to be insulted by this article.
My intention was to tell pilots that there is an alternate method
instead of the traditional left/right interpretation. I am not trying
to sell any product or service. I am simply passing on some useful
information that I have had the good fortune to learn from others. If
you don't like it, I will give you a full refund :-)

I did my instrument rating using the left/right interpretation and I
found it to be very confusing. In fact I busted my IR checkride because
I turned left instead of right on a VOR holding entry. Then I read an
article that illustrated this technique and life has never been the
same. It is wonderfully useful when being vectored for a localizer or
VOR approach.

I never said moving map was not useful. I use it all the time on my GNS
430. What I meant by "somethings are better left the way they are" was
"the VOR+CDI is better left the way they are instead of trying to mimic
the CDI with an electronic bar scale". I did not mean that VOR is
superior to GPS. If it came across that way, I apologize. That would be
absolutely crazy. I am a big fan of GPS, and I have been messing with
GPS in aviation for at least 10 years. I will be one of the first to
vote with my feet when it comes to GPS.

Actually, it is not that mysterious why more instructors don't teach
this technique. It is just that they are not aware of this method.
Simply pointing that out should not be an insult. I am sure I don't
teach some things that I don't know about, and I am sure you do the
same.

[Roy Smith]

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote:
> I think you are being way too sensitive to be insulted by this article.

I didn't mean to imply that I was insulted. My apologies if it sounded
that way.

> I did not mean that VOR is superior to GPS. If it came across that way,
> I apologize.

Well, it sounds like we're even :-)

> That would be absolutely crazy. I am a big fan of GPS, and I have been
> messing with GPS in aviation for at least 10 years. I will be one of the
> first to vote with my feet when it comes to GPS.

What I don't understand about GPS is why some of them have synthetic HSIs.
One of the new features in the GNS-480 vs. the CNX-80, for example, was the
addition of a "NAV" page, which shows a picture of an quasi-HSI (quasi
because the numbers are showing track, not heading). What's the point?
You've already got a far, superior representation in the moving map. The
position of the aircraft icon relative to the purple line shows your course
deviation, and the *orientation* of the icon shows whether you're getting
better or worse. Displacement AND trend in one picture.

[Jose[_1_]]

> What's the point?
> You've already got a far, superior representation in the moving map.

The moving map is not as precise a navigation aid. At least I find
that, when I use the synthetic CDI my track is much more precise then
when I use the moving map.

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

[karl gruber[_1_]]

"track up" gives you more useful information.

Karl
"Curator" N185KG


"Mitty" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> On 9/4/2006 1:46 PM, Bill wrote the following:
>>
>> The visual type guys always want the map and track
>> up too.
>
> Track up drives me nuts! :-) It's on my checklist to make sure the thing
> is north up before I take off.

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
"karl gruber" > wrote:

> "track up" gives you more useful information.

I'm a track-up kind of guy too, it just seems to make more sense. I don't
particularly care where things are relative to some essentially arbitrary
coordinate system, I care where they are relative to me.

The big question is "which way do I have to turn when I reach the next
fix?" With head-up, it's right there in front of you. With north-up, you
have to mentally orient yourself first. Just one more place to screw up.

[Dave Butler[_1_]]

Roy Smith wrote:

> What I don't understand about GPS is why some of them have synthetic HSIs.
> One of the new features in the GNS-480 vs. the CNX-80, for example, was the
> addition of a "NAV" page, which shows a picture of an quasi-HSI (quasi
> because the numbers are showing track, not heading). What's the point?
> You've already got a far, superior representation in the moving map. The
> position of the aircraft icon relative to the purple line shows your course
> deviation, and the *orientation* of the icon shows whether you're getting
> better or worse. Displacement AND trend in one picture.

I find the NAV page on the 480 gives me more trend information in a quick glance
than the map presentation. I use it during approaches. Enroute I use the map.

DGB

[Mitty]

On 9/5/2006 8:51 PM, Roy Smith wrote the following:
> Displacement AND trend in one picture.

Yes, if you use the map at a magnification to match the ten mile or two mile
width of the CDI. Do you actually do this?

[Mitty]

On 9/6/2006 8:22 AM, Roy Smith wrote the following:
> In article >,
> "karl gruber" > wrote:
>
>> "track up" gives you more useful information.
>
> I'm a track-up kind of guy too, it just seems to make more sense. I don't
> particularly care where things are relative to some essentially arbitrary
> coordinate system, I care where they are relative to me.
>
> The big question is "which way do I have to turn when I reach the next
> fix?" With head-up, it's right there in front of you. With north-up, you
> have to mentally orient yourself first. Just one more place to screw up.

I think this is essentially a religious debate. For me, I am already oriented
by my charts, flight planning, plates, airport diagrams, etc. all of which are
north up. So to do something different on a GPS map display is confusing.
Hunting down the little north barb on the track up screen just doesn't do it.

I'll bet you don't turn your approach plates so they are track up! :-)

[Tim Auckland]

My CFII likes track-up, I prefer north-up. I'm going to suggest a
numbers page when we next fly together :-)

Tim.

On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 09:58:23 -0500, Mitty > wrote:

>
>
>On 9/6/2006 8:22 AM, Roy Smith wrote the following:
>> In article >,
>> "karl gruber" > wrote:
>>
>>> "track up" gives you more useful information.
>>
>> I'm a track-up kind of guy too, it just seems to make more sense. I don't
>> particularly care where things are relative to some essentially arbitrary
>> coordinate system, I care where they are relative to me.
>>
>> The big question is "which way do I have to turn when I reach the next
>> fix?" With head-up, it's right there in front of you. With north-up, you
>> have to mentally orient yourself first. Just one more place to screw up.
>
>I think this is essentially a religious debate. For me, I am already oriented
>by my charts, flight planning, plates, airport diagrams, etc. all of which are
>north up. So to do something different on a GPS map display is confusing.
>Hunting down the little north barb on the track up screen just doesn't do it.
>
>I'll bet you don't turn your approach plates so they are track up! :-)

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

Mitty > writes:

> I think this is essentially a religious debate. For me, I am
> already oriented by my charts, flight planning, plates, airport
> diagrams, etc. all of which are north up. So to do something
> different on a GPS map display is confusing. [...]

Having two computerized displays is one way to resolve this issue. My
EX500 MFD is set north-up for situational awareness and consistency
with mapping conventions. The 430 GPS is in generally in nav1 mode
with all the quantitative navigational numbers (CDI, track,
track-error). For a tactical traffic/weather scan, a brief visit to
graphical nav2 with track-up is enough.

- FChE

[karl gruber[_1_]]

What 'track up" does is actually supply MORE useful information than "north"
up.

This is the case because the magenta line can and should be used as an HSI.
All one has to do is keep the magenta line vertical to stay EXACTLY on
course. This cannot be done with "north" up.

It is a very easy way to shoot approaches.

Karl
ATP and "Curator" N185KG



"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "karl gruber" > wrote:
>
>> "track up" gives you more useful information.
>
> I'm a track-up kind of guy too, it just seems to make more sense. I don't
> particularly care where things are relative to some essentially arbitrary
> coordinate system, I care where they are relative to me.
>
> The big question is "which way do I have to turn when I reach the next
> fix?" With head-up, it's right there in front of you. With north-up, you
> have to mentally orient yourself first. Just one more place to screw up.

[Roy Smith]

Mitty > wrote:
> I'll bet you don't turn your approach plates so they are track up! :-)

No I don't, mosttly because it's inconvenient. On the other hand,
I've never been confused, even momentarially, about which way to turn
when looking at a track-up display.

Do whatever works best for you.

[karl gruber[_1_]]

> I think this is essentially a religious debate. For me, I am already
> oriented
> by my charts, flight planning, plates, airport diagrams, etc. all of which
> are north up. So to do something different on a GPS map display is
> confusing. Hunting down the little north barb on the track up screen just
> doesn't do it.
>
> I'll bet you don't turn your approach plates so they are track up! :-)

It has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with which display displays
more useful information. The "track up" display can be used like an HSI. The
"north" up cannot.

Keep the magenta line vertical (and start with the little airplane on the
line) and one is ON COURSE, "track up" only. This is a VERY EASY method of
staying on course.

Karl
ATP and "curator" N185KG

And yes, I have turned my approach plates track up. I suspect the Bonanza I
followed into Missoula should have done that as well. He turned the wrong
way on the arc. Had he been looking at his chart "track up" it wouldn't have
happened.

They found the airplane three years later. I had to hold for 30 minutes
after he disappeared. The NW airliner, holding above us simply went on to
Great Falls.

[John Clonts]

Mitty wrote:
> On 9/5/2006 8:51 PM, Roy Smith wrote the following:
> > Displacement AND trend in one picture.
>
> Yes, if you use the map at a magnification to match the ten mile or two mile
> width of the CDI. Do you actually do this?

I find that the autozoom mode achieves exactly what is needed while
flying an approach (or just "approaching" an airport), i.e. the visual
presentation of the course line and airplane icon on the map increases
in precision as you get closer...
--
Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

[Peter R.]

Mitty > wrote:

> I'll bet you don't turn your approach plates so they are track up! :-)

The ChartView feature of my MX20 will turn the displayed Jepp approach
plates track-up when the aircraft approaches a point that is within the
coverage of the chart.

In fair disclosure, though, I haven't retained the subscription of this
service, believing the cost outweighs the benefit of seeing the chart and
the aircraft's course overlaid therein.

With regard to paper charts, the more important information (in my opinion)
gleaned from these charts are the frequencies, initial, intermediate, and
final course headings, and minimum altitudes for each segment.

Turning the chart track-up makes it difficult to read this information,
although I will admit to momentarily turning the chart track-up as I
approach the IAF as a guide to situational awareness (more applicable to
VOR and GPS approaches, where course reversals or changes are more likely
to occur throughout the approach).

--
Peter

[Mitty]

On 9/6/2006 11:22 AM, karl gruber wrote the following:
>
> It has nothing to do with religion.

Maybe I should have said "like religious zealotry." Reviewing the posts,
including yours, I rest my case. :-)

[John Bell]

I only visit this group very occaisionally. I read some of the threads and
thought that I would throw in my $.02 worth. I would vote for using the map
display with the data fields changed from the default.

I should also disclaim that I have never actually flown with the Garmin 430.

The direct link to my opinion on this is:
http://www.cockpitgps.com/cpgpsweb/cockpitgps.htm#_Toc132382752

A downloadable .pdf or a version with a navigation from is available at:
www.cockpitgps.com.

--John Bell

[[email protected]]

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
> That means you are not using the CDI to its full potential. A CDI gives
> a _course_ to turn to, not a left/right indication. For that to work,
> you need a full circle of numbers around the CDI.
> If you have never encoutered this concept before, you should read this:
> http://www.sarangan.org/aviation/articles/vor-article.pdf

The methods in this article seem to me to be just how HSIs are used (or
should be used) and is analogous to having a course line on a moving
map page. When teaching the method, its my experience that it is better
understood by using a VOR head with CDIs that stay parallel as they
deflect, rather than the ones hinged on top in the article. Its a minor
point, but then you can explain it as a map (not to scale) showing the
course line with respect to the airplane. On an HSI, the map would be
oriented "heading up," whereas on a VOR head it is "course up." This
also helps people transition to HSIs as well.

Peter