Sectional use

[Doug Palmer]

There is a trick for drawing a line from one side of the sectional (one
airport) to the other side (an airport on toe opposite side) whan planning
a route, but I cannot remember it and cannot find it in any of my reference
material. can anyone help me out?

Thanks in advance

Doug

[Don Tuite]

On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 05:20:54 GMT, "Doug Palmer"
> wrote:

>There is a trick for drawing a line from one side of the sectional (one
>airport) to the other side (an airport on toe opposite side) whan planning
>a route, but I cannot remember it and cannot find it in any of my reference
>material. can anyone help me out?
>
If you are drawing a course at a certain magnetic heading:

Use a separate piece of paper where the course line is going to go off
the edge of the sectional. Draw a line on it, l;ay that paper with
the line over the last line of latitude on that side and mark it with
a few of the longitude tick marks near where the course line is going
to go.

Then draw the course line and continue it onto the separate sheet of
paper.

Turn over the sectional, line up the separate piece of paper with the
first latitude line on that side, matching up the tick marks. Then
using the line on the paper as a guide, continue drawing the course
line,

If you are are drawing a couse from airport to airport, use the same
trick to index the paper to the chart and mark the location of the
target airport on the paper. Then lline things up on the other side
and draw the course to the airport on that side. Then follow the first
instructions to draw the line on the other side.

Don

[Ben Jackson]

On 2007-01-27, Doug Palmer > wrote:
> There is a trick for drawing a line from one side of the sectional (one
> airport) to the other side (an airport on toe opposite side)

As I recall, the instructions are printed on the edge of the sectional.

--
Ben Jackson AD7GD
>
http://www.ben.com/

[Mxsmanic]

Ben Jackson writes:

> As I recall, the instructions are printed on the edge of the sectional.

Yes, that's where I first saw them.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Nathan Young]

On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 05:20:54 GMT, "Doug Palmer"
> wrote:

>There is a trick for drawing a line from one side of the sectional (one
>airport) to the other side (an airport on toe opposite side) whan planning
>a route, but I cannot remember it and cannot find it in any of my reference
>material. can anyone help me out?

Use an old sectional butted up to the current one.

[Jay Honeck]

> There is a trick for drawing a line from one side of the sectional (one
> airport) to the other side (an airport on toe opposite side) whan planning
> a route

What's a "sectional"?

<ducking!>

Seriously, how many here still use them for primary navigation? I
honestly can't say I know anyone who does, anymore.

Although we always carry current sectionals (we sell them at the inn,
so I have NO excuse not to), I can't remember the last time I opened
one. I think it was to check an AWOS frequency ahead, cuz Mary was
futzing with the 496's XM music screen...

It really is amazing how much flying has changed in the last 12
years... What was "Buck Rogers" stuff when I was training is now
"SOP"...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[john smith]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> What's a "sectional"?
> <ducking!>
> Seriously, how many here still use them for primary navigation? I
> honestly can't say I know anyone who does, anymore.

Us grey haired old taildragger pilots what fly aeroplanes with no
'lectric system mostly use those paper thingamabobs.
Mostly 'cause we can't remember where we came from or where we're going
to, soes we writes it on the paper thingamabob and draws lines.
Long as we remember to cross out where we been, we noes where we's goin'.

[Bob Noel]

In article . com>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> Seriously, how many here still use them for primary navigation? I
> honestly can't say I know anyone who does, anymore.

I do.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Jim Macklin]

Look on the white border/margin. You should see direction
to use a plotter and a piece of paper to make some marks.
You create similar triangles on both sides.

Or get a WAC for plotting or ask a CFI, with experience for
help as part of flight review.



"john smith" > wrote in message
...
|
|
| Jay Honeck wrote:
| > What's a "sectional"?
| > <ducking!>
| > Seriously, how many here still use them for primary
navigation? I
| > honestly can't say I know anyone who does, anymore.
|
| Us grey haired old taildragger pilots what fly aeroplanes
with no
| 'lectric system mostly use those paper thingamabobs.
| Mostly 'cause we can't remember where we came from or
where we're going
| to, soes we writes it on the paper thingamabob and draws
lines.
| Long as we remember to cross out where we been, we noes
where we's goin'.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Jay Honeck" > said:
>What's a "sectional"?
>
><ducking!>
>
>Seriously, how many here still use them for primary navigation? I
>honestly can't say I know anyone who does, anymore.

I always draw the course line on the sectional (and write the direction
beside the line), even if I don't plan to use it en-route, because once I
didn't and the batteries on my GPS failed (because the stupid cigarette
lighter port was broken) and I couldn't remember the heading I was
supposed to fly after the next turn.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
I have a longstanding agreement with tequila:
I won't drink it, and it won't make me sick.
-- Brian Kantor

[[email protected]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> > Seriously, how many here still use them for primary navigation? I
> > honestly can't say I know anyone who does, anymore.

Bob Noel > wrote:
> I do.

I do too, but not as much in the airplane as on the ground before the
trip. I look at the sectional first, then use it to program the
(handheld) GPS. I also make a copy of the part of the sectional I need
for that trip so I don't have to unfold/handle the whole sectional
in-flight. I've even laminated some of those frequently-used,
single-trip copies and put them in a binder, but always carry a current
sectional and TAC just in case.

[[email protected]]

As someone who's had my handy-dandy Star Trek Tri-Corder quit on me in
the middle of a long cross country flight, I'm very glad to say that I
always carry 'reasonably current' sectionals and an AFD or AOPA
airport directory with me on every flight.

[Peter R.]

On 1/27/2007 8:50:12 AM, "Jay Honeck" wrote:

> Seriously, how many here still use them for primary navigation? I
> honestly can't say I know anyone who does, anymore.

As an IFR pilot, I use a sectional to see what terrain and obstacles surround
my destination airport, if it is an airport with which I am unfamiliar. Other
than that, I do not use a sectional for flight planning.

Despite having a Garmin GNS430 and MX20 moving map I do use both sectional
and WACs for long cross countries (greater than 3 hour legs), though, as I do
like to monitor my course for fuel planning.

--
Peter

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> Seriously, how many here still use them for primary navigation? I
> honestly can't say I know anyone who does, anymore.

I use them to prepare flight plans, and to verify my position and look
for landmarks.

What replaces sectionals?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[tom418]

IT'S A SOFA! Where have you been! :)
"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> > There is a trick for drawing a line from one side of the sectional (one
> > airport) to the other side (an airport on toe opposite side) whan
planning
> > a route
>
> What's a "sectional"?
>
> <ducking!>
>
> Seriously, how many here still use them for primary navigation? I
> honestly can't say I know anyone who does, anymore.
>
> Although we always carry current sectionals (we sell them at the inn,
> so I have NO excuse not to), I can't remember the last time I opened
> one. I think it was to check an AWOS frequency ahead, cuz Mary was
> futzing with the 496's XM music screen...
>
> It really is amazing how much flying has changed in the last 12
> years... What was "Buck Rogers" stuff when I was training is now
> "SOP"...
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Steve Foley[_2_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Seriously, how many here still use them for primary navigation? I
> honestly can't say I know anyone who does, anymore.

I always have mine opened to the area that I'm in, and if I'm going over 100
miles, I've got a course line drawn. I've got a Garmin Pilot III that is
always on too. I usually cross-check the sectional every 15 to 30 minutes.
Usually, when I see something that should be on the chart (airport, tower,
lake, river, road, power lines, etc) I check to see if it's really on the
map.

Ya need something to do.

The best part was approaching Moosehear Lake (Maine) at dusk. I pulled out
the flashlight to read the frequency on the chart. My 14 year old asked what
I needed the flashlight for. That was the first indication I had that my
eyes were getting old. My last flight physical, the Doc said it would be my
last without corrective lenses. When I pulled mine out of my pocket, he said
"Oh, so it's not a surprise? Keep a pair in the plane."

[Doug Palmer]

Thanks, I knew I had seen it somewhere!


"Ben Jackson" > wrote in message
...
> On 2007-01-27, Doug Palmer > wrote:
>> There is a trick for drawing a line from one side of the sectional (one
>> airport) to the other side (an airport on toe opposite side)
>
> As I recall, the instructions are printed on the edge of the sectional.
>
> --
> Ben Jackson AD7GD
> >
> http://www.ben.com/

[Travis Marlatte]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Seriously, how many here still use them for primary navigation? I
> honestly can't say I know anyone who does, anymore.

Well, maybe not for primary. I haven't drawn a line on a sectional in years
but not everyone has a fancy GPS to make using a sectional completely
unnecessary. I've got a GPS but it ain't fancy. Plus, I like the romanticism
of pilotage. I was just thinking yesterday that the next x-c flight I do, I
will do by pilotage.

About 1/2 of my flying is low and slow, or lake to lake. Even on longer
cross-countries, unless there is a big wind avantage to go higher, I'm down
at 3 or 4000. Around here, there's a lot of airspace to bust at those
altitudes. Even if I am trying to get to point B, I tend to wander a bit. As
in, "Hmm, I wonder what lake/town/ground feature that is over there." Plus,
following along on the sectional and matching the real world to the map is a
good way to keep my mind working and my focus on where I'm at. That also
makes it easier to get the ATIS frequency or CTAF for airports I'm passing
over. Without the sectional, there's typically a lot of button pushing and
knob spinning to find a nearby airport with an ATIS. On my GPS it is:

1) push nearest
2) select the airport
3) spin to the frequency page
4) see that there is a CTAF but no ATIS
5) push nearest
6) scroll to the next airport in the list
7) select the airport
8) spin to the frequency page
9) see that there is a CTAF but no ATIS
10) push nearest
11) which airport did I just do? I can't remember. Oh never mind...

I also find it very embarassing to be flying along and have my passenger
ask, "what town is that?" or "Where are we?" I like to have a better answer
than, "Gee. I don't know. But we'll be at our destination in 1 hour 22
minutes."
-------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
PWK

[Ron Natalie]

Doug Palmer wrote:
> There is a trick for drawing a line from one side of the sectional (one
> airport) to the other side (an airport on toe opposite side) whan planning
> a route, but I cannot remember it and cannot find it in any of my reference
> material. can anyone help me out?
>
It's printed on the margin of the sectional itself.

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 05:50:16 -0800, in
. com>, Jay Honeck wrote:
> What's a "sectional"?

Something that flies out of your aircraft when you pull the canopy back in
flight...

Something that you should update at least once every century or so...

[[email protected]]

> > What's a "sectional"?

Grumman-581 wrote:
> Something that you should update at least once every
> century or so...

....or whenever you need new drawer-liner or shelf paper! The old,
outdated ones are great for that.

[tom]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> Seriously, how many here still use them for primary navigation? I
> honestly can't say I know anyone who does, anymore.

I use 'em on every cross country. I like following my progress by
identifying stuff on the ground by name. Most of my cross countries
are to places I've driven to or camped in, so it is great fun seeing
all that from above. I also bring other paper maps, with more
details, again to identify stuff by name. I also have gps, but the
screen just doesn't have the simultaneous wide view and detail that I
can get from a paper map.

tom

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 10:32:30 -0700, in
>,
Xmnushal8y wrote:
> ...or whenever you need new drawer-liner or shelf paper! The old,
> outdated ones are great for that.

Haven't tried them for that... I've used them for wrapping paper before
though... Of course, the ones that are most likely to be relegated to that
are ones that I actually update periodically like the local ones... Some
of the CFIs don't like it when you show up for a BFR with out of date
maps... So, the local ones get updated every 2 years or so...

[Clay]

A current sectional can be a very handy document to have available in
the aircraft.
Most traffic patterns are left hand. In addition to the AFD (Airport
Facilities Directory), the sectional will tell you which runway is RP
(Right Hand Pattern).
I use a Crayola Erasable Highlighter to mark my charts. I feel they
are superior to a pencil because the transparant line is less likely
to cover something up or get confused with information on the chart.
Don't get me wrong, a pencil line is still a good method of marking
your course line on the chart.
Most of my flying is IFR but I still like to have a sectional handy.

[karl gruber[_1_]]

If you flew in the mountains, say in the river drainages in Idaho, you'd
have to use your sectional.

Say there is a ceiling, 2000 feet above the rivers. Those clouds would be
obscuring the mountains.

You'd be flying low in the canyons, and going up the wrong one means a dead
end. I don't like anything that contains the word "dead" in aviation.

A GPS won't do you a whole lot of good. You certainly can't go "direct."
Even my 396 doesn't have enough resolution to pick out the river routes up
canyons. Only a good eye on the sectional and excellent pilotage will get
you there. A GPS does help, but only for secondary backup nav.

Maybe in a few years the "terrain feature" of GPS will allow it. But not
now.

Karl



"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> There is a trick for drawing a line from one side of the sectional (one
>> airport) to the other side (an airport on toe opposite side) whan
>> planning
>> a route
>
> What's a "sectional"?
>
> <ducking!>
>
> Seriously, how many here still use them for primary navigation? I
> honestly can't say I know anyone who does, anymore.
>
> Although we always carry current sectionals (we sell them at the inn,
> so I have NO excuse not to), I can't remember the last time I opened
> one. I think it was to check an AWOS frequency ahead, cuz Mary was
> futzing with the 496's XM music screen...
>
> It really is amazing how much flying has changed in the last 12
> years... What was "Buck Rogers" stuff when I was training is now
> "SOP"...
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Steve Foley" > wrote:

> The best part was approaching Moosehear Lake (Maine) at dusk. I pulled out
> the flashlight to read the frequency on the chart. My 14 year old asked what
> I needed the flashlight for. That was the first indication I had that my
> eyes were getting old.

Either that, or you should have taken off the sunglasses. :-)

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Jay Honeck]

> What replaces sectionals?

For backup, nothing beats a sectional. No batteries, and easy to
carry = good!

However, for flight planning (on long trips) we use Aeroplanner.com,
(I can print out sectional "Chart Chunks" straight from that
outstanding website) and for en route navigation and weather avoidance
we use a Lowrance Airmap 2000c on the pilot's yoke, and a Garmin 496
in the panel dock.

Both of these units have all necessary radio frequencies, and the
Garmin even has airport diagrams, hotels and restaurants. And, of
course, XM weather and music.

Between those two little boxes, I've got hundreds -- no, *thousands*
of times more information at my disposal than when I first learned to
fly, "way back" in 1994. Back then, our primary resources were a
sectional map and the AOPA directory, along with VORs.

The last 15 years have been almost scary-cool-remarkable. I can only
guess what/how we'll be flying in another 15!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> For backup, nothing beats a sectional. No batteries, and easy to
> carry = good!

I agree.

> However, for flight planning (on long trips) we use Aeroplanner.com,
> (I can print out sectional "Chart Chunks" straight from that
> outstanding website) and for en route navigation and weather avoidance
> we use a Lowrance Airmap 2000c on the pilot's yoke, and a Garmin 496
> in the panel dock.

Another pay site. But it looks interesting. I use SkyVector,
although I would not be able to use it for real flight because it
requires real-time access to the Internet. In simulation I can switch
tasks to consult the charts while the flight continues.

> Both of these units have all necessary radio frequencies, and the
> Garmin even has airport diagrams, hotels and restaurants.

Hotels and restaurants? I hope that's not the beginning of a bad
trend.

> Between those two little boxes, I've got hundreds -- no, *thousands*
> of times more information at my disposal than when I first learned to
> fly, "way back" in 1994.

Too bad that a simple lack of electricity can make it all disappear in
an instant.

> Back then, our primary resources were a sectional map and the
> AOPA directory, along with VORs.

Do you continue to use these to keep in practice?

> The last 15 years have been almost scary-cool-remarkable. I can only
> guess what/how we'll be flying in another 15!

At least as scary as cool, especially to someone who is familiar with
the inherent but not widely known risks of computerized and automated
systems.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[vincent p. norris]

>Seriously, how many here still use them for primary navigation? I
>honestly can't say I know anyone who does, anymore.

Jay, that's about the most startling thing I've read on this group!

I enjoy nothing more, on a VFR day, than turning off the nav radios
and navigating by pilotage. Watching the "big blue marble" slide by
beneath the airplane and reading the names of the towns and rivers off
the sectional is a very large part of the pleasure of flying.

I even have a sectional on my lap when I'm IFR, and I keep track of my
progress on it. If it suddenly gets real quiet, I know what kind of
terrain I'm over and where the flat open land is.

Yes, I have a gps that will tell me where the nearest airport is, but
a sectional never goes dead when you need it.

vince norris

[Alan Gerber]

Jay Honeck > wrote:
> Seriously, how many here still use them for primary navigation? I
> honestly can't say I know anyone who does, anymore.

Me!

When I was finishing up my PP, I kept thinking that I'd buy a portable GPS
and navigation would be *so* much easier. Then, something *clicked*, and
I *got* how to navigate by pilotage. I sort of had it before, but right
around checkride time, something snapped into place and I started finding
it a LOT easier to match up the ground with the chart. While I still
wouldn't mind having a GPS (a new toy!), I'm not jonesing for one the way
I was before.

The plane I fly is a 70s-era Warrior with VOR+DME only. And the DME is
flaky. At some point I'll step up to one of the FBO's new glass-cockpit
Cessnas, but I'm having fun in the Warrior now.

I had also thought I'd start doing all my cross-countries using VORs,
since pilotage was (earlier) hard. On my last cross-country, the briefer
neglected to tell me the VOR next to the airport was, er, erratic. I
watched the needle swing back and forth for a while, then shrugged and
switched to pure pilotage (which I had been using as a backup the whole
trip anyhow). Without a sectional, of course, this would not have worked
so well.

Don't assume that everybody has the latest & greatest toys in their
planes. Some of us are doing it other ways, and still having fun with it.

.... Alan
--
Alan Gerber
PP-ASEL
gerber AT panix DOT com

[Jay Honeck]

> Hotels and restaurants? I hope that's not the beginning
> of a bad trend.

Actually, that's part of Garmin's automotive GPS that has "slopped
over" into the aviation side. It's nice to have, once in a great
while.

> Too bad that a simple lack of electricity can make it all
> disappear in an instant.

Well, let's see. I'd have to lose my alternator/battery/engine,
followed by the rechargeable batteries in the Garmin, PLUS the
alkaline batteries in the Lowrance. Nothing short of the EMP from a
nuclear explosion could take ALL of that out, so I think I'm pretty
safe, till Osama's buddies get nukes.

;-)

> Do you continue to use these to keep in practice?

Oh, sure. My last biennial flight review was ALL VOR tracking, for no
apparent reason. There's really nothing too complex about tracking to
a VOR, and chart reading is fairly basic stuff, too.

Am I as good at it as I was when that's ALL we had to navigate with?
Nope. But that's to be expected. I'm not much good with DOS anymore,
either.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> The plane I fly is a 70s-era Warrior with VOR+DME only. And the DME is
> flaky. At some point I'll step up to one of the FBO's new glass-cockpit
> Cessnas, but I'm having fun in the Warrior now.

Hey, what you're flying with now is all we had when I learned to fly.
I know that sounds like a million years ago, but it was only 1994.

We've come a VERY long way in those 13 years.

> Don't assume that everybody has the latest & greatest toys in their
> planes. Some of us are doing it other ways, and still having fun with it.

I don't consider the Lowrance 2000c to be the "latest & greatest"
anymore, and that GPS unit is more than plenty to relegate your
sectional to back-up status for VFR flights. It's got tons of
information stored in it. .

Not that flying by pilotage isn't fun. Many of our "regular" flights
are done simply by aiming for "the smokestack" on the horizon, or by
connecting lakes end to end. But that STILL doesn't require a
sectional anymore, which was my original point.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[RomeoMike]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>
> What's a "sectional"?
>
> <ducking!>
>
> Seriously, how many here still use them for primary navigation? I
> honestly can't say I know anyone who does, anymore.

I can't imagine allowing pilotage skills to get rusty. First, it relates
to the basics of flying that drew many of us to the arena in the first
place. Secondly, I guess I don't have the absolute faith in electronic
gadgets that some have, particularly after losing all power on a night
cross country once. I know someone who went into the boonies (on land)
depending on GPS without paying attention to compass and map and was
desperately lost when the GPS batteries went south. I like to use
pilotage and/or map skills with technology as backup in VFR or
on-the-ground activities.

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> Actually, that's part of Garmin's automotive GPS that has "slopped
> over" into the aviation side. It's nice to have, once in a great
> while.

Does that mean that the database errors on the automotive side have
slipped into Garmin's aviation databases as well?

Next thing you know, the GPS will be displaying tiny advertisements as
you fly.

> Well, let's see. I'd have to lose my alternator/battery/engine,
> followed by the rechargeable batteries in the Garmin, PLUS the
> alkaline batteries in the Lowrance. Nothing short of the EMP from a
> nuclear explosion could take ALL of that out, so I think I'm pretty
> safe, till Osama's buddies get nukes.

You're very trusting.

It's interesting that people tend to be distrustful of new technology,
unless they find it entertaining and interesting, in which case they
often become suddenly willing to overlook the risks.

> Oh, sure. My last biennial flight review was ALL VOR tracking, for no
> apparent reason. There's really nothing too complex about tracking to
> a VOR, and chart reading is fairly basic stuff, too.

Maybe, but I hear rumors about new pilots being practically unable to
use these methods once they have their GPS glowing at them in the
cockpit, even though they presumably learned about them and used them
at some point in their training. What you don't use, you lose.

> Am I as good at it as I was when that's ALL we had to navigate with?
> Nope. But that's to be expected. I'm not much good with DOS anymore,
> either.

Do you really think VORs and NDBs are as irrelevant today as DOS?

Which is easier to jam: a network of VORs and NDBs, or a satellite
signal?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:

>
> You're very trusting.
>
> It's interesting that people tend to be distrustful of new technology,
> unless they find it entertaining and interesting, in which case they
> often become suddenly willing to overlook the risks.

GPS is not new. It's just the newest.


>
>> Oh, sure. My last biennial flight review was ALL VOR tracking, for no
>> apparent reason. There's really nothing too complex about tracking to
>> a VOR, and chart reading is fairly basic stuff, too.
>
> Maybe, but I hear rumors about new pilots being practically unable to
> use these methods once they have their GPS glowing at them in the
> cockpit, even though they presumably learned about them and used them
> at some point in their training. What you don't use, you lose.

In my 1200+ hours of flying I haven't used a VOR for more than 10 hours.
But any idiot can track to or from a station. You don't lose that.




>
> Do you really think VORs and NDBs are as irrelevant today as DOS?

For VFR flying? No question about it. Almost totally irrelavant.



>
> Which is easier to jam: a network of VORs and NDBs, or a satellite
> signal?

Irrelavant.

[Mxsmanic]

Newps writes:

> GPS is not new. It's just the newest.

It's also very different. The way it works is different, the way it
is used is different, and its failure modes are different. It hasn't
been around long enough for the failure modes to be fully sorted out.
Unfortunately it is also very seductive, and certainly the concept and
the implementation are generally sound.

> Irrelavant.

Hardly. Jamming a GPS signal would be a very effective way to carry
out a terrorist attack, and the terrorists wouldn't have to go
anywhere near an airport. The more dependent aircraft become on GPS,
and the less able they are to resort to alternatives, the greater the
vulnerability to this type of attack.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Newps writes:
>
>> GPS is not new. It's just the newest.
>
> It's also very different.


Well, duh. Using lighted beacons was very different than using a map.
Then NDB's, then VOR's. Then LORAN. They're all different.


The way it works is different, the way it
> is used is different, and its failure modes are different.


You have anything other than the obvious to say?



It hasn't
> been around long enough for the failure modes to be fully sorted out.



We're talking VFR here. What you're saying is just drivel.




> Unfortunately it is also very seductive, and certainly the concept and
> the implementation are generally sound.

Yawn.



>
>> Irrelavant.
>
> Hardly. Jamming a GPS signal would be a very effective way to carry
> out a terrorist attack,


It would accomplish nothing.

[Longworth[_1_]]

On Jan 27, 8:50 am, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> Seriously, how many here still use them for primary navigation? I
> honestly can't say I know anyone who does, anymore.
>
> Although we always carry current sectionals (we sell them at the inn,
> so I have NO excuse not to), I can't remember the last time I opened
> one. I think it was to check an AWOS frequency ahead, cuz Mary was
> futzing with the 496's XM music screen...

Since we filed IFR for almost all of our cross country trips, we
don't use the sectionals for primary navigation. However, we use
them in conjunction with IFR planning map and AOPA flight planner for
trip planning. If the weather is marginal, we will pick IFR routes
over more hospitable terrain based on the information from the
sectionals. During our flights, we use both IFR enroute maps and the
sectionals and of course the Lowrance Airmap 1000. It's nice to have
an overview of terrain below and ahead. This is something that the
small GPS screen can not provide. We also use the sectionals to find
AWOS frequencies along the route for weather monitoring. Bottom line
is that sectional is still an indispensable part of our flying.

Hai Longworth

[Jay Honeck]

> It's interesting that people tend to be distrustful of new technology,
> unless they find it entertaining and interesting, in which case they
> often become suddenly willing to overlook the risks.

I think you're forgetting that it takes forever for all the old stuff
to go away -- at least not in America. Even though I rarely turn them
on, I've got dual VORs in the panel, with dual glide-slope indicators,
and (until last month) I still had DME, too. (I yanked it out, and
gained 10 pounds of useful load...)

Relying on GPS for VFR flying is only a "risk" if you believe that
everything else fails, too. IFR flying, flying an approach to
minimums in ice, now THAT is a different story.

However, even with IFR the situational awareness and accuracy of GPS
is so markedly improved that I really don't know any "hard" IFR pilots
who *don't* rely on GPS anymore. Every one of the pilots I know who
routinely fly IFR relies heavily on GPS technology now -- and that's
only proper.

This progression has many parallels in the consumer world. Think NDB
= 8-tracks, VOR = Cassette tapes, GPS = Compact Disks, GPS/WAAS =
DVDs.

> Do you really think VORs and NDBs are as irrelevant today as DOS?

Yep. Heck, they've already removed the NDB approaches from most of
the airports in our area. VORs will hang in there a few more
decades, but they will soon go the way of the light beacons.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[B A R R Y]

On 28 Jan 2007 05:09:48 -0800, "Jay Honeck" >
wrote:

>
>> Do you really think VORs and NDBs are as irrelevant today as DOS?
>
>Yep. Heck, they've already removed the NDB approaches from most of
>the airports in our area. VORs will hang in there a few more
>decades, but they will soon go the way of the light beacons.


The NDB's in my area are decommissioned as they require maintenance.

[Jay Honeck]

> If the weather is marginal, we will pick IFR routes
> over more hospitable terrain based on the information > from the sectionals.

For cross-country flights into unfamilar areas, there is nothing as
good as a sectional charts for planning. We spread 'em out on the
dining room table, and have at 'em. And for transcontinental flights,
WACs are great, too.

But I'm talking about primary navigation in the plane. I don't konw
*anyone* (well, okay, I know Bob Noel) who routinely just hops in the
plane with a compass and a map, and goes off in search of the wild
bacon-cheeseburger.

In the summer, of course, we'll see all sorts of guys flying open
cockpit biplanes, navigating solely by ded reckoning and pilotage.
But they're usually flying in the local area, where they know every
tree stump and water tower for 80 miles. If you look inside the
cockpits of the ones who are coming any great distance -- en route to
Oshkosh from out west, for example -- almost all of them have portable
GPS receivers on the yoke.

And that's only proper. Why would you NOT use the best tool in the
toolbox?

> During our flights, we use both IFR enroute maps and the
> sectionals and of course the Lowrance Airmap 1000. It's nice to have
> an overview of terrain below and ahead. This is something that the
> small GPS screen can not provide.

The 496 displays terrain quite nicely. I haven't upgraded the
software in our 2000c to do so, but it has the same capability. (Of
course, most of our "terrain" worries are towers, here in the
Midwest...)

> We also use the sectionals to find
> AWOS frequencies along the route for weather monitoring.

When Mary is copilot, she still uses them for that, too. When I'm the
non-flying pilot, I've learned to scroll ahead (on the 496) to the
next reporting station, and look at the METAR. If it's more than a
few minutes old, a button push gives me the AWOS frequency, and I'll
listen to it.

As I said, we always keep fresh sectionals in the visor-pouch,
literally inches away. But whereas we used to have to tape the map
seams, so they wouldn't tear out, we now wrap gifts in them while
they're still pristine.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> I think you're forgetting that it takes forever for all the old stuff
> to go away -- at least not in America.

I thought I read that the FAA was itching to decommission NDBs and
(perhaps?) VORs.

> Even though I rarely turn them
> on, I've got dual VORs in the panel, with dual glide-slope indicators,
> and (until last month) I still had DME, too. (I yanked it out, and
> gained 10 pounds of useful load...)

You still need the transmitters on the ground, though.

> However, even with IFR the situational awareness and accuracy of GPS
> is so markedly improved that I really don't know any "hard" IFR pilots
> who *don't* rely on GPS anymore. Every one of the pilots I know who
> routinely fly IFR relies heavily on GPS technology now -- and that's
> only proper.

Do they still tune their VORs and cross-check to ensure that the
heading towards the real VOR matches the heading given by the GPS?

> Yep. Heck, they've already removed the NDB approaches from most of
> the airports in our area. VORs will hang in there a few more
> decades, but they will soon go the way of the light beacons.

And then the bad guys will head to the area of a major airport, turn
on the GPS jammer, and kill a few thousand people in an hour without
anyone even knowing they were there.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> And that's only proper. Why would you NOT use the best tool in the
> toolbox?

You would certainly use the best tool, but it's risky to have a
toolbox that is empty except for that one tool.

> The 496 displays terrain quite nicely. I haven't upgraded the
> software in our 2000c to do so, but it has the same capability. (Of
> course, most of our "terrain" worries are towers, here in the
> Midwest...)

I thought it was bad form to look at the little GPS screen when you're
supposed to be looking out the window.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Jay Honeck]

> And then the bad guys will head to the area of a major airport, turn
> on the GPS jammer, and kill a few thousand people in an hour without
> anyone even knowing they were there.

That's an interesting (if appalling) topic. I wonder why no one (to
my knowledge) has ever taken out an ILS transmitter -- or, worse,
jammed it to cause false readings -- in an effort to do the same
thing?

If you think about what this would do at, for example, Chicago's
O'Hare International, with planes landing at better than one per
minute, the results could be truly appalling.

You could literally (in theory) steer a dozen jumbo jets into the
ground during a snow storm before anyone caught on... Yet, it's not
been done.

Have Osama's buddies just not thought of this yet, or are we talking
about something that is much harder to accomplish than we might
assume?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Martin Hotze]

On 28 Jan 2007 05:45:44 -0800, Jay Honeck wrote:

>Have Osama's buddies just not thought of this yet, or are we talking
>about something that is much harder to accomplish than we might
>assume?

GPS jamming is only done by those operating the GPS satellites. But only
for military purpose and not for the described purpose. Don't know how the
receiver will react when one signal (out of how many?) is out of scope.

And: What alert level you think would bring another terrorist act? They
already won. Shock and awe, you know.

#m
--
I am not a terrorist. <http://www.casualdisobedience.com/>

[Bob Noel]

In article . com>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> > And then the bad guys will head to the area of a major airport, turn
> > on the GPS jammer, and kill a few thousand people in an hour without
> > anyone even knowing they were there.

<snort>

>
> That's an interesting (if appalling) topic. I wonder why no one (to
> my knowledge) has ever taken out an ILS transmitter -- or, worse,
> jammed it to cause false readings -- in an effort to do the same
> thing?
>
> If you think about what this would do at, for example, Chicago's
> O'Hare International, with planes landing at better than one per
> minute, the results could be truly appalling.
>
> You could literally (in theory) steer a dozen jumbo jets into the
> ground during a snow storm before anyone caught on... Yet, it's not
> been done.

Unlikely. There are field monitors and most jumbos would have radar
altimeters (or radio altimeters or whatever the heck they are called).

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Roy Smith]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Next thing you know, the GPS will be displaying tiny advertisements as
> you fly.

Someday, you'll be flying an approach and the box will pop up with, "We're
sorry, but our account records show you have only subscribed to the
non-precision plan. If you would like to continue to track the glideslope,
please swipe your credit card now".

[JK]

I use a sectional every time I leave the local area.

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> There is a trick for drawing a line from one side of the sectional (one
>> airport) to the other side (an airport on toe opposite side) whan
>> planning
>> a route
>
> What's a "sectional"?
>
> <ducking!>
>
> Seriously, how many here still use them for primary navigation? I
> honestly can't say I know anyone who does, anymore.
>

[Tony]

Nothing, absolutely nothing, replaces a sweaty finger on a sectional
while doing pilotage. My favorite use of them, though, is to give them
to a pax and let them track my navigation if the weather is clear
enough.

I can't remember the last time I used one in real life for navigation,
but for flight planning they are convenient for chosing airports close
to where ever it was I was going. In the good old days, for example,
it would help me choose between Midway and (was it Burke?) Lakefront
in Chicago, depending on where in the city I was going. I don't
hesitate going into the larger airports because rental cars and the
like are more likely to be available, but sometimes that just isn't
the best choice.






On Jan 27, 8:50 am, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> > There is a trick for drawing a line from one side of the sectional (one
> > airport) to the other side (an airport on toe opposite side) whan planning
> > a routeWhat's a "sectional"?
>
> <ducking!>
>
> Seriously, how many here still use them for primary navigation? I
> honestly can't say I know anyone who does, anymore.
>
> Although we always carry current sectionals (we sell them at the inn,
> so I have NO excuse not to), I can't remember the last time I opened
> one. I think it was to check an AWOS frequency ahead, cuz Mary was
> futzing with the 496's XM music screen...
>
> It really is amazing how much flying has changed in the last 12
> years... What was "Buck Rogers" stuff when I was training is now
> "SOP"...
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

[Longworth[_1_]]

Jay,
I'd agree that for primary nagivation, GPS is becoming the primary
tool for many pilots but this does not mean that sectionals are not
needed. Actually, I was quite surprise to see your statements "What's
a "sectional"? Seriously, how many here still use them for primary
navigation? I honestly can't say I know anyone who does, anymore.
>From the responses that I have seen so far, it looks like either you
don't know many pilots or you don't know much about the pilots that
you know ;-)
Although GPS has come down in prices, to have the latest and
greatest ones with weather , color map and terrain features and to
have redudancy (two units) like your setup require a relatively deep
pocket. It's nice that the newer GPSs have terrain features but their
tiny screens do not provide as much information both in term of range
and resolution as the big sectional. Besides, to rely solely on GPS
for navigation, you have to assume 100% reception. In my limited
experience of using GPS in the last 4 years, I have lost GPS signals
in at least two occasions. In addition, it is quite expensive to keep
the GPS database current. The Jeppesen database update for our
Lowrance unit cost $35/month or $299/year. It's much cheaper to keep
the paper based navigation tools (enroute maps & sectionals) current
so we buy fresh maps and only update the Lowrance once a year prior to
a major cross country trip.
The hand-held GPS is our primary navigation for now (until we get
the Garmin 430 or 480) but we never take off without making sure
that all our avionics (VORs, ADF, localizer, glide slope, marker
beacon) are working and that we have both the IFR enroute maps and
sectionals on board. Oh by way, we still cross check our instrument
navigation with pilotage and ded reckoning in every single flight (of
course with the exception of IMC condition ;-)).

Hai Longworth

[[email protected]]

Jay Honeck writes:
> > The 496 displays terrain quite nicely. I haven't upgraded the
> > software in our 2000c to do so, but it has the same capability. (Of
> > course, most of our "terrain" worries are towers, here in the
> > Midwest...)

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> I thought it was bad form to look at the little GPS screen when you're
> supposed to be looking out the window.

It's not bad to *look* at the little GPS screen, it's bad to be
*fixated* on it.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Tony > posted:

> Nothing, absolutely nothing, replaces a sweaty finger on a sectional
> while doing pilotage. My favorite use of them, though, is to give them
> to a pax and let them track my navigation if the weather is clear
> enough.
>
> I can't remember the last time I used one in real life for navigation,
> but for flight planning they are convenient for chosing airports close
> to where ever it was I was going. In the good old days, for example,
> it would help me choose between Midway and (was it Burke?) Lakefront
> in Chicago, depending on where in the city I was going.
>
Burke Lakefront is in Cleveland, so it would be hard to choose it on the
same sectional as Midway. ;-)

You probably meant Meigs...

Neil

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> That's an interesting (if appalling) topic.

I think it is a real risk, but it would depend on the personality of
the bad guys. Unfortunately, it's quite feasible technically. The
U.S. military already has effective "area denial" (local jamming)
technology for GPS, and by now someone has certainly stolen it.

> I wonder why no one (to
> my knowledge) has ever taken out an ILS transmitter -- or, worse,
> jammed it to cause false readings -- in an effort to do the same
> thing?

The bad guys probably just aren't that sophisticated, and perhaps they
lack imagination, just as the good guys do.

A single ILS wouldn't be as damaging as jamming or spoofing GPS over a
populated area. And since civilian GPS is not encrypted, it is
particularly vulnerable to this. You just replace the satellite and
WAAS signals and direct an aircraft anywhere you want.

This is vastly harder to do with VORs, because there are so many of
them, the signal is simpler and stronger, and so on.

> If you think about what this would do at, for example, Chicago's
> O'Hare International, with planes landing at better than one per
> minute, the results could be truly appalling.

Exactly. That's one reason why I wouldn't trust GPS entirely, even
when it seems to be working perfectly.

> You could literally (in theory) steer a dozen jumbo jets into the
> ground during a snow storm before anyone caught on... Yet, it's not
> been done.

Yup.

> Have Osama's buddies just not thought of this yet, or are we talking
> about something that is much harder to accomplish than we might
> assume?

I don't think they've thought of it. Hopefully they don't read this
newsgroup. And hopefully someone in the government has thought of it,
and is working on it, instead of all the dog-and-pony shows of useless
security that wastes so much time and effort and eats so deeply into
civil liberties now.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Martin Hotze writes:

> GPS jamming is only done by those operating the GPS satellites.

Anyone with the right equipment can jam the signal, and it can be done
from the ground.

> Don't know how the
> receiver will react when one signal (out of how many?) is out of scope.

All the signals can be spoofed within a specific area by the right
equipment.

> And: What alert level you think would bring another terrorist act? They
> already won. Shock and awe, you know.

They won as soon as they generated the hysteria and loss of civil
liberties that they had targeted. They had the government to help
them, which has the same objectives but for different reasons (the
government likes to increase power whenever possible).

Terrorism requires acts that are spectacular, since terrorists don't
have the means to do things that are actually highly damaging in an
objective sense. So exploding things is much more popular than, say,
embezzlement. But multiple plane crashes might have enough of a
Hollywood flavor to appeal to terrorists.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Bob Noel writes:

> Unlikely. There are field monitors and most jumbos would have radar
> altimeters (or radio altimeters or whatever the heck they are called).

Famous last words. The USA had gate security before 9/11, and that
was supposed to stop the bad guys.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Roy Smith writes:

> Someday, you'll be flying an approach and the box will pop up with, "We're
> sorry, but our account records show you have only subscribed to the
> non-precision plan. If you would like to continue to track the glideslope,
> please swipe your credit card now".

Yes, I worry about that, too. Imagine the screen going blank because
you forgot to "activate" it for the month with a credit card before
departing.

Unfortunately, this scenario isn't as farfetched as it sounds. Just
look at all the DRM junk in Vista and you can see where the world is
heading.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Martin Hotze]

On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 17:41:41 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:

>> GPS jamming is only done by those operating the GPS satellites.
>
>Anyone with the right equipment can jam the signal, and it can be done
>from the ground.

yes. I meant: right now it is only done by those operating the satellites.

>> Don't know how the
>> receiver will react when one signal (out of how many?) is out of scope.
>
>All the signals can be spoofed within a specific area by the right
>equipment.

I can't argue on that due to lack of knowledge on this topic. ah, well,
thanks to wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System#GPS_jamming
and:
---snip
According to John Ruley, of AVweb, "IFR pilots should have a fallback plan
in case of a GPS malfunction".
---snap

as for the terrorists: no idea how much effort, skill, money and time you
need. And how big the jammers are. *gooogle* oh, here is a GPS jammer
cookbook: http://www.phrack.org/archives/60/p60-0x0d.txt *g*

>Terrorism requires acts that are spectacular, since terrorists don't
>have the means to do things that are actually highly damaging in an
>objective sense. So exploding things is much more popular than, say,
>embezzlement. But multiple plane crashes might have enough of a
>Hollywood flavor to appeal to terrorists.

So pouring 1 gallon of $pickyourfavouritepoison into the water basin of a
small town would do the trick. It will show that rural areas can be hit
("nobody is safe!") too and you have Hollywood-like szenes (hey, they
already have done films on such topics). This is much cheaper, low tech and
takes so much less effort than jamming GPS signals.

disclaimer: I am NOT a terrorist.

#m
--
I am not a terrorist. <http://www.casualdisobedience.com/>

[Mxsmanic]

Martin Hotze writes:

> yes. I meant: right now it is only done by those operating the satellites.

Actually, some other parties have developed jamming capabilities.
Mostly governments, IIRC, but it's pretty much inevitable that it has
already fallen into private hands.

> So pouring 1 gallon of $pickyourfavouritepoison into the water basin of a
> small town would do the trick.

There isn't any poison toxic enough to work with only one gallon, if
the water supply is of any significant size (it would work for a well,
though).

But overall the idea is to do something spectacular and highly
visible, even though it may not do much objective damage. 9/11 is a
typical example of this: the actual objective impact of the attack was
vastly smaller than the psychological impact.

Terrorists do this because they simply don't have the means to win
with real firepower. If they have real military capability, they just
attack in the classic way instead, with aircraft and tanks and so on.
Indeed, sometimes the only difference between the two groups is that
one has the means to maintain and use a standing military, and the
other doesn't.

> This is much cheaper, low tech and
> takes so much less effort than jamming GPS signals.

Maybe. It doesn't take much to make people hysterical, especially in
areas where the mass media fan the flames. It's interesting that
terrorists, the government, and the media all have somewhat different
goals, but the very same acts serve their purposes. A terrorist
attack is a win for the terrorists, a win for the government (it can
keep a president in office, for example), and a win for the media
(fodder for creating Fear, Uncertainty, and Dread, the essential
prerequisites to revenue).

Anyway, it's not a good idea to rely too much on GPS, or on any other
one navigation method.

I just finished flying from the Grand Canyon to Phoenix by VORs with a
chart, just to stay in practice. I kept the GPS turned off. It works
just fine, and I'm not sure that it's that much more tedious than
using a GPS.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Tony]

You're right, I was thinking of Miegs. I lov3ed landing there and
walking to conventions at McCormick (did I get that right?) place. Did
the same thing at Atlantic City, it was something like Bader Field
that was about a mile from the boardwalk -- an OK walk in the daytime,
but probably a walk to eternity if taken at late night.

On Jan 28, 11:26 am, "Neil Gould" > wrote:
> Recently, Tony > posted:
>
> > Nothing, absolutely nothing, replaces a sweaty finger on a sectional
> > while doing pilotage. My favorite use of them, though, is to give them
> > to a pax and let them track my navigation if the weather is clear
> > enough.
>
> > I can't remember the last time I used one in real life for navigation,
> > but for flight planning they are convenient for chosing airports close
> > to where ever it was I was going. In the good old days, for example,
> > it would help me choose between Midway and (was it Burke?) Lakefront
> > in Chicago, depending on where in the city I was going.Burke Lakefront is in Cleveland, so it would be hard to choose it on the
> same sectional as Midway. ;-)
>
> You probably meant Meigs...
>
> Neil

[BDS]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote

> That's an interesting (if appalling) topic. I wonder why no one (to
> my knowledge) has ever taken out an ILS transmitter -- or, worse,
> jammed it to cause false readings -- in an effort to do the same
> thing?

Taking out the transmitter would probably be nothing more than a minor and
temporary annoyance (a runway switch). Creating a false signal that
overrides the main signal well enough to fool someone - not practical and
probably not possible to pull it off without someone noticing.

Same holds true for airborne GPS in my opinion. Jamming the signals - not
too effective if earth-based (GPS are line-of-sight transmissions that
cannot penetrate objects). Creating a false signal to "fool" an airborne
receiver - not practical or economically feasible.

> You could literally (in theory) steer a dozen jumbo jets into the
> ground during a snow storm before anyone caught on... Yet, it's not
> been done.

Doubtful - you don't follow an ILS signal blindly. There are cross checks
you can (and should) make along the way.

BDS

[Kev]

On Jan 28, 8:45 am, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> > And then the bad guys will head to the area of a major airport, turn
> > on the GPS jammer, and kill a few thousand people in an hour without
> > anyone even knowing they were there.
> That's an interesting (if appalling) topic. I wonder why no one (to
> my knowledge) has ever taken out an ILS transmitter -- or, worse,
> jammed it to cause false readings -- in an effort to do the same
> thing?

Didn't they do the changed-ILS crash-thing in "Die Hard 2" ? Once
our side figured it out, they had all other airplanes circle forever,
running out of fuel. This was, of course, silly, since in real life
they'd send everyone to another airport (duh).

There have been cases, even recently, of civilians using voice freqs,
pretending to be ATC. Never seems to work, though.

Someone mentioned cross-checks to prevent running into trouble if a
GPS was jammed. Yet others say they depend on it and don't pay
attention to other navigation instruments.

On a related topic, the hot news this week was the Army calling for
new comm inventions. Apparently in Iraq the US Army has upped its
constant jamming to prevent remotely-detonated IEDs, to the point that
our own units cannot communicate with each other.

Kev

[Mxsmanic]

BDS writes:

> Same holds true for airborne GPS in my opinion. Jamming the signals - not
> too effective if earth-based (GPS are line-of-sight transmissions that
> cannot penetrate objects). Creating a false signal to "fool" an airborne
> receiver - not practical or economically feasible.

The military has already done it. That's why we no longer have SA.

> Doubtful - you don't follow an ILS signal blindly. There are cross checks
> you can (and should) make along the way.

What happens after ILS is deemed old-fashioned and is replaced by GPS?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Nathan Young]

On 28 Jan 2007 05:45:44 -0800, "Jay Honeck" >
wrote:


>That's an interesting (if appalling) topic. I wonder why no one (to
>my knowledge) has ever taken out an ILS transmitter -- or, worse,
>jammed it to cause false readings -- in an effort to do the same
>thing?


It has been done in the movies. Die Hard #2.

[Mxsmanic]

Kev writes:

> Apparently in Iraq the US Army has upped its
> constant jamming to prevent remotely-detonated IEDs, to the point that
> our own units cannot communicate with each other.

That's one reason why I prefer wires wherever practical. No Wi-Fi for
me. And I feel quite uneasy about remote-controlled aircraft,
especially aircraft carrying weapons.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Jay Honeck]

> needed. Actually, I was quite surprise to see your statements "What's
> a "sectional"?

Um, that's what's called a "tongue-in-cheek" statement, in my neck of
the woods...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> You're right, I was thinking of Miegs. I lov3ed landing there and
> walking to conventions at McCormick (did I get that right?) place.

You got it right.

One of our fondest flying memories is taking the kids into Meigs
Field, not long after they re-opened the airspace after 9/11. We had
to catch a cab, cuz they weren't allowing ANYONE off the peninsula
(they even wanded my little girl) without being searched, and no
pedestrians, period.

We went to Ed Debevic's (a restaurant where the wait-staff jumps on
your table and sings, while having fun insulting you...) for lunch,
and just enjoyed the hell out of our freedom to fly.

I remember thinking, at the time, "I wonder how much longer this can
last...?"
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> I remember thinking, at the time, "I wonder how much longer this can
> last...?"

The day may come when all general aviation is just a memory. I think
the only reason it survives is that most of the population isn't
really aware of its existence. If they knew about it, they'd want to
close it down.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> And then the bad guys will head to the area of a major airport, turn
> on the GPS jammer, and kill a few thousand people in an hour without
> anyone even knowing they were there.



Do whatever you want to a GPS signal any time, anywhere. Not one person
would die as a result.

[Newps]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> And then the bad guys will head to the area of a major airport, turn
>> on the GPS jammer, and kill a few thousand people in an hour without
>> anyone even knowing they were there.
>
> That's an interesting (if appalling) topic. I wonder why no one (to
> my knowledge) has ever taken out an ILS transmitter -- or, worse,
> jammed it to cause false readings -- in an effort to do the same
> thing?
>
> If you think about what this would do at, for example, Chicago's
> O'Hare International, with planes landing at better than one per
> minute, the results could be truly appalling.

Right. A plane crashes after going hopelessly off course and nobody
else does anything. We all just sit and watch and go "huh, that's odd."
Get real. Can't happen.

[Kev]

On Jan 28, 10:56 pm, Newps > wrote:
> Right. A plane crashes after going hopelessly off course and nobody
> else does anything. We all just sit and watch and go "huh, that's odd."
> Get real. Can't happen.

Except, of course, that's exactly what happened on 9/11 with the first
tower crash.

Kev

[Kev]

On Jan 28, 10:55 pm, Newps > wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > And then the bad guys will head to the area of a major airport, turn
> > on the GPS jammer, and kill a few thousand people in an hour without
> > anyone even knowing they were there.
> Do whatever you want to a GPS signal any time, anywhere. Not one person
> would die as a result.

That's an odd conjecture to make, considering how many even in this
thread have mentioned how much some pilots rely on GPS in instrument
conditions. It's not hard to imagine a fair number of dark / cloudy
accidents in mountainous areas if a GPS signal was mucked with..
either by changing the "altitude" or even just "moving" the plane over
a mile or so.

Kev

[Mxsmanic]

Newps writes:

> Right. A plane crashes after going hopelessly off course and nobody
> else does anything. We all just sit and watch and go "huh, that's odd."
> Get real. Can't happen.

Sure it can. But hopefully it won't. Clearly, some people aren't
prepared for it.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Newps writes:

> Do whatever you want to a GPS signal any time, anywhere. Not one person
> would die as a result.

I knew there would be some use for USENET archives.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Roger[_4_]]

On 28 Jan 2007 05:09:48 -0800, "Jay Honeck" >
wrote:

>> It's interesting that people tend to be distrustful of new technology,
>> unless they find it entertaining and interesting, in which case they
>> often become suddenly willing to overlook the risks.
>
>I think you're forgetting that it takes forever for all the old stuff
>to go away -- at least not in America. Even though I rarely turn them
>on, I've got dual VORs in the panel, with dual glide-slope indicators,
>and (until last month) I still had DME, too. (I yanked it out, and
>gained 10 pounds of useful load...)
>
>Relying on GPS for VFR flying is only a "risk" if you believe that
>everything else fails, too. IFR flying, flying an approach to
>minimums in ice, now THAT is a different story.
>
I trust no one sorce of navigation.
I fly by the GPS, but I have both VORs (oneis RNAV) and the NDB on and
in use.

Sure the GPS gives me a course I couldn't come near following on any
of the other pieces of equipment, but the GPS system has been known to
fail. Only twice that I've heard of and I wasn't flying at the time,
but no piece of equipment is fail proof, nor is any specific mode of
navigation.

That is why the government decided to keep the VORs around for a
while.

GPS needs a back up.

>However, even with IFR the situational awareness and accuracy of GPS
>is so markedly improved that I really don't know any "hard" IFR pilots
>who *don't* rely on GPS anymore. Every one of the pilots I know who
>routinely fly IFR relies heavily on GPS technology now -- and that's
>only proper.

I'd say I choose to use the technology, but not to rely on it. As in
any flight always have a "way out" and always have a back up.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Bob Noel]

In article m>,
"Kev" > wrote:

> > Do whatever you want to a GPS signal any time, anywhere. Not one person
> > would die as a result.
>
> That's an odd conjecture to make, considering how many even in this
> thread have mentioned how much some pilots rely on GPS in instrument
> conditions.

If people are using a GPS without RAIM or FDE then I guess using a VFR GPS
in IMC as primary without crosscheck could be a problem when exposed to
spoofing. But there the problem isn't the spoofing, the problem is not using
proper navigation equipment for the type of flight.



> It's not hard to imagine a fair number of dark / cloudy
> accidents in mountainous areas if a GPS signal was mucked with..
> either by changing the "altitude" or even just "moving" the plane over
> a mile or so.

How do you change the altitude or location of GPS and not have
RAIM or FDE alarm?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Kev" > wrote:

> On Jan 28, 10:56 pm, Newps > wrote:
> > Right. A plane crashes after going hopelessly off course and nobody
> > else does anything. We all just sit and watch and go "huh, that's odd."
> > Get real. Can't happen.
>
> Except, of course, that's exactly what happened on 9/11 with the first
> tower crash.

try it today and see what happens.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Steve Foley]

FWIW, I use an expired sectional and match them up. After I'm done, I
tranfer the line from the expired to the new sectional.

"Ben Jackson" > wrote in message
...
> On 2007-01-27, Doug Palmer > wrote:
>> There is a trick for drawing a line from one side of the sectional (one
>> airport) to the other side (an airport on toe opposite side)
>
> As I recall, the instructions are printed on the edge of the sectional.
>
> --
> Ben Jackson AD7GD
> >
> http://www.ben.com/

[Jay Honeck]

> I think
> the only reason it survives is that most of the population isn't
> really aware of its existence. If they knew about it, they'd want to
> close it down.

Well, I think you're wrong. I use my (small, but sometimes effective)
bully pulpit as an AOPA Airport Volunteer, founder of our airport's
advocacy group, and owner of an aviation themed hotel to tell EVERYONE
about General Aviation in my neck of the woods.

So far, it's only had positive results. I think public is generally
ignorant of GA -- you got that part right -- but I think your
predicted results are wrong.

The more people know about the affordability, freedom, and sheer joy
of personal flight, the stronger GA will become.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Blanche]

Jay Honeck > wrote:
>> And then the bad guys will head to the area of a major airport, turn
>> on the GPS jammer, and kill a few thousand people in an hour without
>> anyone even knowing they were there.

How many commercial flights currently use GPS?

[Kev]

On Jan 29, 6:29 am, Bob Noel >
wrote:
> In article m>,
>
> "Kev" > wrote:
> > It's not hard to imagine a fair number of dark / cloudy
> > accidents in mountainous areas if a GPS signal was mucked with..
> > either by changing the "altitude" or even just "moving" the plane over
> > a mile or so.
> How do you change the altitude or location of GPS and not have
> RAIM or FDE alarm?

For purposes of this speculation, by spoofing the satellite signals.
A GPS receiver's RAIM algorithms wouldn't know any difference as long
as the signals came with "correct" data.

It's not much different than the "evil twin" method of spoofing a
Starbuck's WiFi hotspot, and then capturing everyone's keystrokes as
they log into their bank account. That is, you simply provide a
stronger signal.

Granted, it seems like a lot of work just to try to down a few GA
planes in a small hilly area. Airliners don't use GPS that much, if
at all. So it's not worth the trouble.

Personally, I'm more worried that terrorists are renting homes near
airports, and one day they'll all pop up at the same time with a
shoulder-fired missile. You can just imagine the government deciding
to raze all houses for miles around major airports.

Regards, Kev

[BDS[_2_]]

"Kev" > wrote

> For purposes of this speculation, by spoofing the satellite signals.
> A GPS receiver's RAIM algorithms wouldn't know any difference as long
> as the signals came with "correct" data.
>
> It's not much different than the "evil twin" method of spoofing a
> Starbuck's WiFi hotspot, and then capturing everyone's keystrokes as
> they log into their bank account. That is, you simply provide a
> stronger signal.

It isn't that simple because the receiver would still be getting information
from the satellite. The combined information would be a mess that would
cause the GPS to ignore that portion of the signal.

Pulling this off, if it could even be done, would be extremely difficult and
expensive - that's what makes it impractical. Beyond that, I seriously
doubt that anyone would fly their airplane into the ground as a result.

BDS

[Kev]

On Jan 29, 10:13 am, "BDS" > wrote:
> "Kev" > wrote
>
> > For purposes of this speculation, by spoofing the satellite signals.
> > A GPS receiver's RAIM algorithms wouldn't know any difference as long
> > as the signals came with "correct" data.
>
>.It isn't that simple because the receiver would still be getting information
> from the satellite. The combined information would be a mess that would
> cause the GPS to ignore that portion of the signal.

No sir, it would only be getting information from the spoofer. Since
the signal from space is far less than a billionth of a watt, it's
very easy to override the sat signals. I worked in Electronic
Warfare for several years, and we spoofed many kinds of signals.
Civilian GPS is not complex.

> Pulling this off, if it could even be done, would be extremely difficult and
> expensive - that's what makes it impractical.

No sir, it's easy. Satellite GPS simulators are available off-the-
shelf, for testing and development. That's all you need. For that
matter, civilian GPS receivers are probably dumb enough to let you
record a set of signals at one point on the globe, then broadcast them
back later somewhere else.

You don't have to believe me, google up gps spoofing, find stuff like:

http://pearl1.lanl.gov/external/c-adi/seals/spoof.shtml

> Beyond that, I seriously
> doubt that anyone would fly their airplane into the ground as a result.

Flying at night. Terrain or structures around. Sure, why not? But
again, it's not worth the few GA results.

Kev

[Mxsmanic]

Bob Noel writes:

> try it today and see what happens.

Unfortunately, the first evidence of a problem may not make the nature
of the problem clear, and often more things must go wrong before
anyone gets a clear idea of what is wrong.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Blanche writes:

> How many commercial flights currently use GPS?

Essentially all of them.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Bob Noel writes:

> How do you change the altitude or location of GPS and not have
> RAIM or FDE alarm?

You can spoof any system that depends exclusively on GPS, by spoofing
the GPS signals. You can spoof WAAS also. If other cross-checks are
used internally, you have to spoof those.

In other words, depending _solely_ on GPS signals is dangerous. WAAS
is also too easy to spoof. If sanity checks of these are made against
other, independent systems, however (such as an IRS or VORs,
especially the former), you should be okay. Even then, it may be
difficult to determine which system is failing.

Unfortunately, RAIM and FDE are vulnerable to spoofing, since they
depend only on GPS (as far as I know). If you spoof _all_ the
signals, they will still show everything as being fine.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Kev writes:

> Airliners don't use GPS that much, if at all.

You're sure? What about Flight Management Systems? And what about
the ever-increasing number of GPS-based approaches?

> Personally, I'm more worried that terrorists are renting homes near
> airports, and one day they'll all pop up at the same time with a
> shoulder-fired missile. You can just imagine the government deciding
> to raze all houses for miles around major airports.

That is also a tremendous problem, and probably appeals a lot more to
terrorists because of its media appeal. Exploding aircraft are much
more photogenic than crashing aircraft.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

BDS writes:

> It isn't that simple because the receiver would still be getting information
> from the satellite.

Yes, it is that simple. That's why the military took measures against
spoofing long ago (essentially, they resorted to encryption, but that
isn't practical for civilian use).

> The combined information would be a mess that would cause the GPS to
> ignore that portion of the signal.

That's not how GPS works. It's not like drowning out one AM radio
station with another.

> Pulling this off, if it could even be done, would be extremely difficult and
> expensive - that's what makes it impractical.

Unfortunately, it is quite easy, and military and government
organizations can already do it as required. It's a pretty good bet
that the same equipment has fallen into the wrong hands by now.

> Beyond that, I seriously
> doubt that anyone would fly their airplane into the ground as a result.

If someone moves an ILS to a mountainside in zero visibility, where
will the Cat IIIc landings occur?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Kev writes:

> Flying at night. Terrain or structures around. Sure, why not? But
> again, it's not worth the few GA results.

Why would anyone use it against GA? Logically they'd use it near a
major airport, and crash the commercial airliners.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> Well, I think you're wrong. I use my (small, but sometimes effective)
> bully pulpit as an AOPA Airport Volunteer, founder of our airport's
> advocacy group, and owner of an aviation themed hotel to tell EVERYONE
> about General Aviation in my neck of the woods.
>
> So far, it's only had positive results. I think public is generally
> ignorant of GA -- you got that part right -- but I think your
> predicted results are wrong.

People condemn what they do not understand. And years of complacency
and media hype have created a climate of fear that predisposes the
general population to hysterical fear of anything they don't
understand.

> The more people know about the affordability, freedom, and sheer joy
> of personal flight, the stronger GA will become.

How do you plan to make 300 million people aware of that?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[John Theune]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Blanche writes:
>
>> How many commercial flights currently use GPS?
>
> Essentially all of them.
>
Actually No. unless the avionics have been upgraded many use INS not GPS.

[BDS[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote

> > Beyond that, I seriously
> > doubt that anyone would fly their airplane into the ground as a result.
>
> If someone moves an ILS to a mountainside in zero visibility, where
> will the Cat IIIc landings occur?

GPS is not part of the ILS system.

This all sounds good from a movie perspective but it wouldn't be so easy to
do in real life, and the outcome would probably be less than newsworthy.

I am more worried about large trucks and what they can carry and where they
can deliver it.

BDS

[Kev]

On Jan 29, 2:11 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> In other words, depending _solely_ on GPS signals is dangerous.

A few years back, even DOT agreed:

http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/gps/geninfo/Volpe%20Slides.ppt

Does anyone know their current position on relying solely on GPS?
Are VORs here to stay?

Kev

[Jon]

On Jan 29, 2:39 pm, "Kev" > wrote:
>
> http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/gps/geninfo/Volpe%20Slides.ppt
>
> Does anyone know their current position on relying solely on GPS?

Yes ;)

> Are VORs here to stay?

Although some would like to tear 'em down, they're here for the short
term (say, 5-10 years), anyways.

> Kev

Regards,
Jon

[Newps]

Kev wrote:
>
> On Jan 28, 10:56 pm, Newps > wrote:
>> Right. A plane crashes after going hopelessly off course and nobody
>> else does anything. We all just sit and watch and go "huh, that's odd."
>> Get real. Can't happen.
>
> Except, of course, that's exactly what happened on 9/11 with the first
> tower crash.

The terrorists were in physical control of the airplanes. They wouldn't
be in this scenario.

[Newps]

Kev wrote:

>
> That's an odd conjecture to make, considering how many even in this
> thread have mentioned how much some pilots rely on GPS in instrument
> conditions. It's not hard to imagine a fair number of dark / cloudy
> accidents in mountainous areas if a GPS signal was mucked with..
> either by changing the "altitude" or even just "moving" the plane over
> a mile or so.
>

OK, let's assume you have screwed up the GPS signal. Use any way you
want of doing that. The airplanes start drifting off course. You think
ATC is just going to sit there and go "Huh, that's odd." Matter of fact
I doubt we'd even lose separation, much less have a crash. All the
airliners have TCAS. No matter what they won't crash into each other.
In about 15 minutes we'd figure out something was seriously wrong with
the GPS system and we'd stop using it. Radar vectors and airways for
everybody. Problem solved.

[Kev]

On Jan 29, 3:10 pm, Newps > wrote:
> OK, let's assume you have screwed up the GPS signal. Use any way you
> want of doing that. The airplanes start drifting off course. You think
> ATC is just going to sit there and go "Huh, that's odd." Matter of fact
> I doubt we'd even lose separation, much less have a crash. All the
> airliners have TCAS. No matter what they won't crash into each other.
> In about 15 minutes we'd figure out something was seriously wrong with
> the GPS system and we'd stop using it. Radar vectors and airways for
> everybody. Problem solved.

Yup, I agree. That's why I said several times that only GA would be
affected.

Kev

[Newps]

Kev wrote:
>
> On Jan 29, 3:10 pm, Newps > wrote:
>> OK, let's assume you have screwed up the GPS signal. Use any way you
>> want of doing that. The airplanes start drifting off course. You think
>> ATC is just going to sit there and go "Huh, that's odd." Matter of fact
>> I doubt we'd even lose separation, much less have a crash. All the
>> airliners have TCAS. No matter what they won't crash into each other.
>> In about 15 minutes we'd figure out something was seriously wrong with
>> the GPS system and we'd stop using it. Radar vectors and airways for
>> everybody. Problem solved.
>
> Yup, I agree. That's why I said several times that only GA would be
> affected.
>

They still wouldn't really be affected. The drifting off course part
would just as easily be seen and they move too slow to really get in
anybodys way.

[Mxsmanic]

Newps writes:

> The terrorists were in physical control of the airplanes. They wouldn't
> be in this scenario.

The problem is that nobody would be in control of the airplanes in
this scenario.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

BDS writes:

> GPS is not part of the ILS system.

I know that. Obviously I am not making my point.

> This all sounds good from a movie perspective but it wouldn't be so easy to
> do in real life, and the outcome would probably be less than newsworthy.

Jet aircraft hitting the WTC towers at high speed and exploding in
mushroom clouds of flame sounded good from a movie perspective, too,
until it actually happened.

> I am more worried about large trucks and what they can carry and where they
> can deliver it.

Terrorists concentrate on the spectacular, not on the destructive.
The idea is to maximum shock value and media appeal. The actual level
of destruction is far less important. Terrorists want their
adversaries to become frightened and irrational (and thus easily
manipulated). They don't actually care about the targets.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Newps writes:

> OK, let's assume you have screwed up the GPS signal. Use any way you
> want of doing that. The airplanes start drifting off course. You think
> ATC is just going to sit there and go "Huh, that's odd."

No, but ATC can't vector them all at once.

> Matter of fact I doubt we'd even lose separation, much less have
> a crash. All the airliners have TCAS. No matter what they won't
> crash into each other.

That's not the objective. All you need is low visbility and aircraft
wandering around and you're bound to get a few spectacular accidents.

> In about 15 minutes we'd figure out something was seriously wrong with
> the GPS system and we'd stop using it.

In 15 minutes, half the planes in the area could be smoking ruins on
the ground.

> Radar vectors and airways for everybody. Problem solved.

Will you bet your life on it?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Kev]

On Jan 29, 3:58 pm, Newps > wrote:
> > [re: GA aircraft affected by GPS spoofing]
>
> They still wouldn't really be affected. The drifting off course part
> would just as easily be seen and they move too slow to really get in
> anybodys way.

That seems a big assumption that anyone at ATC would notice. If I'm
flying without a flight plan on a moonless night, using my GPS for
terrain awareness, ATC does not magically know where I'm headed. Or
if I'm using a GPS approach to a non-towered field in the boonies, I
doubt NY Approach is paying close attention to my course instead of
all the planes around JFK/ LGA / EWR. Are terrain warnings for all
aircraft available to you? Still doesn't help if I'm not talking to
ATC.

Kev

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Newps writes:
>
>> The terrorists were in physical control of the airplanes. They wouldn't
>> be in this scenario.
>
> The problem is that nobody would be in control of the airplanes in
> this scenario.
>

What the hell are you talking about? Fuzzing up the GPS signal doesn't
affect anything else.

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Newps writes:
>
>> OK, let's assume you have screwed up the GPS signal. Use any way you
>> want of doing that. The airplanes start drifting off course. You think
>> ATC is just going to sit there and go "Huh, that's odd."
>
> No, but ATC can't vector them all at once.

That's a no brainer. "Attention all aircraft using GPS, fly your
present heading." Then you can explain to everybody what the problem is
and that you'll be assigning the ones that need it alternate instructions.


>
>> Matter of fact I doubt we'd even lose separation, much less have
>> a crash. All the airliners have TCAS. No matter what they won't
>> crash into each other.
>
> That's not the objective. All you need is low visbility and aircraft
> wandering around and you're bound to get a few spectacular accidents.

Nope, weather is irrelevant. Aircraft wouldn't be wandering around.


>
>> In about 15 minutes we'd figure out something was seriously wrong with
>> the GPS system and we'd stop using it.
>
> In 15 minutes, half the planes in the area could be smoking ruins on
> the ground.

We wouldn't lose one.



>
>> Radar vectors and airways for everybody. Problem solved.
>
> Will you bet your life on it?

We did on 9/11. We emptied the skies of every aircraft in short order
and never had so much as an operational error.

[Newps]

Kev wrote:


Or
> if I'm using a GPS approach to a non-towered field in the boonies, I
> doubt NY Approach is paying close attention to my course instead of
> all the planes around JFK/ LGA / EWR.


They have a number of controllers that do nothing but the satellite
airports.

[Kev]

On Jan 29, 5:00 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Newps writes:
> > Matter of fact I doubt we'd even lose separation, much less have
> > a crash. All the airliners have TCAS. No matter what they won't
> > crash into each other.
>
> That's not the objective. All you need is low visbility and aircraft
> wandering around and you're bound to get a few spectacular accidents.

No. There's low visibility every day. Heck, even when a power outage
kills radar coverage, we still don't have crashes. Part of that is
due to... yes, remember? ... pilots listening to each others'
positions on the radio.

It's not the airliners that would suffer from a GPS spoof. They don't
use it, and there's lots of other coverage. (And the close terrain
calls that you do get, have nothing to do with GPS either.)

it's the GA pilot, out of ATC contact, totally trusting his handheld
or panel device, who'd be at risk.

Kev

[BDS]

"Kev" > wrote

> That seems a big assumption that anyone at ATC would notice. If I'm
> flying without a flight plan on a moonless night, using my GPS for
> terrain awareness, ATC does not magically know where I'm headed. Or
> if I'm using a GPS approach to a non-towered field in the boonies, I
> doubt NY Approach is paying close attention to my course instead of
> all the planes around JFK/ LGA / EWR. Are terrain warnings for all
> aircraft available to you? Still doesn't help if I'm not talking to
> ATC.

Do you typically fly around on moonless nights below the surrounding terrain
using your gps to guide you through the valleys? Didn't think so.

This whole scenario is a stretch. It's not gonna happen and even if it did,
I doubt that it would be much more than a temporary inconvenience.

BDS

[Jon]

On Jan 29, 8:47 pm, "BDS" > wrote:
> "Kev" > wrote
>
> > That seems a big assumption that anyone at ATC would notice. If I'm
> > flying without a flight plan on a moonless night, using my GPS for
> > terrain awareness, ATC does not magically know where I'm headed.

> > Or
> > if I'm using a GPS approach to a non-towered field in the boonies, I
> > doubt NY Approach is paying close attention to my course instead of

I was under the impression that a TSO129 box is approved only for
Supplemetal Means for NPA. Not Primary Means, and most certainly not
Sole Means.

If you're using a Handheld (read: Not Certified), you're already
pushing the risk envelope beyond what the wise navigator would.

> > all the planes around JFK/ LGA / EWR. Are terrain warnings for all
> > aircraft available to you? Still doesn't help if I'm not talking to
> > ATC.Do you typically fly around on moonless nights below the surrounding terrain
> using your gps to guide you through the valleys? Didn't think so.
>
> This whole scenario is a stretch. It's not gonna happen and even if it did,
> I doubt that it would be much more than a temporary inconvenience.

Agreed. For the wise navigator anyways.

> BDS

Regards,
Jon

[Mxsmanic]

Newps writes:

> What the hell are you talking about? Fuzzing up the GPS signal doesn't
> affect anything else.

If the aircraft are being guided by GPS, it messes up everything.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

BDS writes:

> This whole scenario is a stretch. It's not gonna happen and even if it did,
> I doubt that it would be much more than a temporary inconvenience.

Nobody could ever slam an airliner into a building. Non-pilots
wouldn't have the skills, ATC would notice, they'd be intercepted in
no time, and just the whole pattern of them getting ready for such a
ridiculous attempt would be spotted by the FBI and the CIA. The whole
scenario is a stretch.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Newps writes:

> That's a no brainer. "Attention all aircraft using GPS, fly your
> present heading."

Then what?

> Then you can explain to everybody what the problem is
> and that you'll be assigning the ones that need it alternate instructions.

They all need alternate instructions immediately.

> Nope, weather is irrelevant. Aircraft wouldn't be wandering around.

They will be once their navaids become unreliable in low visibility.

> We did on 9/11. We emptied the skies of every aircraft in short order
> and never had so much as an operational error.

We did that because we were hysterical and had no idea of what was
happening (I still think it was a stupid move). And all the hijacked
aircraft still crashed.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Kev writes:

> No. There's low visibility every day.

But there's reliable IFR navigation every day, too. What if that goes
away?

> It's not the airliners that would suffer from a GPS spoof. They don't
> use it, and there's lots of other coverage. (And the close terrain
> calls that you do get, have nothing to do with GPS either.)

That's today. What about tomorrow?

> it's the GA pilot, out of ATC contact, totally trusting his handheld
> or panel device, who'd be at risk.

Alas! GA pilots are often at risk, although it's usually their own
fault.

I did some flying last night with just a chart and VORs. It has been
a long time and it made me a bit nervous. But nothing compared to not
having navaids at all.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Newps writes:
>
>> What the hell are you talking about? Fuzzing up the GPS signal doesn't
>> affect anything else.
>
> If the aircraft are being guided by GPS, it messes up everything.



No aircraft are in that respect.

[Newps]

ATC did notice. Immediately.




Mxsmanic wrote:
> BDS writes:
>
>> This whole scenario is a stretch. It's not gonna happen and even if it did,
>> I doubt that it would be much more than a temporary inconvenience.
>
> Nobody could ever slam an airliner into a building. Non-pilots
> wouldn't have the skills, ATC would notice, they'd be intercepted in
> no time, and just the whole pattern of them getting ready for such a
> ridiculous attempt would be spotted by the FBI and the CIA. The whole
> scenario is a stretch.
>

[Jay Honeck]

> > The 496 displays terrain quite nicely. I haven't upgraded the
> > software in our 2000c to do so, but it has the same capability. (Of
> > course, most of our "terrain" worries are towers, here in the
> > Midwest...)I thought it was bad form to look at the little GPS screen when you're
> supposed to be looking out the window.

My type of flying (VFR, mostly in the Midwest) means that I only use
the "terrain" feature of my GPS to "see" radio towers before they come
into visual range.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Newps writes:
>
>> That's a no brainer. "Attention all aircraft using GPS, fly your
>> present heading."
>
> Then what?

See the very next line, you putz.



>
>> Then you can explain to everybody what the problem is
>> and that you'll be assigning the ones that need it alternate instructions.
>
> They all need alternate instructions immediately.


Which is what I just got done saying. Do you even read what you respond to?



>
>> Nope, weather is irrelevant. Aircraft wouldn't be wandering around.
>
> They will be once their navaids become unreliable in low visibility.


One navaid, of which very few aircraft are even using in the system.
Visibility is not relavant.



>
>> We did on 9/11. We emptied the skies of every aircraft in short order
>> and never had so much as an operational error.
>
> We did that because we were hysterical and had no idea of what was
> happening (I still think it was a stupid move).



Nice try at a deflection. Got anything relavant to say?

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Kev writes:
>
>> No. There's low visibility every day.
>
> But there's reliable IFR navigation every day, too. What if that goes
> away?


You don't remove reliable IFR navigation by screwing with the GPS system.

[Kev]

On Jan 29, 8:47 pm, "BDS" > wrote:
> Do you typically fly around on moonless nights below the surrounding terrain
> using your gps to guide you through the valleys? Didn't think so.

Through valleys? No, not me. Others have. And yes, pilots in this
area (NW NJ) have slammed into the surrounding mountains on dark
nights. The terrain isn't far away from the airports. And sure,
those with GPS use it to help stay away from them. Don't you? Or
are you in the flatlands?

Interestingly, the second case in the following near-CFIT compilation
occurred in the NW NJ area... no, it wasn't GPS-related, but the point
is that it's not hard to hit terrain around here, even under ATC
control:

http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/report_sets/cftt.pdf

> This whole scenario is a stretch. It's not gonna happen and even if it did,
> I doubt that it would be much more than a temporary inconvenience.

Well, first you claimed GPS couldn't be spoofed, so you were wrong
there. Now you claim CFIT's couldn't happen if it was spoofed. I
politely disagree. Heck, even without GPS being screwed up, near
CFITs are damned common. In my neck of the woods, I think that
spoofing GPS could easily cause accidents.

Cheers, Kev

[Mxsmanic]

Newps writes:

> You don't remove reliable IFR navigation by screwing with the GPS system.

You do if it depends on GPS.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> Anyway, it's not a good idea to rely too much on GPS, or on any other
> one navigation method.

And you would know to make a judgement like that how?

> I just finished flying from the Grand Canyon to Phoenix by VORs

No, you didn't.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> > How many commercial flights currently use GPS?
>
> Essentially all of them.
>

BRUHAHA!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> I did some flying last night with just a chart and VORs.

No, you didn't.

> It has been
> a long time and it made me a bit nervous.

You've really got a problem.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[BDS]

"Kev" > wrote

> > This whole scenario is a stretch. It's not gonna happen and even if it
did,
> > I doubt that it would be much more than a temporary inconvenience.
>
> Well, first you claimed GPS couldn't be spoofed, so you were wrong
> there.

I believe I said it wasn't practical - meaning from the standpoint of being
done by a terrorist (note that they typically use low-tech approaches to
everything). Yes, the military has done it - I don't believe anyone else
has been successful at fooling an airborne GPS.

> And sure,
> those with GPS use it to help stay away from them. Don't you? Or
> are you in the flatlands?

I have flown all over the US and Canada. I have never relied on a GPS to
keep me from flying into a mountain in VFR weather.

> Now you claim CFIT's couldn't happen if it was spoofed. I
> politely disagree. Heck, even without GPS being screwed up, near
> CFITs are damned common. In my neck of the woods, I think that
> spoofing GPS could easily cause accidents.

OK - it seems that the focus of this keeps changing. If you are on an IFR
approach, you have several other resources that will work to prevent you
from running into the ground if the GPS signal is taking you somewhere other
than the airport, beginning with ATC as you first begin the approach and you
hear a polite "where do you think you are going?". If you are talking about
VFR on moonless nights, well, again IMO it's a stretch. I've done plenty of
VFR flying at night and I never had to rely solely on a GPS or any other nav
gear to keep me from running into the ground.

BDS

[Thomas Borchert]

Kev,

> Heck, even without GPS being screwed up, near
> CFITs are damned common.
>

Say what? I'd like to see numbers supporting that statement.

There is no such thing as a regular terrain avoidance (in normal
flying, not emergencies) based on GPS. It is based on altitudes flown
and on approach/departure procedures designed for terrain avoidance.
Those procedures are based on all kinds of navaids.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Kev]

On Jan 30, 8:37 am, Thomas Borchert >
wrote:
> Kev,
>
> > Heck, even without GPS being screwed up, near
> > CFITs are damned common.

>Say what? I'd like to see numbers supporting that statement.

I don't think there's such a thing as official numbers, nor could
there be. Who would admit to it?

Read the ASRS reports I linked to. I was surprised myself. And
that's just from people who feel the need to submit one, which is
mostly airline pilots.

> There is no such thing as a regular terrain avoidance (in normal
> flying, not emergencies) based on GPS. It is based on altitudes flown
> and on approach/departure procedures designed for terrain avoidance.
> Those procedures are based on all kinds of navaids.

Sure. But I like night VFR flying, so my perspective is from that
angle. I'm not under ATC, so they're no help. I'm not always able
to see mountains or clouds. A few seconds of lostness can be quite
dangerous. Relying on a spoofed GPS could be deadly. So I don't.

Everyone seems to be fixated on airliners, big airport approaches,
etc. Yet there are GA instrument pilots who admit relying almost
totally on GPS for position awareness on approaches to podunk
airports. I'm saying that the latter obviously could be vulnerable to
spoofing. Not all of them, just some. YMMV.

Kev

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> I did some flying last night with just a chart and VORs. It has been
> a long time and it made me a bit nervous. But nothing compared to not
> having navaids at all.

Using a chart and VORs made you nervous in your sim? You really need to see
if the Doctor will up your meds.

[Matt Barrow]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>> I did some flying last night with just a chart and VORs. It has been
>> a long time and it made me a bit nervous. But nothing compared to not
>> having navaids at all.
>
> Using a chart and VORs made you nervous in your sim? You really need to
> see if the Doctor will up your meds.
I hope he isn't watching "Creature Features" on Friday night, in the
dark....alone.

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Newps writes:
>
>> You don't remove reliable IFR navigation by screwing with the GPS system.
>
> You do if it depends on GPS.

No, you do not.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Kev > posted:

> On Jan 30, 8:37 am, Thomas Borchert >
> wrote:
>
>> There is no such thing as a regular terrain avoidance (in normal
>> flying, not emergencies) based on GPS. It is based on altitudes flown
>> and on approach/departure procedures designed for terrain avoidance.
>> Those procedures are based on all kinds of navaids.
>
> Sure. But I like night VFR flying, so my perspective is from that
> angle. I'm not under ATC, so they're no help. I'm not always able
> to see mountains or clouds. A few seconds of lostness can be quite
> dangerous. Relying on a spoofed GPS could be deadly. So I don't.
>
As long as you stay above the max obstacle height on your sectional, you
shouldn't have to worry about terrain avoidance. If you're into night VFR
scud running, that's another matter entirely, and should be discussed with
your shrink. ;-)

> Everyone seems to be fixated on airliners, big airport approaches,
> etc. Yet there are GA instrument pilots who admit relying almost
> totally on GPS for position awareness on approaches to podunk
> airports. I'm saying that the latter obviously could be vulnerable to
> spoofing. Not all of them, just some. YMMV.
>
Well, there's position awareness, and there's terrain avoidance. I doubt
that there are a lot of pilots that would fly IFR minimums into an airport
without a GPS approach. OTOH, using the GPS to get you into the vacinity
of the podunk airport and using standard VFR approach procedures after
that is pretty reasonable. If someone could spoof the system (I'm not
convinced that the effort would be worth it) I would think, though that
there would be many clues that something was wrong long before it became
critical. For example, the GPS indicates that you're flying over a city,
but all you can see outside is black.

Neil

[Thomas Borchert]

Neil,

> As long as you stay above the max obstacle height on your sectional, you
> shouldn't have to worry about terrain avoidance.
>

Exactly right.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[george]

On Jan 30, 11:29 pm, Thomas Borchert >
wrote:
> Mxsmanic,
>
> > I did some flying last night with just a chart and VORs.
>
> No, you didn't.
>
> > It has been
> > a long time and it made me a bit nervous.
>
> You've really got a problem.
>
I wonder if he does any 'hood' time to stay current
ROTFL

[Pixel Dent]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Newps writes:
>
> > OK, let's assume you have screwed up the GPS signal. Use any way you
> > want of doing that. The airplanes start drifting off course. You think
> > ATC is just going to sit there and go "Huh, that's odd."
>
> No, but ATC can't vector them all at once.


"It's not what he doesn't know that bothers me, it's what he knows for
sure that just ain't so."

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> And you would know to make a judgement like that how?

Yes. It's a classic issue in the design and use of complex systems.

> No, you didn't.

You weren't there.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

> As long as you stay above the max obstacle height on your sectional, you
> shouldn't have to worry about terrain avoidance.

You have to know where you are in order to do that, or you have to
stay above Mount Everest.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> Using a chart and VORs made you nervous in your sim? You really need to see
> if the Doctor will up your meds.

Sims can leave experienced fighter pilots soaked with sweat. Do you
suggest that they visit a doctor as well?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> Using a chart and VORs made you nervous in your sim? You really need
>> to see if the Doctor will up your meds.
>
> Sims can leave experienced fighter pilots soaked with sweat. Do you
> suggest that they visit a doctor as well?

Yes, if they get that way playing on MSFS.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> Yes, if they get that way playing on MSFS.

Every simulator has its share of realism, and creates a mood to match.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> > No, you didn't.
>
> You weren't there.
>

No need. YOU do NOT fly.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> No need. YOU do NOT fly.

I flew last night for several hours. Unfortunately, I had an accident
when someone who hadn't bothered to contact the tower decided to take
off on the same runway in the opposite direction. He flew right over
me, I hit the runway, and skidded across the taxiway onto the apron of
Terminal 3. The aircraft was a write-off but my pax and I got out
safely. One of the risks of online simulation is that ill-behaved
pilots will pop into existence on a runway and take-off without ever
even noticing you on short final. Oh well. Thank goodness I had a
spare Baron waiting as back-up.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Steve Foley]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> I flew last night for several hours. Unfortunately, I had an accident
> when someone who hadn't bothered to contact the tower decided to take
> off on the same runway in the opposite direction. He flew right over
> me, I hit the runway, and skidded across the taxiway onto the apron of
> Terminal 3. The aircraft was a write-off but my pax and I got out
> safely.

I'm glad you weren't hurt.

Please let us know what the FAA does to the other pilot.

I still don't see the prelim NTSB report. Where did this occur?

[Mxsmanic]

Steve Foley writes:

> Please let us know what the FAA does to the other pilot.

I'm not sure that he was licensed. He certainly wasn't following the
rules. I was unable to identify him so he'll probably escape any
punishment.

> I still don't see the prelim NTSB report. Where did this occur?

Last night. The NTSB doesn't bother with simulated accidents, so no
report will be forthcoming.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> I flew last night for several hours.
>

We've been through this before. And it gets boring. But since many
casual readers might still fall for your lies, here we go again:

There is no conceivable definition of flying that would include what
you do. When you claim to have flown, you blatantly lie. Which further
ruins what little reputation or respect you might have gained at least
with a few people here for the odd interesting question that might be
found among your many posts (talk about SNR...). So, unless you're
really into self-destruction (which, incidentally, I am convinced you
are), why do you do it?

You played. One might go farther and say you simulated flying, but in a
group frequented by pilots, that statement would require the additional
explanation that you simulated it with soft- and hardware not qualified
nor certified for any kind of logging or substitution of actual flying
(which would be a Flight Training Device as defined in the regs).

So, in no way did or do you "fly". Face it! And don't lie anymore to
the people here by pretending otherwise. That is a continuing insult to
the group's intelligence.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Thomas Borchert writes:
>
>> No need. YOU do NOT fly.
>
> I flew last night for several hours. Unfortunately, I had an accident
> when someone who hadn't bothered to contact the tower decided to take
> off on the same runway in the opposite direction. He flew right over
> me, I hit the runway, and skidded across the taxiway onto the apron of
> Terminal 3. The aircraft was a write-off but my pax and I got out
> safely. One of the risks of online simulation is that ill-behaved
> pilots will pop into existence on a runway and take-off without ever
> even noticing you on short final. Oh well. Thank goodness I had a
> spare Baron waiting as back-up.

Yes, you really need your meds adjusted.

[Jay Honeck]

> >> No need. YOU do NOT fly.
>
> > I flew last night for several hours. Unfortunately, I had an accident
> > when someone who hadn't bothered to contact the tower decided to take
> > off on the same runway in the opposite direction. He flew right over
> > me, I hit the runway, and skidded across the taxiway onto the apron of
> > Terminal 3. The aircraft was a write-off but my pax and I got out
> > safely. One of the risks of online simulation is that ill-behaved
> > pilots will pop into existence on a runway and take-off without ever
> > even noticing you on short final. Oh well. Thank goodness I had a
> > spare Baron waiting as back-up.
>
> Yes, you really need your meds adjusted.

Although MX is wrong (again) in not clearly stating that he "flew" in
virtual reality, until you see how realistic a good flight simulator
can be, it's hard to imagine how all-immersing (and real) the
experience can be.

Just last night, my A&P mechanic was "flying" the Kiwi (our flight
simulator at the hotel -- see it here: http://www.alexisparkinn.com/flight_simulator.htm)
into Martinique. It was simulating a 737 in almost every meaningful
way, and as he skimmed low over the beach, the room was silent. (Last
night was Movie Night at the inn, so there were a few movie-goers
still watching.) Every one of us was holding our breath, waiting for
the wheels to chirp on the runway.

And we only fly patterns and approaches -- a "real" sim pilot will do
the entire flight, from walk around to ATC clearances, to parking. I
don't have the time or patience for that, but the program can easily
(and competently) simulate it.

Microsoft's accomplishment with this program is truly remarkable.
When married with the proper controls and displays, it's very easy to
forget that you're NOT really flying.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[RomeoMike]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>
> Although MX is wrong (again) in not clearly stating that he "flew" in
> virtual reality, until you see how realistic a good flight simulator
> can be, it's hard to imagine how all-immersing (and real) the
> experience can be.

Well, you can separate reality from fantasy. You didn't come to this
forum saying something like, "last night I flew my 737 IFR from LAX to
SFO. On the way I buzzed the beach. Today I think I'll do acro in my
P-51." These kind of statements belong on a game newsgroup, which is
where MX should post them. Here they are misleading and OT.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>> No need. YOU do NOT fly.
>>
>>> I flew last night for several hours. Unfortunately, I had an
>>> accident when someone who hadn't bothered to contact the tower
>>> decided to take off on the same runway in the opposite direction.
>>> He flew right over me, I hit the runway, and skidded across the
>>> taxiway onto the apron of Terminal 3. The aircraft was a write-off
>>> but my pax and I got out safely. One of the risks of online
>>> simulation is that ill-behaved pilots will pop into existence on a
>>> runway and take-off without ever even noticing you on short final.
>>> Oh well. Thank goodness I had a spare Baron waiting as back-up.
>>
>> Yes, you really need your meds adjusted.
>
> Although MX is wrong (again) in not clearly stating that he "flew" in
> virtual reality, until you see how realistic a good flight simulator
> can be, it's hard to imagine how all-immersing (and real) the
> experience can be.
>

Jay, we've had this discussion before. MSFS is very pretty and with a set up
like the Kiwi is very immersive. But look at what Anthony wrote and where he
wrote it. It would be like me going into one of the military newsgroups and
saying, "last night I killed 24 Nazi soldiers" because I played Call of
Duty.

Anthony seems to becoming MORE delusional as time goes by. At least in his
earlier posts he didn't say he was actually flying he made the separation
between simming and flying even if it was to say there was no difference.

[Thomas Borchert]

Jay,

> Although MX is wrong (again) in not clearly stating that he "flew" in
> virtual reality, until you see how realistic a good flight simulator
> can be, it's hard to imagine how all-immersing (and real) the
> experience can be.
>

So what? Is it flying? No, clearly not.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Mxsmanic]

RomeoMike writes:

> Well, you can separate reality from fantasy. You didn't come to this
> forum saying something like, "last night I flew my 737 IFR from LAX to
> SFO. On the way I buzzed the beach. Today I think I'll do acro in my
> P-51." These kind of statements belong on a game newsgroup, which is
> where MX should post them. Here they are misleading and OT.

You don't spend much time in simulators, do you?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Steve Foley]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
>
> Anthony seems to becoming MORE delusional as time goes by. At least in his
> earlier posts he didn't say he was actually flying he made the separation
> between simming and flying even if it was to say there was no difference.

If you examine his posts, you see he carefully chooses inflammatory words,
and his responses are usually completely inappropriate to the topic at hand.

I don't think he's delusional at all. He's very good at what he's doing. He
tosses out subtle insults and waits for the response. He moves from one
newsgroup to another, tossing out his 'bait' and seeing who bites.

If he had a boat, it would be called 'trolling'.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Steve Foley wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Anthony seems to becoming MORE delusional as time goes by. At least
>> in his earlier posts he didn't say he was actually flying he made
>> the separation between simming and flying even if it was to say
>> there was no difference.
>
> If you examine his posts, you see he carefully chooses inflammatory
> words, and his responses are usually completely inappropriate to the
> topic at hand.
> I don't think he's delusional at all. He's very good at what he's
> doing. He tosses out subtle insults and waits for the response. He
> moves from one newsgroup to another, tossing out his 'bait' and
> seeing who bites.
> If he had a boat, it would be called 'trolling'.

I'm going through the phases of MX. At first I just thought he was stupid.
Then I was pretty sure he was just a troll. But I'm really begining to think
he is indeed crazy as a **** house rat.

[george]

On Feb 1, 3:35 am, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> > >> No need. YOU do NOT fly.
>
> > > I flew last night for several hours. Unfortunately, I had an accident
> > > when someone who hadn't bothered to contact the tower decided to take
> > > off on the same runway in the opposite direction. He flew right over
> > > me, I hit the runway, and skidded across the taxiway onto the apron of
> > > Terminal 3. The aircraft was a write-off but my pax and I got out
> > > safely. One of the risks of online simulation is that ill-behaved
> > > pilots will pop into existence on a runway and take-off without ever
> > > even noticing you on short final. Oh well. Thank goodness I had a
> > > spare Baron waiting as back-up.
>
> > Yes, you really need your meds adjusted.
>
> Although MX is wrong (again) in not clearly stating that he "flew" in
> virtual reality, until you see how realistic a good flight simulator
> can be, it's hard to imagine how all-immersing (and real) the
> experience can be.
>
> Just last night, my A&P mechanic was "flying" the Kiwi (our flight
> simulator at the hotel -- see it here:http://www.alexisparkinn.com/flight_simulator.htm)
> into Martinique. It was simulating a 737 in almost every meaningful
> way, and as he skimmed low over the beach, the room was silent. (Last
> night was Movie Night at the inn, so there were a few movie-goers
> still watching.) Every one of us was holding our breath, waiting for
> the wheels to chirp on the runway.

Yep Jay but most of you 'flying' the Kiwi are pilots and the things
pilots see in simulations (as your example above) that relate to their
experiences...
I hope your kiwi has the long beak that ours do :-)

[Steve Foley]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...

> I'm going through the phases of MX.

I'm sorry to hear that <g>

I don't think he's anything more than an effective troll. I'll never
understand his motive, unless he just gets his jollies by ****ing people
off.

What really bothers me is his complete disrespect for the other participants
in this newsgroup. This is not a simulator newsgroup, it's a group for
pilots. The fact that he chooses to pollute this group with his drivel is
one problem. The other is that many choose to allow him to vandalize the
place. If everyone would ignore him, he would go away, but many won't. They
respect his right to pollute.

Unfortunately, this has made reading this group much less enjoyable for ME.

Today was a good day. Only 1/3 of todays postings have his stench attached.

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> I'm going through the phases of MX. At first I just thought he was stupid.
> Then I was pretty sure he was just a troll. But I'm really begining to think
> he is indeed crazy as a **** house rat.

And what makes you think that he can't be all three?

I killfiled him and any thread that he starts quite awhile ago... Funny
how quiet the newsgroup has been since then...

[Msxmanic]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

>
> You don't spend much time in simulators, do you?
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

I don't spend much time in the real world.

[Jay Honeck]

> Well, you can separate reality from fantasy. You didn't come to this
> forum saying something like, "last night I flew my 737 IFR from LAX to
> SFO. On the way I buzzed the beach. Today I think I'll do acro in my
> P-51." These kind of statements belong on a game newsgroup, which is
> where MX should post them. Here they are misleading and OT.

Agree 100%. My statements about the Kiwi notwithstanding, MX needs to
clearly state upfront that he is not really flying, lest some newbie
here presume otherwise.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Jay, we've had this discussion before. MSFS is very pretty and with a set up
> like the Kiwi is very immersive. But look at what Anthony wrote and where he
> wrote it. It would be like me going into one of the military newsgroups and
> saying, "last night I killed 24 Nazi soldiers" because I played Call of
> Duty.

ROTFL! That is just an outstanding comparison....nothing more can be
added, after that...!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> Agree 100%. My statements about the Kiwi notwithstanding, MX needs to
> clearly state upfront that he is not really flying, lest some newbie
> here presume otherwise.

Or else what?

If simulation is so different from real flight, it should be instantly
obvious that I'm simulating. If it's not obvious, then that aspect of
simulation is probably not different.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Thomas Borchert]

Gig,

> But I'm really begining to think
> he is indeed crazy as a **** house rat.
>

You betcha.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Jay Honeck writes:
>
>> Agree 100%. My statements about the Kiwi notwithstanding, MX needs
>> to clearly state upfront that he is not really flying, lest some
>> newbie here presume otherwise.
>
> Or else what?
>

Jay, one of the few people that take up for you in this newsgroup might stop
doing so.


> If simulation is so different from real flight, it should be instantly
> obvious that I'm simulating. If it's not obvious, then that aspect of
> simulation is probably not different.

There was nothing in your comment that could have been used to make the
distinction. As I've stated I think the reason for that is that you really
can't tell the difference. And while that adds a lot of entertainment value
of a game for you it really shows a lack of connection with the real world.

[Jay Honeck]

> If simulation is so different from real flight, it should be instantly
> obvious that I'm simulating. If it's not obvious, then that aspect of
> simulation is probably not different.

Uh oh, we've crossed an existential barrier here that is becoming
fuzzier all the time. When will virtual reality become
indistinguishable from "reality"?

Are your experiences in the sim valid, if they precisely reproduce
reality? Yes, in many respects, they are. However, as good as MSFS
is, it simply does NOT precisely reproduce reality, especially in the
standard simmer's set up.

I don't know what kind of computer rig you're running flight sim on,
but from past posts I am presuming a standard PC with a joystick. I
can guarantee you that this is not a valid reproduction of flight, and
therefore invalidates your advice and observations on many aspects of
flight.

That said, you *might* be a good source of knowledge regarding IFR
procedures, depending on how religiously you reproduce the
experience. As many people have pointed out, a sim is an excellent
IFR trainer, as IFR flight is closer to "programming" than real flying
in many phases of flight.

(Oooo, that one is gonna hit a few sore spots! Donning flame-proof
suit... ;-)

It won't, however, allow you to comment on the IFR flight experience
itself, since you can't possibly reproduce the "leans" that you get
when flying in the clouds, nor can you feel the actual emotional
release you get when you break out at minimums.

Basically, your contentions are invalid, and will be invalid until you
are able to afford a more advanced full-motion simulator. And even
THEN many of your observations will be invalid, simply because it's
not real.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> Uh oh, we've crossed an existential barrier here that is becoming
> fuzzier all the time. When will virtual reality become
> indistinguishable from "reality"?

When you can get the same bodily (and monetary) injuries from your
mistakes in a sim that you can in reality?

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> Jay, one of the few people that take up for you in this newsgroup might stop
> doing so.

I don't try to build fan clubs and gangs. I grew out of that a long
time ago. People should do what they feel is right.

> There was nothing in your comment that could have been used to make the
> distinction.

A real pilot would know.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> Uh oh, we've crossed an existential barrier here that is becoming
> fuzzier all the time. When will virtual reality become
> indistinguishable from "reality"?

It's all a matter of degree and context. Dreams often seem completely
real ... until you wake up.

> Are your experiences in the sim valid, if they precisely reproduce
> reality? Yes, in many respects, they are.

If they precisely produce one aspect of reality, they are identical to
reality for that aspect. That's a fundamental principle of
simulation, although it is one that many people have trouble
understanding.

> However, as good as MSFS is, it simply does NOT precisely reproduce
> reality, especially in the standard simmer's set up.

Which part of reality? And which reality? General aviation?
Airliners? Helicopters?

> I don't know what kind of computer rig you're running flight sim on,
> but from past posts I am presuming a standard PC with a joystick.

Yes. An average PC with a joystick and throttle quadrant, and pedals.

> I can guarantee you that this is not a valid reproduction of flight, and
> therefore invalidates your advice and observations on many aspects of
> flight.

Which aspect of flight does it fail to reproduce? Your general
statement is neither valid nor invalid, because it is too general.

> That said, you *might* be a good source of knowledge regarding IFR
> procedures, depending on how religiously you reproduce the
> experience.

I'm very diligent.

> As many people have pointed out, a sim is an excellent
> IFR trainer, as IFR flight is closer to "programming" than real flying
> in many phases of flight.

An IFR flight is much closer to flying a jet airliner than VFR flight
is. Flying a jet airliner in commercial service is pressing VNAV and
LNAV at 2000 feet.

> It won't, however, allow you to comment on the IFR flight experience
> itself, since you can't possibly reproduce the "leans" that you get
> when flying in the clouds, nor can you feel the actual emotional
> release you get when you break out at minimums.

Actually, I know the former sensation, because it occurs in ordinary
airliners--the passengers feel exactly the same sensations as the
pilots, since they are in the same aircraft.

> Basically, your contentions are invalid, and will be invalid until you
> are able to afford a more advanced full-motion simulator. And even
> THEN many of your observations will be invalid, simply because it's
> not real.

The irony is that many people make invalid observations even after
having flown a real aircraft. It's just not that simple. Flying in a
real aircraft is not magic, and it's not the huge barrier or partition
that many people here like to believe.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Grumman-581 writes:

> When you can get the same bodily (and monetary) injuries from your
> mistakes in a sim that you can in reality?

Full-motion simulators can produce injuries, although they can be
programmed to avoid this (I'm surprised that they are not universally
programed to prevent injury).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>

>
>> There was nothing in your comment that could have been used to make
>> the distinction.
>
> A real pilot would know.

That's the problem, there are a lot of people who read this group who aren't
real pilots (you are proof of that)and they see a post where a guys writes
that he flew a 737 between LAX and PHX they think he is a real pilot and an
airline pilot at that.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> That's the problem, there are a lot of people who read this group who aren't
> real pilots (you are proof of that)and they see a post where a guys writes
> that he flew a 737 between LAX and PHX they think he is a real pilot and an
> airline pilot at that.

What's wrong with that? Lots of real pilots do exactly that.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> That's the problem, there are a lot of people who read this group
>> who aren't real pilots (you are proof of that)and they see a post
>> where a guys writes that he flew a 737 between LAX and PHX they
>> think he is a real pilot and an airline pilot at that.
>
> What's wrong with that? Lots of real pilots do exactly that.

Oh, I'm sorry. Since you have such a history of responses out of context I
thought you could deal with one yourself.

So to make it clearer add the following to my previous post.

Instead of an idiot that has never flown a real aircraft and is most likely
has mental issues. Oh, and he's fat as well.

[virtuPIC]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> There is a trick for drawing a line from one side of the sectional (one
>> airport) to the other side (an airport on toe opposite side) whan planning
>> a route
>>
>
> What's a "sectional"?
>
> <ducking!>
>
What a giant thread! Or threat? Well, you can plan your trip using
http://www.airspace-v.com - but info you find there is /not/ official.
So you have to check other sources, too. Seems that we'll have to put
this warning somewhere on each map you find there since not all people
do care too much about their life...

virtuPIC

P.S.: No offence meant!

--
Airspace v - international hangar flying!
http://www.airspace-v.com

[Morgans]

"virtuPIC" > wrote

> What a giant thread! Or threat?

What are your sending settings, that cause your posts to look so much
different on my viewer?

Are you sending in plain text, as is convention in Usenet, text groups?
--
Jim in NC