Flight Lessons

[Charles Talleyrand]

I'm curious how Air Force/Navy pilots get their wings? Do they go to some place like Emory-Riddle and fly Cessna 172s. Do they get
instrument ratings in these 172s? What's the transition to 'real iron'?

Basically, what's a newly minted Air Force/Navy pilot's logbook look like and where did he got those hours?

[S. Sampson]

"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote
>
> I'm curious how Air Force/Navy pilots get their wings? Do they go to
> some place like Emory-Riddle and fly Cessna 172s. Do they get
> instrument ratings in these 172s? What's the transition to 'real iron'?
>
> Basically, what's a newly minted Air Force/Navy pilot's logbook look
> like and where did he got those hours?

This page is a good example of ROTC training

http://www.wpi.edu/Academics/Depts/AFAS/Cadets/guide/pilotnavtrain.html

[John Carrier]

USN gets about 60 hours primary training in T-34C (or USAF T-37 ... its a
joint world). If he's a strike student, he continues with intermediate in
the T-2 and advanced in the T-45 OR just a combined strike syllabus in T-45
only. (T-2 will retire next year.) He'll accumulate maybe 275 hours in the
primary/intermediate/advanced syllabus ... about 250 or so in the T-45 only
program.

Students may have prior time (I've seen 'em with up to 1500 hours civilian
time) but its not required. Previous experience usually helps until about
half way through. All the Cessna time in the world won't matter when they
start doing formation, tac forms, weaps, acm, etc.

R / John

"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message
...
> I'm curious how Air Force/Navy pilots get their wings? Do they go to some
place like Emory-Riddle and fly Cessna 172s. Do they get
> instrument ratings in these 172s? What's the transition to 'real iron'?
>
> Basically, what's a newly minted Air Force/Navy pilot's logbook look like
and where did he got those hours?
>
>
>

[Charles Talleyrand]

"S. Sampson" > wrote in message . ..
> This page is a good example of ROTC training
>
> http://www.wpi.edu/Academics/Depts/AFAS/Cadets/guide/pilotnavtrain.html

Much Thanks. Did you notice the picture is a C-152 and the text says everyone train in a C-172?

[[email protected]]

>Ed Rasimus > wrote:
wrote:

>>In my Father's era (late 50's) no college degree was required for the
>>USAF Aviation Cadet program. Although he lacked a college degree,
>>he was still sharp as a tack and as many a college educated test pilot
>>or rip snortin' WW2 or Korea-era ace, or Vietnamese ground pounder
>>found out, he was one_bad_sumbitch in the air -- sheepskin or no.

>Lots of folks have griped over the years about the college graduate
>requirement, but the fact is that modern aircraft (and the integrated
>weapons system in which they operate) are very complex and the degree
>offers an indication that the individual will be able to deal with the
>complexity. Additionally, there are more than enough candidates who
>meet the criteria that it doesn't need to be modified.

Not saying that the criteria needs to be modified (I have both 2-year
and a 4-year degrees and agree that a college education trains one
to think at a deeper level) but I think (as did my ol' man) that a
college education is often over-rated.

For example, with just a high school education (and a few semesters
of higher education at the Univ. of Minnesota) his ability to quickly
perform mathematical computations in his head exceeded mine and
he would have no difficulty whatsoever checking out in a modern F-18
or F-15.

I was brought up in the '60's and 70's when experimental, newfangled
methods of education were just cranking up in our public school system
while your generation was raised in the more structured, "old
fashioned" era of "Reading, Writing and Arithmetic." No wonder his
math skills were superior to mine!

>>No doubt that you, Walt BJ, my ol' man or any other self-respecting
>>fighter pilot (as opposed to "pilot who flew fighters") wouldn't scoff
>>at what's available in civilian programs.

>I imagine you can find a lot of training in aerobatics, modern
>instrument flying, and even some formation. I don't know of many
>civilian programs who operate supersonic aircraft, fly a reasonable
>air/air introduction (T-6 and T-34 civilian programs aren't
>comparable), and I don't know anyplace outside the military that lets
>you drop bombs.

Exactly right.

>You can certainly prepare yourself for an excellent career in the
>airlines or general aviation with the great civilian
>schools---provided you've got a pretty healthy bank account.

Based on my experience dealing with these "great civilian schools"
(FlightSafety, for example), one can often receive a superior
education in general aviation by going to the lesser known,
"Ma & Pa" flight schools. Don't pay any attention to the slick,
4-color ad copies and press clippings of those well-known GA flight
schools such as Embry Riddle, FlightSafety, American Failures er'
Flyers etc. For the most part, they're simply over-priced country
clubs interested in churning out quantity rather than quality.

>>I think if he were still alive today, the notion of women flying combat
>>would make him go "straight up and break left" and he'd spit on the
>>current crop of fighter pilots not because they aren't any good, but
>>because of political correctness.

>There are some warriors around. Even today. Some of them are even
>women.

Women warriors such as? Do you really believe what you just wrote?

-Mike Marron

[Ed Rasimus]

wrote:

>>Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>>Lots of folks have griped over the years about the college graduate
>>requirement, but the fact is that modern aircraft (and the integrated
>>weapons system in which they operate) are very complex and the degree
>>offers an indication that the individual will be able to deal with the
>>complexity. Additionally, there are more than enough candidates who
>>meet the criteria that it doesn't need to be modified.
>
>Not saying that the criteria needs to be modified (I have both 2-year
>and a 4-year degrees and agree that a college education trains one
>to think at a deeper level) but I think (as did my ol' man) that a
>college education is often over-rated.

I'll certainly agree with that. The kids I see before me in my local
Community College classes range from the gifted to the inept. The
younger they are, the more likely they are to attend erratically, blow
off assignments and inevitably fail. Those with a year or two of dirt
under their fingernails seem to develop an appreciation for
intellectual labor over manual. They inevitably succeed.
>
>For example, with just a high school education (and a few semesters
>of higher education at the Univ. of Minnesota) his ability to quickly
>perform mathematical computations in his head exceeded mine and
>he would have no difficulty whatsoever checking out in a modern F-18
>or F-15.

There's little doubt of what you say, but the bottom line reigns
supreme and the military has a lot of stats to show that completion of
a four-year degree (whether or not it relates to aviation) is a good
indicator of the ability to complete an aviation training program. If
requirements rose drastically and available candidates were reduced,
the criteria might be re-examined, but that's highly unlikely.
>
>>You can certainly prepare yourself for an excellent career in the
>>airlines or general aviation with the great civilian
>>schools---provided you've got a pretty healthy bank account.
>
>Based on my experience dealing with these "great civilian schools"
>(FlightSafety, for example), one can often receive a superior
>education in general aviation by going to the lesser known,
>"Ma & Pa" flight schools. Don't pay any attention to the slick,
>4-color ad copies and press clippings of those well-known GA flight
>schools such as Embry Riddle, FlightSafety, American Failures er'
>Flyers etc. For the most part, they're simply over-priced country
>clubs interested in churning out quantity rather than quality.

Well, part of what you say is based on experience that I can't
challenge. But, I'll offer that "Ma & Pa" may not have access to
modern simulations, quality academic materials, and high-tech
aircraft. While they can make a very high-quality private pilot in a
C-152, they will have a tough time in preparing an aviation career
oriented individual for modern glass cockpits and heavy jet qual. Some
of the larger corporations have the overhead to fund the expensive
training.
>
>>>I think if he were still alive today, the notion of women flying combat
>>>would make him go "straight up and break left" and he'd spit on the
>>>current crop of fighter pilots not because they aren't any good, but
>>>because of political correctness.
>
>>There are some warriors around. Even today. Some of them are even
>>women.
>
>Women warriors such as? Do you really believe what you just wrote?

I didn't believe it for a lot of years, but I've met a lot of the
current crop and they are a pretty well-blooded group of aviators,
what with DS, Kosovo, IF and various other combat ops under their
belts. The guys accept and respect the girls and the girls seem to
have their act pretty well together. There are exceptions to every
rule, of course.

One of the most vivid examples I've encountered is an AF
captain--call-sign "Shooter". Graduate of USAFA, went to Nav school,
flew combat as an F-15E WSO. Qualified for pilot training (a very
competitive process for operational navs) and went to Vipers out of
pilot training. Flew more combat in Vipers. Drinks well, knows the
words to all the songs!



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
***"When Thunder Rolled:
*** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
*** from Smithsonian Books
ISBN: 1588341038

[Grantland]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote:

>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>
>>
>> In WW II almost no one had a college education. And I think that the vast
>> majoriity of wash-outs did so not because they weren't smart enough or
>that
>> they couldn't do the job. It was because they could'ot learn FAST ENOUGH.
>The
>> instructors toelrated one error. If you did it agin you got a check ride.
>Any
>> erorr on the check ride and you were out. everything was time dependant. I
>> think college hones learning skills so you can learn faster. Thousands
>of
>> Bombardiers and navigators washed out not because they weren't good at
>their
>> assigned jobs. It was because they couldn't learn to send and recieve
>8wpm in
>> Morse code in the very limited time allowed. Learning speed was
>everything.
>> There was a war on and they had planes they had it get into the air.
>>
>
>Its interesting to note that the RAF still doesnt require a college
>education for its pilots. All they require 2 A levels and 5
>GCSE passes, including English language and maths , this wouldnt
>get you into many universities and is roughly equivalent to graduating
>from high school in the USA.
>
>Keith
>
Rubbish. O-levels exceed that derisory qualification.

Grantland

[Ed Rasimus]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:


>> One of the most vivid examples I've encountered is an AF
>> captain--call-sign "Shooter". Graduate of USAFA, went to Nav school,
>> flew combat as an F-15E WSO. Qualified for pilot training (a very
>> competitive process for operational navs) and went to Vipers out of
>> pilot training. Flew more combat in Vipers. Drinks well, knows the
>> words to all the songs!
>
>Dancing nekid on the bar ...
>

You need to learn how to edit.

And, she's an AF officer and "dancing nekid" isn't part of the job
description.

Take a moment to consider the benefit you're adding to the discussion
before posting.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
***"When Thunder Rolled:
*** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
*** from Smithsonian Books
ISBN: 1588341038

[Keith Willshaw]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...

>
> In WW II almost no one had a college education. And I think that the vast
> majoriity of wash-outs did so not because they weren't smart enough or
that
> they couldn't do the job. It was because they could'ot learn FAST ENOUGH.
The
> instructors toelrated one error. If you did it agin you got a check ride.
Any
> erorr on the check ride and you were out. everything was time dependant. I
> think college hones learning skills so you can learn faster. Thousands
of
> Bombardiers and navigators washed out not because they weren't good at
their
> assigned jobs. It was because they couldn't learn to send and recieve
8wpm in
> Morse code in the very limited time allowed. Learning speed was
everything.
> There was a war on and they had planes they had it get into the air.
>

Its interesting to note that the RAF still doesnt require a college
education for its pilots. All they require 2 A levels and 5
GCSE passes, including English language and maths , this wouldnt
get you into many universities and is roughly equivalent to graduating
from high school in the USA.

Keith

[S. Sampson]

> wrote
>
> In my Father's era (late 50's) no college degree was required for the
> USAF Aviation Cadet program. Although he lacked a college degree,
> he was still sharp as a tack and as many a college educated test pilot
> or rip snortin' WW2 or Korea-era ace, or Vietnamese ground pounder
> found out, he was one_bad_sumbitch in the air -- sheepskin or no.

Sure, Sure... But he couldn't work his way into a classroom of a
bunch of 19 year old kids :-)

> my ol' man or any other self-respecting
> fighter pilot (as opposed to "pilot who flew fighters") wouldn't scoff
> at what's available in civilian programs.

Pilots who flew fighters are called fighter pilots.

> I think if he were still
> alive today, the notion of women flying combat would make him go
> "straight up and break left"

He was probably a red-neck, and the thought of darkies holding the
stick probably scared him more than women.

> and he'd spit on the current crop of
> fighter pilots not because they aren't any good, but because of
> political correctness.

Who gives a ****. He's dead now. Only the worms know what he's
thinking now.

[Ed Rasimus]

"S. Sampson" > wrote:


>> my ol' man or any other self-respecting
>> fighter pilot (as opposed to "pilot who flew fighters") wouldn't scoff
>> at what's available in civilian programs.
>
>Pilots who flew fighters are called fighter pilots.

I'm sorry, but they aren't. Folks are called "fighter pilots" by
others who measure them. They don't self-anoint and the mere
assignment does not confer the title.
>
>> I think if he were still
>> alive today, the notion of women flying combat would make him go
>> "straight up and break left"
>
>He was probably a red-neck, and the thought of darkies holding the
>stick probably scared him more than women.

That's never been a part of the discussion and to attribute that to a
gentleman you don't know anything about is an injustice.
>
>> and he'd spit on the current crop of
>> fighter pilots not because they aren't any good, but because of
>> political correctness.
>
>Who gives a ****. He's dead now. Only the worms know what he's
>thinking now.

And, that addendum is too low to even elicit response.

As I mentioned to Tarver, we all should stop more often to consider
the value of the response we offer. Sometimes when we have nothing to
say, we would do well to refrain from saying it.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
***"When Thunder Rolled:
*** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
*** from Smithsonian Books
ISBN: 1588341038

[Gooneybird]

Unless it has changed from years past, the brain is generally disengaged whilst
the head is up and locked you know where. (^-^)))

George Z.

Ed Rasimus wrote:
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
>
>>> One of the most vivid examples I've encountered is an AF
>>> captain--call-sign "Shooter". Graduate of USAFA, went to Nav school,
>>> flew combat as an F-15E WSO. Qualified for pilot training (a very
>>> competitive process for operational navs) and went to Vipers out of
>>> pilot training. Flew more combat in Vipers. Drinks well, knows the
>>> words to all the songs!
>>
>> Dancing nekid on the bar ...
>>
>
> You need to learn how to edit.
>
> And, she's an AF officer and "dancing nekid" isn't part of the job
> description.
>
> Take a moment to consider the benefit you're adding to the discussion
> before posting.
>
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (ret)
> ***"When Thunder Rolled:
> *** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
> *** from Smithsonian Books
> ISBN: 1588341038

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
>
> >> One of the most vivid examples I've encountered is an AF
> >> captain--call-sign "Shooter". Graduate of USAFA, went to Nav school,
> >> flew combat as an F-15E WSO. Qualified for pilot training (a very
> >> competitive process for operational navs) and went to Vipers out of
> >> pilot training. Flew more combat in Vipers. Drinks well, knows the
> >> words to all the songs!
> >
> >Dancing nekid on the bar ...
> >
>
> You need to learn how to edit.

It is your last paragraph, Ed.

> And, she's an AF officer and "dancing nekid" isn't part of the job
> description.

I was suggesting the dance for your drunken self.

[B2431]

Ed, you are an optimist.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

>
>"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
>
>>> One of the most vivid examples I've encountered is an AF
>>> captain--call-sign "Shooter". Graduate of USAFA, went to Nav school,
>>> flew combat as an F-15E WSO. Qualified for pilot training (a very
>>> competitive process for operational navs) and went to Vipers out of
>>> pilot training. Flew more combat in Vipers. Drinks well, knows the
>>> words to all the songs!
>>
>>Dancing nekid on the bar ...
>>
>
>You need to learn how to edit.
>
>And, she's an AF officer and "dancing nekid" isn't part of the job
>description.
>
>Take a moment to consider the benefit you're adding to the discussion
>before posting.
>
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (ret)
> ***"When Thunder Rolled:
> *** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
> *** from Smithsonian Books
> ISBN: 1588341038
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Charles Talleyrand]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message ...
> Dancing nekid on the bar ...


You quoted four pages of material (which I've clipped) just to offer a stupid joke.
Please spare us your sense of humor, and please learn to avoid excessive quoting.

Why am I posting this as opposed to mailing directly? So we can all learn from
Mr. Tarver's mistake. Don't quote excessively!

[Tarver Engineering]

"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> > Dancing nekid on the bar ...
>
>
> You quoted four pages of material (which I've clipped)

Poor baby.

[Keith Willshaw]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...

>
> Well if we take all the US and British servicemen we can say that WW
II was
> won by a few million high school graduates. (grin)
>

Hell my father left school at the age of 13 and nobody asked him
what academic qualifications he had when he joined the army in 1938.

As long as you had 2 eyes, all your limbs and didnt have
flat feet you were in the infantry.

Keith

[Cub Driver]

>Lots of folks have griped over the years about the college graduate
>requirement, but the fact is that modern aircraft (and the integrated
>weapons system in which they operate) are very complex and the degree
>offers an indication that the individual will be able to deal with the
>complexity. Additionally, there are more than enough candidates who
>meet the criteria that it doesn't need to be modified.

Often in my life I've had occasion to point out to youngsters that you
don't get a degree to prepare yourself for a career. You get a degree
so that you can be in that group of people who are considered worthy
of trying out for a career.

Before about 1942, to be accepted for pilot training as a commissioned
officer, you had to have two years of college behind you--this in a
time when the army and navy were drawing from a pool of young man
who'd grown up in the the Great Depression. A bachelor's degree in say
1939 was about as rare as a PhD today. So being selective is nothing
new for the air forces.

This requirement was of course relaxed during the war, and men like
Chuck Yeager (who'd trained under a special program for
sergeant-pilots) managed to become pilots, officers, and gentlemen
without the two years of college. But most of them, if they stayed in
the service postwar, went sent back to college by the Air Force or
managed a degree on their own, through the Univ of Maryland or similar
programs.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>Its interesting to note that the RAF still doesnt require a college
>education for its pilots.

Secondary education in the UK is tracked, tested, and standards
enforced. There's absolutely no comparison between the graduate of an
American high school and an equivalent university-track student in
Britain.

Isn't Cranwell (the RAF equivalent of West Point) still a two-year
course? And aren't most UK bachelor's-degree programs still three
years in duration?

These aren't indications of a lesser interest in higher education on
the part of Brits (though there is some of that as well, especially
with respect to women). They're a recognition that British schools and
universities get their students better prepared, at least when it
comes to academics.

I went to graduate school in Manchester. My friends were all
undergraduates, and many were first-year students.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Keith Willshaw]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> >Its interesting to note that the RAF still doesnt require a college
> >education for its pilots.
>
> Secondary education in the UK is tracked, tested, and standards
> enforced. There's absolutely no comparison between the graduate of an
> American high school and an equivalent university-track student in
> Britain.
>
> Isn't Cranwell (the RAF equivalent of West Point) still a two-year
> course?

All officer student aircrew complete a 24-week Initial Officer Training
(IOT)
course at RAF College Cranwell, they then progress to the elementary flying
training course at RAF Church Fenton where they receive common core
groundschool training and EFT or if they joined via a University Air
Squadron
EFT is given at Barkston Heath

To progress beyond EFT students are required to pass a Final Handling Test
At this stage pilots are selected for 1 of 3 streams

Fast-Jet Stream
Pilots selected for fast-jet streaming progress to BFJT on the Tucano at RAF
Linton-on-Ouse. The 124 hour BFJT course is designed as a lead in to
fast-jet ATTU at RAF Valley. On successful completion of BFJT, students are
posted to the ATTU to complete advanced flying training, tactics and weapons
training on the Hawk. At the end of this course, pilots are assessed for
either single or 2 seat operations and most progress to an Operational
Conversion Unit (OCU) prior to joining a front-line fast-jet squadron.

Multi-Engine Stream
Approximately half of all ab-initio pilots destined for multi-engine (ME)
training are directly streamed and complete a 30 hour Multi-Engine Lead-In
(MELIN) course on the Firefly. The remainder of the annual intake comprises
students restreamed to ME from elsewhere in pilot training. All are posted
to 45(R) Squadron at RAF College Cranwell to complete either a 70 hour, 45
hour or 30 hour AFT course on the Jetstream, before progressing to an OCU
and a front-line squadron.

Rotary Stream
RAF rotary wing pilot training is conducted at DHFS, RAF Shawbury. The RAF
course comprises a 37 hour basic phase and an 30 hour advanced stage, both
of which are conducted on the Squirrel. Following this, students undertake
64 hours of multi-engine flying on the Griffin before completing 12 hours
SAR training. Successful students then progress through Operational
Conversion Flights to front-line squadrons.

>And aren't most UK bachelor's-degree programs still three
> years in duration?
>

For the most part yes though there are some colleges that run 2 year
courses for high flyers or those with pre-existing lesser qualiications
such as the HND/HNC technical qualifications.

Keith

[Keith Willshaw]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >As long as you had 2 eyes, all your limbs and didnt have
> >flat feet you were in the infantry.
>
> Those requirements were later relaxed. When I was drafted, in 1956, I
> had thirteen years of schooling but I was flat-footed and essentially
> blind in one eye.
>

The flat footed still might end up in the navy or the air force but
the army didnt want them, eyesight problems were less of an
impediment, especially after war started, there were plenty of soldiers
blind in one eye.

Keith

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Flight Lessons
>From: Cub Driver
>Date: 8/5/03 2:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >

>Before about 1942, to be accepted for pilot training as a commissioned
>officer, you had to have two years of college behind you--this in a
>time when the army and navy were drawing from a pool of young man
>who'd grown up in the the Great Depression. A bachelor's degree in say
>1939 was about as rare as a PhD today. So being selective is nothing
>new for the air forces.
>
>This requirement was of course relaxed during the war, and men like
>Chuck Yeager (who'd trained under a special program for
>sergeant-pilots) managed to become pilots, officers, and gentlemen
>without the two years of college. But most of them, if they stayed in
>the service postwar, went sent back to college by the Air Force or
>managed a degree on their own, through the Univ of Maryland or similar
>programs.
>
>
>all the best -- Dan Ford


There has been number of comments on how much more complicated things are now
as compared to WW II. But I dont k now about that. When I talk to guys at
Nellis about navigation and bombing it all seems electronic and automatic now.
It was far from that back then. You had to understand evrything and work
through problems with laborious pencil and paper procedures and an error could
spell disaster. Seems a lot simpler now than it was back then. Take GPS as one
of many cases in point.

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[[email protected]]

(ArtKramr) wrote:

[snip]

>Thousands of Bombardiers and navigators washed out ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^

Appreciate the info, but the discussion is about *pilot* training.

-Mike Marron

[[email protected]]

(ArtKramr) wrote:

>There has been number of comments on how much more complicated things are now
>as compared to WW II. But I dont k now about that. When I talk to guys at
>Nellis about navigation and bombing it all seems electronic and automatic now.
>It was far from that back then. You had to understand evrything and work
>through problems with laborious pencil and paper procedures and an error could
>spell disaster. Seems a lot simpler now than it was back then. Take GPS as one
>of many cases in point.

GPS navigation is wonderful, but we are just now beginning to realize
the many downsides of GPS such as tunnel vision, degraded situational
awareness, increased airspace incursions, more heads-down flying,
more buttons and more confusion.

The point is Art, whether you like it or not, things are much MUCH
more complicated now for pilots (in both the civilian and military
arenas) as compared to WW2.

We still require the same keen eyes, quick reactions and good hands,
but we're also tasked with complex tasks (esp. in this post 9/11 era)
that you aren't even aware of.

You're choosing to focus on aspects that YOU happen to be familiar
with (e.g: navigation and bombing) but pilots have to know a lot more
"stuff" than just how to navigate and drop bombs.

-Mike Marron

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Flight Lessons
>From:
>Date: 8/5/03 7:41 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
(ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>>There has been number of comments on how much more complicated things are
>now
>>as compared to WW II. But I dont k now about that. When I talk to guys at
>>Nellis about navigation and bombing it all seems electronic and automatic
>now.
>>It was far from that back then. You had to understand evrything and work
>>through problems with laborious pencil and paper procedures and an error
>could
>>spell disaster. Seems a lot simpler now than it was back then. Take GPS as
>one
>>of many cases in point.
>
>GPS navigation is wonderful, but we are just now beginning to realize
>the many downsides of GPS such as tunnel vision, degraded situational
>awareness, increased airspace incursions, more heads-down flying,
>more buttons and more confusion.
>
>The point is Art, whether you like it or not, things are much MUCH
>more complicated now for pilots (in both the civilian and military
>arenas) as compared to WW2.
>
>We still require the same keen eyes, quick reactions and good hands,
>but we're also tasked with complex tasks (esp. in this post 9/11 era)
>that you aren't even aware of.
>
>You're choosing to focus on aspects that YOU happen to be familiar
>with (e.g: navigation and bombing) but pilots have to know a lot more
>"stuff" than just how to navigate and drop bombs.
>
>-Mike Marron
>
>

There is no "just" to bombing and navigating. But I guess your war was
different from mine.

>You're choosing to focus on aspects that YOU happen to be familiar
>with

That is totaly true. But this would be a better NG if everyone else did the
same.

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[[email protected]]

> (ArtKramr) wrote:
>> wrote:

>>You're choosing to focus on aspects that YOU happen to be familiar
>>with (e.g: navigation and bombing) but pilots have to know a lot more
>>"stuff" than just how to navigate and drop bombs.

>There is no "just" to bombing and navigating.

Right. We all know by now (thanks to you pounding it into our heads
ad nauseum) that it takes a "superman" to bomb and navigate (esp.
in the B-26) but as I said -- this here particular thread pertains to
*pilot* training.

>But I guess your war was different from mine.

I have never claimed to be a "warrior" and last time I checked, being
a combat veteran isn't a pre-requisite for posting on RAM.

>>You're choosing to focus on aspects that YOU happen to be familiar
>>with

>That is totaly true. But this would be a better NG if everyone else did the
>same.

And this would be a better NG if people like you learned how to
properly format their posts and responded to the subject at hand
rather than going off on irrelevant tangents like you, Tarver, et. al.
have done in this and countless other threads.

Let me give you a hint with regards to posting etiquette. Scroll up
and note how you copy and pasted the following sentence and then
responded to this exact same sentence twice:

I said:

"You're choosing to focus on aspects that YOU happen to be familiar
with..."

And after you copy and pasted the above sentence and responded to
it not once, but twice, you then conveniently snipped away the point
I made about how things are not as simple due to the advent of GPS as
you claimed they were and chose instead to go off on another one of
your off-topic, tangential tirades about "your" war being different
than "mine." Then you signed off after moaning about the sad state of
affairs on this NG??!??

Here's another hint, Art. Due to your lack of formatting skills,
selective reading (that inevitably leads to more of your of
uncalled-for insults and namecalling), copy & pasting sentences
so as to respond twice to the exact same sentence and just your
overall bad form, YOU are a significant part of the problem, not the
solution, on this NG. In addition to going back to the basics of
Usenet etiquette, as Dudley said, you really do need to start reading
your threads more carefully.

Careful now Art, you're about to spew...

-Mike Marron

[[email protected]]

wrote:
>
>You're choosing to focus on aspects that YOU happen to be familiar
>with (e.g: navigation and bombing) but pilots have to know a lot more
>"stuff" than just how to navigate and drop bombs.
>
>-Mike Marron
>
No one's an expert at everything yet everyone's an expert at
something.
--

-Gord.

[OXMORON1]

Mike Marron wrote:

>Careful now Art, you're about to spew...

Art doesn't have to spew, you are doing a pretty fair job of it.

Rick Clark

[[email protected]]

>Art Kramer wrote:
>>Mike Marron wrote:

>>Careful now Art, you're about to spew...

>No spewing. :Le's review the bidding.

OK, let's...

>You insulted navigitors and bombardiers by reffering to them
>as "just" navigators and bombardiers,

Wrongo. Dudley hit the nail squarely on the head when he said you
need to read these threads more carefully before responding. Once
again, here is exactly what I wrote:



************************************************** **********************

You're choosing to focus on aspects that YOU happen to be familiar
with (e.g: navigation and bombing) but pilots have to know a lot more
"stuff" than just how to navigate and drop bombs.

************************************************** **********************


Note that I merely pointed out that pilots have to know more
than "just" how to NAVIGATE and DROP BOMBS. In other words,
the word "just" was being used as an adverb to modify the act
of ->navigating<- and ->bomb dropping<- *not* as an adjective
describing "navigators and bombadiers" in a negative manner.

>Then you insulted me for only talking about those things in which
>I had experience.

Wrong again.

You said:

************************************************** *************************

There has been number of comments on how much more complicated
things are now as compared to WW II. But I dont k now about that.
When I talk to guys at Nellis about navigation and bombing it all
seems electronic and automatic now. It was far from that back then.
You had to understand evrything and work through problems with
laborious pencil and paper procedures and an error could spell
disaster. Seems a lot simpler now than it was back then. Take GPS
as one of many cases in point.

************************************************** **************************


To which I responded:


************************************************** **************************

GPS navigation is wonderful, but we are just now beginning to realize
the many downsides of GPS such as tunnel vision, degraded situational
awareness, increased airspace incursions, more heads-down flying,
more buttons and more confusion.

************************************************** ***************************


Exactly where in the paragraph above did I "insult" you above for only
talking about those things in which you had experience? For such a
rootin' tootin' bombadier, your vines sure do have tender grapes, huh?


>When I objected your answer was to attack my formating skills.

Wrong again. I attacked your argument that things nowadays aren't
as complicated as they were back in your day. The attack on your
formatting (not to mention your reading comprehension) skills came
later, and rightly so.

>And it isn't my fault that you have no combat experience.

Congratulations. That's the first thing you've said in this entire
thread that isn't wrong.

>That is your prooblem not mine.

Er um, like everyone else I have my fair share of problems but I don't
consider having "no combat experience" as one of 'em. Having had
one warrior in the family is more than enough for me, thank you.

>Now who is the problem?

You are. But if you learn how to properly snip and format your
responses and read your threads more closely I'm confident that
you can overcome your problems.

>Now let's agree to have nothing to do with one another from here on.
>OK?

Quite frankly, I couldn't care less whether or not you have nothing to
do with me from here on. However, besides learning how to properly
format your postings and read your threads more carefully, you need
to learn one other thing about Usenet.

Not unlike the nut who stands up on his soapbox with bullhorn in hand
in the middle of the town square espousing his beliefs to one and all,
you are free to do the same here on RAM. However, others are free
to walk up to you and your bullhorn and tell you politely, yet flat
out that you're full of ****.

In other words, normally I ignore you but I reserve the right to
disagree with you at any time when you post something that I am
convinced is wrong. For example, your argument that things nowadays
aren't as complicated as they were back in your day.

-Mike Marron

[Cub Driver]

>Take GPS as one
>of many cases in point.

I found the E6B circular slide rule "computer" a real bear to
understand and use, plus there was always the problem of where to
store it and how to use it when your left hand is on the stick.

Hitting the On button, then Waypoints, then Go To, is just my speed. I
am grateful that I was born late enough in the history of man to enjoy
the fruits of powered flight, the internet, and GPS navigation.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Flight Lessons
>From: Cub Driver
>Date: 8/6/03 2:48 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>>>You're choosing to focus on aspects that YOU happen to be familiar
>>>with
>>
>>That is totaly true. But this would be a better NG if everyone else did the
>>same.
>
>Thanks for brightening my morning.
>
>all the best -- Dan Ford


My pleasure. (grin)


>

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[[email protected]]

>ArtKramr wrote:
>>Cub Driver wrote:

>>I found the E6B circular slide rule "computer" a real bear to
>>understand and use, plus there was always the problem of where to
>>store it and how to use it when your left hand is on the stick.

No prob. Simply hold the stick in one hand and rotate the circular
slide rule on your E6B in the other. Considering how slowly one
"drives" a Cub thru the air, it really shouldn't be all that difficult
(kinda' like walking and chewing gum at the same time). Of course,
they also make these thingy's that you strap on your knees called
"kneeboards" that come in handy as well.

>W lived and died by the E 6-B.After 60 years I still treasure mine and always
>thought it a gift from the gods. I thought how amazing it was that we had a
>device the could do everything. Even today I could probably still run a double
>drift and end up with a nice tight wind star.(grin)

Do trophies I won at the local bomb drop contests count? Folks knew I
would always win so to be competitive they kept changing the rules in
midstream (e.g: allowing the competition to fly lower and lower before
releasing their "bombs").

The rules stipulated two bombs per pilot (brightly colored socks
filled with sand dropped from no lower than 100 ft. AGL). I finally
got tired of their cheatenous ways so the last time I entered the
silly contest, in addition to the two "official" bombs they issued,
when they weren't looking I decided to load up my "bomber" with
a half dozen bombs filled with flour along with two water balloons
thrown in for good measure.

When it was my turn, I initiated my normal bombing run at the "target"
(a 10 ft. X 10 ft. box outlined on the ground with chalk or tape) but
this time, I waited until I was aimed straight at the crowd of
spectators gathered on the sidelines before rolling wings level.
I remained up at the regulation 100 ft. AGL height so they wouldn't
suspect anything out of the ordinary was about to happen...

I won't soon forget the sight of all those nice folks frantically
scattering in all directions while trying to avoid the bursting water
balloons and clouds of flour. I promptly departed the area after
my bombing run....


-Mike (and haven't been back since) Marron

[Ed Rasimus]

(ArtKramr) wrote:

>GPS was something we could only dream of.Think of the thousands of lost planes
>and lives and ruined missions that could have been saved if we only had GPS.
>
>Arthur Kramer

A lot of guys had the same wistful thought about INS. Simply enter the
coordinates and follow the bearing pointer to the target. I can't
begin to tell you the long series of stories of guys blindly following
the needle while totally ignoring the landmarks, the TACAN, the radar
presentation and good ol' fashioned ded reckoning until they are
totally lost, busted the TAC check and missed the target.

GPS is simply one of a series of tools that must, repeat MUST, be used
in concert and with common sense.

Even the vaunted E-6B (I taught flight planning and navigation in
pilot training academics) was only as good as the common sense of the
user. I would patiently tell the students repeatedly to first estimate
what they think an appropriate answer might be, then do the "whiz
wheel" calculation. For example, my airspeed is 300 knots and I'm
going 120 miles on the leg, how long should it take me? If you guess
24 minutes before you pick up your E-6B, you've got a good chance of
coming up with the right answer.

I recall an ORI out of Torrejon Spain that sent us to a tanker in the
N. Atlantic on a track we seldom used. The "planning cell" in the
command post prepared our flight data cards and transposed two digits
in a Lat/Long for INS coordinates. I was leading with the wing DO on
my wing. When we coasted out from Spain, the bearing point showed 40
degrees left of where the TACAN radial was and where ded reckoning
said we should head. I went to the tanker track while the DO told me I
was wrong and should follow the INS. I told him he was #2 and to
maintain radio silence. We went to the tanker.

Garbage in--garbage out. It never changes.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
***"When Thunder Rolled:
*** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
*** from Smithsonian Books
ISBN: 1588341038

[[email protected]]

>ArtKramr wrote:
>>Cub Driver wrote:

>>Thanks for brightening my morning.

>My pleasure. (grin)

What's this, a drive-by shooting after I tore your argument apart
limb by limb? (grin)

-Mike Marron

[[email protected]]

>Ed Rasimus > wrote:
(ArtKramr) wrote:

>>GPS was something we could only dream of.Think of the thousands of lost planes
>>and lives and ruined missions that could have been saved if we only had GPS.

>A lot of guys had the same wistful thought about INS. Simply enter the
>coordinates and follow the bearing pointer to the target. I can't
>begin to tell you the long series of stories of guys blindly following
>the needle while totally ignoring the landmarks, the TACAN, the radar
>presentation and good ol' fashioned ded reckoning until they are
>totally lost, busted the TAC check and missed the target.

>GPS is simply one of a series of tools that must, repeat MUST, be used
>in concert and with common sense.

>Even the vaunted E-6B (I taught flight planning and navigation in
>pilot training academics) was only as good as the common sense of the
>user. I would patiently tell the students repeatedly to first estimate
>what they think an appropriate answer might be, then do the "whiz
>wheel" calculation. For example, my airspeed is 300 knots and I'm
>going 120 miles on the leg, how long should it take me? If you guess
>24 minutes before you pick up your E-6B, you've got a good chance of
>coming up with the right answer.

>I recall an ORI out of Torrejon Spain that sent us to a tanker in the
>N. Atlantic on a track we seldom used. The "planning cell" in the
>command post prepared our flight data cards and transposed two digits
>in a Lat/Long for INS coordinates. I was leading with the wing DO on
>my wing. When we coasted out from Spain, the bearing point showed 40
>degrees left of where the TACAN radial was and where ded reckoning
>said we should head. I went to the tanker track while the DO told me I
>was wrong and should follow the INS. I told him he was #2 and to
>maintain radio silence. We went to the tanker.

>Garbage in--garbage out. It never changes.

Another great story Ed, thanks. As I tried to explain to Art, despite
its vaunted capabilities, we are just now beginning to understand the
downsides of GPS navigation. The USAF began using GPS as far
back as Dec. 1973, but the civilian pilot community is still wrestling
with GPS issues such as accuracy, availability, redundancy, and
integrity to this day. AOPA conducted a study that indicated flying on
GPS w/o autopilot actually resulted in two to four times *greater*
cockpit workload. Other issues such as reduced accuracy of
maneuvering because the pilot is staring at the GPS and is all
over the sky, lack of standardization (unlike VOR's for example,
every GPS make/model is different), pilots using handheld GPS
units to shoot IFR approaches not realizing that handheld GPS
units lack integrity or RAIM (receiver autonomous intergrity
monitoring), and the threat of terrorism (e.g: GPS jammers currently
available that can jam GPS signals within 45 kilometers) which
would absolutely ruin your day if you happen to be approaching
the FAF and the GPS goes tango uniform, lack of positional
awareness (more airspace incursions), pilots flying via GPS with
out-of-date databases (they're supposed to be updated every
28 days for IFR use), and the list goes on and on...

Don't get me wrong, I navigate with GPS almost every day and
my trusty GPS unit has literally saved my life on more than one
occasion when flying in Can't-See-**** conditions. The worldwide
coverage, free flight off airways on any desired course, and
dead-nuts-on accuracy of GPS's ensures that GPS navigation is
definitely here to stay well into the future.

The point I was trying to get across to our friend Art was simply
that GPS's are not the panacea that he seems to think they are.
Like you said, "garbage in -- garbage out" never changes and
I've had several students get lost on cross-countrys after plugging
in the wrong coordinates.

-Mike Marron

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Cub Driver
> writes
>Isn't Cranwell (the RAF equivalent of West Point) still a two-year
>course? And aren't most UK bachelor's-degree programs still three
>years in duration?

Three years full-time for my BEng, two years part-time for my MSc. A
four-year full-time UK degree will get you a Master's off the bat.

>These aren't indications of a lesser interest in higher education on
>the part of Brits (though there is some of that as well, especially
>with respect to women). They're a recognition that British schools and
>universities get their students better prepared, at least when it
>comes to academics.

I used to think so, but times have changed since I went through the
mill. (Doesn't everyone think it's got easier since they sat their
exams?).

Also, from 16 to 18 I studied maths (pure & applied), physics and
chemistry. Nothing else counted for grades - no history, no economics,
the focus at A-level is dismayingly narrow unless you make the effort to
expand for yourself.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Keith Willshaw
> writes
>"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>>And aren't most UK bachelor's-degree programs still three
>> years in duration?
>
>For the most part yes though there are some colleges that run 2 year
>courses for high flyers or those with pre-existing lesser qualiications
>such as the HND/HNC technical qualifications.

I wouldn't call a HND a 'lesser' qualification, particularly compared to
A-levels.

Typically, in mechanical engineering, HND students skipped the first
year of the course that A-level entrants had to plough through; they
then struggled with the hardcore mathematics in Year 2, while
confidently dominating most other fields. (Teamwork paid off, where
students of differing backgrounds supported each other: explain Laplace
transforms one evening, get water-hammer in pipes made understandable in
return)

HND entrants also tended to be significantly older, with several years'
real-world work under their belts (many I knew had earned their HNDs
part-time on the job before going to university) which tended to mean
they spent more time working and less time hung over. Certainly they
tended strongly to cluster towards the top of the class scores.

All this over a decade old, things may have changed since.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam

[Keith Willshaw]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, Keith Willshaw
> > writes
> >"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>And aren't most UK bachelor's-degree programs still three
> >> years in duration?
> >
> >For the most part yes though there are some colleges that run 2 year
> >courses for high flyers or those with pre-existing lesser qualiications
> >such as the HND/HNC technical qualifications.
>
> I wouldn't call a HND a 'lesser' qualification, particularly compared to
> A-levels.
>

Sure but its narrower than a degree

> Typically, in mechanical engineering, HND students skipped the first
> year of the course that A-level entrants had to plough through; they
> then struggled with the hardcore mathematics in Year 2, while
> confidently dominating most other fields. (Teamwork paid off, where
> students of differing backgrounds supported each other: explain Laplace
> transforms one evening, get water-hammer in pipes made understandable in
> return)
>
> HND entrants also tended to be significantly older, with several years'
> real-world work under their belts (many I knew had earned their HNDs
> part-time on the job before going to university) which tended to mean
> they spent more time working and less time hung over. Certainly they
> tended strongly to cluster towards the top of the class scores.
>
> All this over a decade old, things may have changed since.
>

Most HND courses were full time, HNC could be the real
killer 1 day and 1 night per week if you got day release or
3-4 nights otherwise, I know having got 2 of the buggers :)

Keith

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Keith Willshaw
> writes
>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
>> I wouldn't call a HND a 'lesser' qualification, particularly compared to
>> A-levels.
>
>Sure but its narrower than a degree

So are A-levels. Maths, Physics, Chemistry at A-level are narrow as hell
compared to what you need for a Mech Eng degree; the HN crew had more
breadth but less depth, especially in fancy maths. What _is_ a
self-tapping screw? Most A-level candidates wouldn't recognise it even
if you shoved it somewhere tender.


Again, that's why the HN crew skipped the first year, and why they often
struggled with hardcore maths but stormed the "real engineering"
courses.

Maybe I'm biased but I feel they turned out better engineers in two
years, than A-level students in three: certainly the exam boards seemed
to agree. A-level students often seemed to hunker down and focus on
'numbers subjects' that they were comfortable with.

All views personal, all expressed opinions assayed as worth precisely
$0.02, same as usual.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam

[OXMORON1]

Paul J Adam noted:
>(Did I mention that you can jam GPS? Even military sets? Iraq tried and
>failed, the next enemy may do better)

Murphy attacks, things break, power supplies don't..
Try 14+ hours McChord to HI, daylight, nothing worked, even the sextant had a
split bubble, it is too late to get out the book and read. You better have
learned it in training, whatever crew position you hold.

Oxmoron1
MFE
And it was a FREAKING check ride!

[S. Sampson]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote
>
> A lot of guys had the same wistful thought about INS. Simply enter the
> coordinates and follow the bearing pointer to the target.

Korean Air 007 comes to mind (if that story is true...)

> I recall an ORI out of Torrejon Spain that sent us to a tanker in the
> N. Atlantic on a track we seldom used. The "planning cell" in the
> command post prepared our flight data cards and transposed two digits
> in a Lat/Long for INS coordinates. I was leading with the wing DO on
> my wing. When we coasted out from Spain, the bearing point showed 40
> degrees left of where the TACAN radial was and where ded reckoning
> said we should head. I went to the tanker track while the DO told me I
> was wrong and should follow the INS. I told him he was #2 and to
> maintain radio silence. We went to the tanker.

Back then everyone was super-chatty on the radios, while today you
very rarely use the radio, so I would assume you could just go ADF or
Air-Air TACAN and watch the range decrease :-)

I agree, you have to have a cross-check, and a simple approximate
before calculation is bound to keep you out of trouble longer.

[Corey C. Jordan]

On 06 Aug 2003 21:35:40 GMT, (OXMORON1) wrote:

>Murphy attacks, things break, power supplies don't..
>Try 14+ hours McChord to HI, daylight, nothing worked, even the sextant had a
>split bubble, it is too late to get out the book and read. You better have
>learned it in training, whatever crew position you hold.
>
>Oxmoron1
>MFE
>And it was a FREAKING check ride!

Lol....

Give me a chart/map, water compass and a watch and I'll manage.

I never ceased to be amazed at the panic that sets in when a guy loses
his navaids.

Maybe good old-fashioned dead reckoning is becoming a lost art.....

My regards,

Widewing (C.C. Jordan)
http://www.worldwar2aviation.com
http://www.netaces.org
http://www.hitechcreations.com

[Guy Alcala]

"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

<snip>

> Ed's point is spot on - you need an idea of roughly what the answer
> _should_ be, before you slip the sticks or spin the dials. Electronic
> calculators are worse because people tend to believe the answer,
> regardless of precision or magnitude. Am I the only person who's seen a
> fellow student report a result that not only had the decimal point in
> the wrong place, but was to eight significant figures "plus or minus
> 40%"?

I can't recall anything that bad (but maybe I've forgotten some of the more
interesting results from chem class), but I do remember way back when learning
resistor color codes, seeing people in the class answer a set of test questions on
basic resistor color coding and tolerance, i.e. what is the nominal value and
tolerance of this resistor, and what are the minimum and maximum values acceptable
given the tolerance. Most people used a calculator (I didn't as it was faster to do
it in my head; how hard is it to calculate 1, 5 or 10% tolerance?). One guy was
representative, coming up with answers like the following for a 300 ohm, 10%
resistor: low and high values of 2.7 ohms and 330,000 ohms. Purely because he (and
they) didn't think, but just wrote down whatever answer the calculator gave them.

To be sure, a lot of them had poor basic math skills to start with, which I, being a
cranky, relatively young fart at the time, put down to them never having to learn
to do basic math in their head or by hand in elementary school, so they had no idea
whether the answer made any sense. But what can you expect in a state where the
public teacher's unions complain that because too many of their members can't pass
the math, english and other competency tests, they should be made easier, despite
the tests having already been dumbed down first to 11th and subsequently 8th grade
level? One suspects that they too 'learned' to do math with a calculator, assuming
that they ever learned at all.

Here ends my 'everything's gone to hell in handbasket since my day' rant. Honesty
compels me to admit that I only had to walk between 1 and 2 miles each way to
school, that it was only uphill ONE way, that it never snowed (this is the San
Francisco Bay Area), and that gas-fired central heating, electric lighting and hot
and cold running water was provided.

Guy

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Flight Lessons
>From: (OXMORON1)
>Date: 8/6/03 2:35 PM Pacific Daylight Time

>Murphy attacks, things break, power supplies don't..
>Try 14+ hours McChord to HI, daylight, nothing worked, even the sextant had a
>split bubble, it is too late to get out the book and read. You better have
>learned it in training, whatever crew position you hold.

That is always the case.

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[[email protected]]

>Corey C. Jordan wrote:

>Maybe good old-fashioned dead reckoning is becoming a lost art.....

Nah, there's a few of us who still teach it and use it every day. In
fact, at the World Air Games, only pilotage and dead reckoning
is permitted. No RNAV (e.g: GPS) allowed.

-Mike Marron

[Charles Talleyrand]

> wrote in message ...

> ************************************************** **************************
>
> GPS navigation is wonderful, but we are just now beginning to realize
> the many downsides of GPS such as tunnel vision, degraded situational
> awareness, increased airspace incursions, more heads-down flying,
> more buttons and more confusion.
>
> ************************************************** ***************************



Hmmm. In the civilian recreational pilot world GPS is pretty much seen as the best thing
to hit navigation since the invention of bread. I would believe there are fewer airspace incursions
since there is more awareness of exactly where you are and why the airspace
boundries are.

"Enhanced situational awareness" is a selling point of pretty much every
avation GPS sold.

Are you a pilot? Do your pilot friends also think these things about GPS?

[Charles Talleyrand]

> wrote in message ...
> The USAF began using GPS as far
> back as Dec. 1973, but the civilian pilot community is still wrestling
> with GPS issues such as accuracy, availability, redundancy, and
> integrity to this day. AOPA conducted a study that indicated flying on
> GPS w/o autopilot actually resulted in two to four times *greater*
> cockpit workload. ... pilots flying via GPS with
> out-of-date databases (they're supposed to be updated every
> 28 days for IFR use), and the list goes on and on...


I dunno. I fly without an autopilot, sometimes with a GPS and
sometimes without. I simply don't believe that the GPS doubles
my total workload. I'm SURE it doesn't double my workload

Could you please provide a reference to this AOPA study? I have
a hard time believing it exists .... this sounds much more like urban
legend than actual fact. I'll be happy to rectact the last sentence if
I'm wrong.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Flight Lessons
>From: "Charles Talleyrand"
>Date: 8/6/03 9:10 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
> wrote in message
...
>> The USAF began using GPS as far
>> back as Dec. 1973, but the civilian pilot community is still wrestling
>> with GPS issues such as accuracy, availability, redundancy, and
>> integrity to this day. AOPA conducted a study that indicated flying on
>> GPS w/o autopilot actually resulted in two to four times *greater*
>> cockpit workload. ... pilots flying via GPS with
>> out-of-date databases (they're supposed to be updated every
>> 28 days for IFR use), and the list goes on and on...
>
>
>I dunno. I fly without an autopilot, sometimes with a GPS and
>sometimes without. I simply don't believe that the GPS doubles
>my total workload. I'm SURE it doesn't double my workload
>
>Could you please provide a reference to this AOPA study? I have
>a hard time believing it exists .... this sounds much more like urban
>legend than actual fact. I'll be happy to rectact the last sentence if
>I'm wrong.
>

I agree with you. It is amazing that every post in this NG on GPS has been
negative; talking about difficulty of use, failures, inacuracies and time
consuming operations.and also making it seem as though every one who used GPS
was untrained and just generally incompetant. I guess if we had GPS in WW II
we would have lost the war. The mind boggles. (sheesh)

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[[email protected]]

> (ArtKramr) wrote:
>>"Charles Talleyrand" wrote:
> wrote:

>>>The USAF began using GPS as far
>>>back as Dec. 1973, but the civilian pilot community is still wrestling
>>>with GPS issues such as accuracy, availability, redundancy, and
>>>integrity to this day. AOPA conducted a study that indicated flying on
>>>GPS w/o autopilot actually resulted in two to four times *greater*
>>>cockpit workload. ... pilots flying via GPS with
>>>out-of-date databases (they're supposed to be updated every
>>>28 days for IFR use), and the list goes on and on...

>>I dunno. I fly without an autopilot, sometimes with a GPS and
>>sometimes without. I simply don't believe that the GPS doubles
>>my total workload. I'm SURE it doesn't double my workload

>>Could you please provide a reference to this AOPA study? I have
>>a hard time believing it exists .... this sounds much more like urban
>>legend than actual fact. I'll be happy to rectact the last sentence if
>>I'm wrong.

>I agree with you. It is amazing that every post in this NG on GPS has been
>negative; talking about difficulty of use, failures, inacuracies and time
>consuming operations.and also making it seem as though every one who used GPS
>was untrained and just generally incompetant. I guess if we had GPS in WW II
>we would have lost the war. The mind boggles. (sheesh)

You guys are still missing the point (as I said, I've been using GPS
to navigate in both VFR and IFR for years and I think it's great). To
answer Charles question, you can contact AOPA and ask for Katherine
Fish. She should be able to refer you to the study, or at least give
you a bit of an education on the downsides of GPS.

-Mike Marron
CFII, A&P, etc.

[[email protected]]

>"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote:
> wrote:

>>GPS navigation is wonderful, but we are just now beginning to realize
>>the many downsides of GPS such as tunnel vision, degraded situational
>>awareness, increased airspace incursions, more heads-down flying,
>>more buttons and more confusion.

>Hmmm. In the civilian recreational pilot world GPS is pretty much seen
>as the best thing to hit navigation since the invention of bread.

Exactly right. And therein lies the crux of the problem (e.g: GPS is
pretty much seen as the ONLY thing to hit navigation since the
invention of bread).

>I would believe there are fewer airspace incursions since there is
>more awareness of exactly where you are and why the airspace
>boundries are.

You're obviously not a flight instructor, huh?

>"Enhanced situational awareness" is a selling point of pretty much every
>avation GPS sold.

Yep, definitely not a flight instructor.

Look at it this way, Charles. If you ever do become an instructor do
us all a big favor and *don't* teach your ab initio students how to
use a GPS until they learn pilotage and dead reckoning first.

>Are you a pilot?

Ya. Are you a pirate?

>Do your pilot friends also think these things about GPS?

Yo ho yo ho shiver me timbers!

-Mike (newbies, ya' just gotta' love 'em) Marron

[B2431]

>Exactly right. And therein lies the crux of the problem (e.g: GPS is
>pretty much seen as the ONLY thing to hit navigation since the
>invention of bread).
>

I go camping inna middle of nowhere and it never ceases to amaze me the
geniuses who take a GPS and no map. Can you imagine getting on your cell phone
and telling someone "I broke my leg and I am at xxxxxx,yyyyyy, no, I don't have
a map, I don't know where the nearest road is.."

I am happy with my lensatic and maps.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Cub Driver]

Of course some of it is pure English arrogance, but my favorite
example of how differently the Brits viewed an American degree was the
Rhodes scholarship program at Oxford. The Rhodes Scholar came over
with a bachelor's degree and four years of academic and athletic or
other success at a good or excellent American university. He joined a
class of Oxonians on their three-year courses. And he spent two years
getting the same degree they were working toward!

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Ben Full]

> In message >, Cub Driver
> > writes
> >Isn't Cranwell (the RAF equivalent of West Point) still a two-year
> >course? And aren't most UK bachelor's-degree programs still three
> >years in duration?

Cranwell is the Royal Air Force College, where our officers are trained.
It's a 24 week course, followed up by further professional training on
graduation. With regards to earning a college degree, are you thinking of
Cranfield, in Bedfordshire, where the UK Armed Forces send many people per
year to study for engineering qualifications?

BMFull

[B2431]

>
>Pardon my ignorance, but what's a "lensatic?"
>
>-Mike Marron
>
>
It's a military personal land navigation compass.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Flight Lessons
>From: "Paul J. Adam"
>Date: 8/7/03 10:10 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id:

>I agree with you. It is amazing that every post in this NG on GPS has been
>>negative; talking about difficulty of use, failures, inacuracies and time
>>consuming operations.and also making it seem as though every one who used
>GPS
>>was untrained and just generally incompetant.
>
>The problem with GPS is that it works too well while it works. Because
>it's quick and easy to program and follow, less care often goes into
>checking and planning the route, and often less care gets taken in
>double-checking that the real world conforms to what the GPS says.

That is not he fault of the GPS.

>the GPS acts up or the information it provides isn't used wisely.

That goes for anything and everything. Not just GPS.

>>I guess if we had GPS in WW II
>>we would have lost the war.
>
>With GPS you wouldn't need navigators, the lead pilot just follows the
>little arrow and everyone else formates on him. Big saving in manpower,
>training, and it frees up some weight per plane for more fuel or armour
>(or lets the B-26 be a little lighter)

Not really. In the B-26 the bombardier and the navigater was they same guy

..
>
>Of course, if the GPS co-ordinates are wrongly calculated, wrongly
>entered, or the GPS battery fails midflight, that's a very lost
>formation... with no navigators to rescue them.
>
>If you keep the trained navigators and their equipment "just in case",
>what benefit is GPS providing?
>
>
>--
>When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
> W S Churchill
>
>Paul J. Adam
>
>
>
>
>
>


Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[[email protected]]

>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:

[snipped for brevity]

>If you keep the trained navigators and their equipment "just in case",
>what benefit is GPS providing?

Countless benefits too numerous to mention. Say you're in IMC and
lose your electrics. Dark clouds, no radios, your head is bouncing off
the ceiling in the turbs and just when you thought things were bad
enough and your heart starts beating again, you lose your vacuum
instruments as well. In this situation, even an el cheapo, $300
handheld GPS can help you keep the dirty side down literally
saving your life! In other words, besides just navigating, you can
actually FLY an airplane via GPS alone since even most of
today's handhelds have an altimeter, vertical speed indicator,
airspeed indicator, turn coordinator, and HSI. The only thing missing
is an attitude indicator!

Also, supposedly VOR, ILS, NDB approaches will all go away in
the future and there will be only the GPS "Basic T approach."
Supposedly, feeder routes will go away, too. GPS also does other
things that old-fashioned navigators and their equipment can't. For
example, if you don't know the lat/long of a location but you do know
the distance and bearing from your present position, you can project
a waypoint using a GPS. You can program the GPS to alarm you via
visual and audio alarms when you arrive a given waypoint. You can
zoom in and "see" powerlines, smoke stacks, etc. on the ground not
depicted on a sectional or WAC chart (and certainly not on an IFR
enroute chart!) when flying low-level in the soup, at night, or if
scudrunning is necessary during an emergency. In other emergency
situations, the "nearest airport" feature can get you on the ground
quickly and safely.

It's true that GPS is the cat's meow, however, as you know the
importance of basic pilotage and dead reckoning skills cannot be
over-emphasized.

-Mike Marron

[Steve]

In article >,
ArtKramr > wrote:
->Subject: Re: Flight Lessons
->From: "Paul J. Adam"
->Date: 8/7/03 10:10 AM Pacific Daylight Time
->Message-id:
-
->
->With GPS you wouldn't need navigators, the lead pilot just follows the
->little arrow and everyone else formates on him. Big saving in manpower,
->training, and it frees up some weight per plane for more fuel or armour
->(or lets the B-26 be a little lighter)
-
-Not really. In the B-26 the bombardier and the navigater was they same guy
-

I gotta wonder: would the bean-counters have figured that out before or
after they removed the navigators and then sent out bombing missions?

Or ever, for that matter.


Steve

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Flight Lessons
>From: Steve
>Date: 8/7/03 11:56 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In article >,
>ArtKramr > wrote:
>->Subject: Re: Flight Lessons
>->From: "Paul J. Adam"
>->Date: 8/7/03 10:10 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>->Message-id:
>-
>->
>->With GPS you wouldn't need navigators, the lead pilot just follows the
>->little arrow and everyone else formates on him. Big saving in manpower,
>->training, and it frees up some weight per plane for more fuel or armour
>->(or lets the B-26 be a little lighter)
>-
>-Not really. In the B-26 the bombardier and the navigater was they same guy
>-
>
>I gotta wonder: would the bean-counters have figured that out before or
>after they removed the navigators and then sent out bombing missions?
>
>Or ever, for that matter.
>
>
>Steve
>
>


Only the B-26 carried a bombardier navigator with that one guy doing both jobs.
But our nav training was purely dead reckoning, pilotage and air plot. We had
some celestial training, even had to derive the astro tables, but never had
enough hours to be both confident and proficient in celestial. Well, I guess we
could do an LOP ok.


Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Steve]

In article >,
ArtKramr > wrote:
->Subject: Re: Flight Lessons
->From: Steve
->Date: 8/7/03 11:56 AM Pacific Daylight Time
->Message-id: >
->
->In article >,
->ArtKramr > wrote:
->->Subject: Re: Flight Lessons
->->From: "Paul J. Adam"
->->Date: 8/7/03 10:10 AM Pacific Daylight Time
->->Message-id:
->-
->->
->->With GPS you wouldn't need navigators, the lead pilot just follows the
->->little arrow and everyone else formates on him. Big saving in manpower,
->->training, and it frees up some weight per plane for more fuel or armour
->->(or lets the B-26 be a little lighter)
->-
->-Not really. In the B-26 the bombardier and the navigater was they same guy
->-
->
->I gotta wonder: would the bean-counters have figured that out before or
->after they removed the navigators and then sent out bombing missions?
->
->Or ever, for that matter.
->
->
->Steve
->
->
-
-
-Only the B-26 carried a bombardier navigator with that one guy doing both jobs.
- But our nav training was purely dead reckoning, pilotage and air plot. We had
-some celestial training, even had to derive the astro tables, but never had
-enough hours to be both confident and proficient in celestial. Well, I guess we
-could do an LOP ok.
-
-

Thanks, Art. I appreciate everything you write. I'm kind of curious for no
good reason; how far would you have had to fly to get a handle on cross-winds?
Assuming the weather guys didn't have any info for you, would you know on an
on-going basis how far you were being pushed sideways, or would you have to fly
a while and compare your dead reckoning with something else? What else would you
have available on a typical mission? (I don't know anything about navigation, you
won't insult me by talking down)

I couldn't help myself, though - when I read your comment next to
the one before it I had this vision of somebody in an office somewhere signing
off on a white paper that said we didn't need navigators anymore because of GPS,
then sending out your B-26 with nobody to work the bombsight.

"Pilot to bombar... --hey! HEY!!"


Steve

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, ArtKramr
> writes
>>Subject: Re: Flight Lessons
>>From: "Paul J. Adam"
>>The problem with GPS is that it works too well while it works. Because
>>it's quick and easy to program and follow, less care often goes into
>>checking and planning the route, and often less care gets taken in
>>double-checking that the real world conforms to what the GPS says.
>
>That is not he fault of the GPS.

No, but it's a human mistake. It's a training issue to make sure that
when the GPS bings off a waypoint, you check a few landmarks to make
sure you're where the gadget says you should be. Currently, that doesn't
reliably happen because people have too much faith in the GPS.

>>the GPS acts up or the information it provides isn't used wisely.
>
>That goes for anything and everything. Not just GPS.

The trouble is, GPS is too damn useful. Mike Marron wrote eloquently
about how a working GPS can replace most of your flight instruments...
as long as the GPS is working. But it's a low-powered signal from orbit
and it's easily jammed. GPS jamming isn't a feature of civilian life,
but it's a serious military problem. GPS offers much more than any other
navaid I've heard of, no wonder people turn to it first.

It's great kit, but the ground you're flying over / sailing past still
has to have priority - and it's harder than you'd think to make people
believe that.

>>With GPS you wouldn't need navigators, the lead pilot just follows the
>>little arrow and everyone else formates on him. Big saving in manpower,
>>training, and it frees up some weight per plane for more fuel or armour
>>(or lets the B-26 be a little lighter)
>
>Not really. In the B-26 the bombardier and the navigater was they same guy

With GPS the pilot can fly to a calculated release point and the
computer will drop the bombs. The bombs can even be GPS-guided (see
JDAM, JSOW et al). Replace the B/N with a machine and hope? Keep him
along for the ride?

I'm not saying "get rid of GPS", it's great kit and well worth using. I
_am_ worried that users depend on it and neglect the skills that would
let them double-check what the GPS display tells them.


(How _did_ B-26 formations bomb? I just realised that I really don't
know. Every aircraft flying final attack with its own bombardier, "hold
formation and drop when leader drops", something else?)

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam

[QDurham]

>Hey Art, did you guys have a drift meter? Curious.

Navy P2Vs did in 50s -- along with Loran, radar, DR, celestial, and a few other
little helpers. Don't know about P3s, but I suspect they do. Handy. Don't
forget you can measure your ground speed with the things as well as drift.

Of course the navy tends to fly over water more than common sense should allow.

Quent

Quent

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Flight Lessons
>From: "Les Matheson"
>Date: 8/7/03 3:17 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Hey Art, did you guys have a drift meter? Curious.
>
>Les

No, but we had better. The Norden bombsight was the world's best driftmeter. If
you cranked out the drift by stopping the vertical hair, it would give you the
angle needed to correct the drift and track driift free. We call it a bomb
run. (grin). Can't beat that.

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Steve > writes:
> In article >,
> ArtKramr > wrote:
> ->Subject: Re: Flight Lessons
> ->From: Steve
> ->Date: 8/7/03 11:56 AM Pacific Daylight Time
> ->Message-id: >
> ->
> ->In article >,
> ->ArtKramr > wrote:
> ->->Subject: Re: Flight Lessons
> ->->From: "Paul J. Adam"
> ->->Date: 8/7/03 10:10 AM Pacific Daylight Time
> ->->Message-id:
> ->-
> ->->
> ->->With GPS you wouldn't need navigators, the lead pilot just follows the
> ->->little arrow and everyone else formates on him. Big saving in manpower,
> ->->training, and it frees up some weight per plane for more fuel or armour
> ->->(or lets the B-26 be a little lighter)
> ->-
> ->-Not really. In the B-26 the bombardier and the navigater was they same guy
> ->-
> ->
> ->I gotta wonder: would the bean-counters have figured that out before or
> ->after they removed the navigators and then sent out bombing missions?
> ->
> ->Or ever, for that matter.
> ->
> ->
> ->Steve
> ->
> ->
> -
> -
> -Only the B-26 carried a bombardier navigator with that one guy doing both jobs.
> - But our nav training was purely dead reckoning, pilotage and air plot. We had
> -some celestial training, even had to derive the astro tables, but never had
> -enough hours to be both confident and proficient in celestial. Well, I guess we
> -could do an LOP ok.
> -
> -
>
> Thanks, Art. I appreciate everything you write. I'm kind of curious for no
> good reason; how far would you have had to fly to get a handle on cross-winds?
> Assuming the weather guys didn't have any info for you, would you know on an
> on-going basis how far you were being pushed sideways, or would you have to fly
> a while and compare your dead reckoning with something else? What else would you
> have available on a typical mission? (I don't know anything about navigation, you
> won't insult me by talking down)

That's a good question, and, while I'm here, I've got a somewhat
related piggyback question. Art, did you guys use the Norden Sight to
measure drift while navigating to and from the target? Some of the
Navy documents that I've read on the early days of the Norden's
development indicate that that was one of teh things they wanted to
use it as a drfftmeter. From what I know, it ought to work, but since
the only real Nordens I've seen are display items...

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Flight Lessons
>From: Steve
>Date: 8/7/03 1:35 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id:

>Thanks, Art. I appreciate everything you write. I'm kind of curious for no
>good reason; how far would you have had to fly to get a handle on
>cross-winds?
>Assuming the weather guys didn't have any info for you, would you know on an
>on-going basis how far you were

>being pushed sideways, or would you have to fly
>a while and compare your dead reckoning with something else? What else would
>you
>have available on a typical mission? (I don't know anything about navigation,
>you
>won't insult me by talking down)
>

We would get winds aloft at briefings. But we flew all our missions in daylight
usually under pretty good conditions and pilotage did us fine, That is where
you look out the window, check with a map and find your wayusually with no
trouble. But we ALWAYS laid out a dead reckoning solution on every mission no
matter what. Also we alway knew what our ETA to every check point was and when
to expect important checkpoints, like the Rhine, The Moselle, the Meuse rivers.
The RAF guys in the heavies flying at night had a nightmare compared to us,

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Flight Lessons
>From: (Peter Stickney)
>Date: 8/7/03 6:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time

>That's a good question, and, while I'm here, I've got a somewhat
>related piggyback question. Art, did you guys use the Norden Sight to
>measure drift while navigating to and from the target? Some of the
>Navy documents that I've rea

Yeah. The Norden was a great driftmeter. I checked it often.

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Charles Talleyrand]

> wrote in message ...
>
> >Hmmm. In the civilian recreational pilot world GPS is pretty much seen
> >as the best thing to hit navigation since the invention of bread.
>
> Exactly right. And therein lies the crux of the problem (e.g: GPS is
> pretty much seen as the ONLY thing to hit navigation since the
> invention of bread).

Who thinks this silly thought. A list of inventions to help navigation
since the invention of bread probably includes

maps
clocks
compases
VORs
Loran



>
> >I would believe there are fewer airspace incursions since there is
> >more awareness of exactly where you are and why the airspace
> >boundries are.
>
> You're obviously not a flight instructor, huh?

This is the quality of argument? I offer a claim and a possible explanation ...
you question my profession? Wow, good argument.

My flight instructed pretty much never said "Don't use the GPS, it's the
devil's tooland you will burn in hell for it." He instead
taught me pilotage and VORs and GPSs too.

> >Are you a pilot?
>
> Ya. Are you a pirate?
>
> >Do your pilot friends also think these things about GPS?
>
> Yo ho yo ho shiver me timbers!

Yep. You're funny. Thank you for you wit.

>
> -Mike (newbies, ya' just gotta' love 'em) Marron

I'm not a newbie.

[QDurham]

>Who thinks this silly thought. A list of inventions to help navigation
>since the invention of bread probably includes
>
> maps
> clocks
> compases
> VORs
> Loran

Windows

Quent

[Les Matheson]

Same concept kill drift, compute crosswind, time, distance, heading for a DR
plot.

Les

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Flight Lessons
> >From: "Les Matheson"
> >Date: 8/7/03 3:17 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Hey Art, did you guys have a drift meter? Curious.
> >
> >Les
>
> No, but we had better. The Norden bombsight was the world's best
driftmeter. If
> you cranked out the drift by stopping the vertical hair, it would give you
the
> angle needed to correct the drift and track driift free. We call it a
bomb
> run. (grin). Can't beat that.
>
> Arthur Kramer
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>

[Cub Driver]

>I go camping inna middle of nowhere and it never ceases to amaze me the
>geniuses who take a GPS and no map. Can you imagine getting on your cell phone
>and telling someone "I broke my leg and I am at xxxxxx,yyyyyy, no, I don't have
>a map, I don't know where the nearest road is.."

In the White Mountains of New Hampshire a while back, three women
climbed the Tripyramids near Waterville Valley. They got tired, got on
the cell, and called 911. In the end, a helicopter came from Concord
(about 50 miles) to pick them up. They said to the pilot: "Why did you
take so long?" But at least they knew where they were.

Actually, my local FSS is quite happy to take lat/lon coordinates.
Whether they'd come for me is another question, of course.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>I dunno. I fly without an autopilot, sometimes with a GPS and
>sometimes without. I simply don't believe that the GPS doubles
>my total workload. I'm SURE it doesn't double my workload

When I read the post, I understood it to mean that flying GPS without
autopilot is harder than flying some other kind of nav aid *with*
autopilot, and I thought: "Well, that doesn't tell me much." If your
interpretation is correct, then I don't believe the study either, or
possibly the report of it.

Of course I am above it all, or rather below it all. At 2900 feet & 60
knots in the 06H, I can compare every road intersection or lake with
the chart. I do have an E6B in my pack, but that's just for swagger in
case I get ramp-checked, along with the printed preflight checklist.
I'm not sure I remember how to use the E6B.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[[email protected]]

"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote:

>> >Are you a pilot?
>>
>> Ya. Are you a pirate?
>>
>> >Do your pilot friends also think these things about GPS?
>>
>> Yo ho yo ho shiver me timbers!
>
>Yep. You're funny. Thank you for you wit.
>
>>
>> -Mike (newbies, ya' just gotta' love 'em) Marron
>
>I'm not a newbie.
>
I think everyone's a newbie to Marron...that's the impression
that he gives anyway.
--

-Gord.

[[email protected]]

>"Gord Beaman" ) wrote:

>I think everyone's a newbie to Marron...that's the impression
>that he gives anyway.

Those who say that GPS is "best thing since sliced bread" and
don't realize that there are significant downsides give me the
impression that they're either newbies, or they don't understand
the problem.

-Mike Marron

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Flight Lessons
>From: (OXMORON1)
>Date: 8/8/03 10:10 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Les asked:
>>Hey Art, did you guys have a drift meter? Curious.
>
>Add on question,
>Anyone here ever fly a "Double Drift" leg after training? By 1965 it wasn't
>even taught in USAF Nav course except as a two minute discussion in the basic
>equipment ground course.
> It was like the intro to loran "This is the APN.9 (?).and you'll never see
>it
>again, we use the XXX now" The first "Shakey that I got on had the old set
><sigh> and it didn't work <double sigh>
>
>Oxmoron1


Taking an entire group of 56 Marauders through a double drift when you could
have gotten the same result in 15 seconds on the Norden, without even changing
course, didn't make much sense (sigh)

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Bob Liberty]

Might have in a KC-97. That was a year or 40 ago.

ole nav

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Flight Lessons
> >From: (OXMORON1)
> >Date: 8/8/03 10:10 AM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >Les asked:
> >>Hey Art, did you guys have a drift meter? Curious.
> >
> >Add on question,
> >Anyone here ever fly a "Double Drift" leg after training? By 1965 it
wasn't
> >even taught in USAF Nav course except as a two minute discussion in the
basic
> >equipment ground course.
> > It was like the intro to loran "This is the APN.9 (?).and you'll never
see
> >it
> >again, we use the XXX now" The first "Shakey that I got on had the old
set
> ><sigh> and it didn't work <double sigh>
> >
> >Oxmoron1
>
>
> Taking an entire group of 56 Marauders through a double drift when you
could
> have gotten the same result in 15 seconds on the Norden, without even
changing
> course, didn't make much sense (sigh)
>
> Arthur Kramer
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>
>

[Mary Shafer]

On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 18:09:21 GMT, wrote:

> >"Gord Beaman" ) wrote:
>
> >I think everyone's a newbie to Marron...that's the impression
> >that he gives anyway.
>
> Those who say that GPS is "best thing since sliced bread" and
> don't realize that there are significant downsides give me the
> impression that they're either newbies, or they don't understand
> the problem.

Who needs GPS when you have a star tracker and a current star map? It
worked for us with the SR-71.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Mary Shafer]

On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 00:36:00 GMT, wrote:

> >Mary Shafer > wrote:
> >> wrote:
>
> >>Those who say that GPS is "best thing since sliced bread" and
> >>don't realize that there are significant downsides give me the
> >>impression that they're either newbies, or they don't understand
> >>the problem.
>
> >Who needs GPS when you have a star tracker and a current star map? It
> >worked for us with the SR-71.
>
> Cool. We're having a little fly-in this weekend so you can bring your
> SR-71 w/startracker and I'll bring my ultralight trike w/GPS...
>
> Deal?

I'd be too worried about FOD at engine start with ultralight trikes
around. I guess we'll have to be sure the Blackbird is always in
front. Way far in front, unless the trike is titanium.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[OXMORON1]

Art wrote concerning doing a "Double Drift"

[[email protected]]

>Mary Shafer > wrote:

wrote:

>>Cool. We're having a little fly-in this weekend so you can bring your
>>SR-71 w/startracker and I'll bring my ultralight trike w/GPS...

>>Deal?

>I'd be too worried about FOD at engine start with ultralight trikes
>around. I guess we'll have to be sure the Blackbird is always in
>front. Way far in front, unless the trike is titanium.

Ultralight Trike -- 1
SR-71 -- 0

-Mike Marron

[David Lesher]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...


> In WW II almost no one had a college education.

And in fact, it was WWII and the GI bill that changed that,
and the face of the US....

--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[Joey Bishop]

Eddie Rickenbacker on navigation:

http://www.richthofen.com/rickenbacker/rick29.htm

I leaned over and shook the compass. It whirled a few times,
then settled itself in exactly the opposite direction! Again I shook
it and again it pointed to a new direction. Never have I seen a
compass - except those captured from Boche machines - that
even pretended to disclose the direction of north!

Three-quarters of an hour of gasoline remained to me. And a much
over-rated sense of direction - and no compass. Then I thought of the
north star! Glory be! There she shines! I had been going west instead
of south and would have had two hundred miles or so of fast flying
before striking the British lines near Ypres on my present course.

Keeping the star behind my rudder I flew south for fifteen minutes,
then dropping down, almost immediately found myself above a bend
in a stream of water that resembled a familiar spot in the River Mouse.

[[email protected]]

>"Joey Bishop" > wrote:

>Eddie Rickenbacker on navigation:

>http://www.richthofen.com/rickenbacker/rick29.htm

>I leaned over and shook the compass. It whirled a few times,
>then settled itself in exactly the opposite direction! Again I shook
>it and again it pointed to a new direction. Never have I seen a
>compass - except those captured from Boche machines - that
>even pretended to disclose the direction of north!

>Three-quarters of an hour of gasoline remained to me. And a much
>over-rated sense of direction - and no compass. Then I thought of the
>north star! Glory be! There she shines! I had been going west instead
>of south and would have had two hundred miles or so of fast flying
>before striking the British lines near Ypres on my present course.

>Keeping the star behind my rudder I flew south for fifteen minutes,
>then dropping down, almost immediately found myself above a bend
>in a stream of water that resembled a familiar spot in the River Mouse.

Rickenbacker's SPAD:

Top Speed: 130 mph.
Range: 2.5 hrs.
Ceiling FL 180 (tops!)

Imagine what a marine compass from any boat shop would
do for him, much less GPS...

-Mike Marron

[Joey Bishop]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
>
> In WW II almost no one had a college education.

Which is probably why we had the war in the first place :-)

[Tarver Engineering]

> wrote in message
...

> And this would be a better NG if people like you learned how to
> properly format their posts and responded to the subject at hand
> rather than going off on irrelevant tangents like you, Tarver, et. al.
> have done in this and countless other threads.

So basicly, Mike Marron is looking for a flame war. Art should be able to
help you out on that, loser.

John P. Tarver, MS/PE

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Flight Lessons
>From: "Tarver Engineering"
>Date: 8/9/03 7:57 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
> wrote in message
...
>
>> And this would be a better NG if people like you learned how to
>> properly format their posts and responded to the subject at hand
>> rather than going off on irrelevant tangents like you, Tarver, et. al.
>> have done in this and countless other threads.
>
>So basicly, Mike Marron is looking for a flame war. Art should be able to
>help you out on that, loser.
>
>John P. Tarver, MS/PE
>
>


Mike Marrron???? Sorry the name doesn't ring a bell.


Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Tarver Engineering]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Flight Lessons
> >From:
> >Date: 8/5/03 9:53 AM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id:
>
> >Careful now Art, you're about to spew...
> >
> >-Mike Marron
>
> No spewing. :Le's review the bidding. You insulted navigitors and
bombardiers
> by reffering to them as "just" navigators and bombardiers, Then you
insulted me
> for only talking about those things in which I had experience. When I
objected
> your answer was to attack my formating skills. .And it isn't my fault that
you
> have no combat experience. That is your prooblem not mine. Now who is the
> problem? Now let's agree to have nothing to do with one another from here
on.
> OK?

Lookie here, the Mike Marron dip**** found his flame war.

[Tarver Engineering]

> wrote in message
...
> >Mary Shafer > wrote:
> >> wrote:
>
> >>Those who say that GPS is "best thing since sliced bread" and
> >>don't realize that there are significant downsides give me the
> >>impression that they're either newbies, or they don't understand
> >>the problem.
>
> >Who needs GPS when you have a star tracker and a current star map? It
> >worked for us with the SR-71.
>
> Cool. We're having a little fly-in this weekend so you can bring your
> SR-71 w/startracker and I'll bring my ultralight trike w/GPS...

Well no Mike, Mary's SR-71 affiliation is a fraud. There is however good
news for Dryden, 'cause now that the Iliffs are gone, the USAF may forgive
them for defrauding the Air Force on the X-29. There we were, Dryden just a
facility and the Challenger blown up and then USAF discovers they have been
robbed on their joint R&D with Dryden. Things looked mighty grim and the
facility might have had to close. If it hadn't been for simulation the
facility would probably have closed, but we lucked out and made something
the Navy couldn't ...

But those are the kinds of things that happen when you shaft your
bennefactors.

John P. Tarver, MS/PE

[Tarver Engineering]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Flight Lessons
> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
> >Date: 8/9/03 7:57 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
> > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >> And this would be a better NG if people like you learned how to
> >> properly format their posts and responded to the subject at hand
> >> rather than going off on irrelevant tangents like you, Tarver, et. al.
> >> have done in this and countless other threads.
> >
> >So basicly, Mike Marron is looking for a flame war. Art should be able
to
> >help you out on that, loser.
> >
> >John P. Tarver, MS/PE
> >
> >
>
>
> Mike Marrron???? Sorry the name doesn't ring a bell.

I still love your stories Art. It is only a matter of time until we see
some of these mil GPS chasers follow the needles right into a wall.

[Tarver Engineering]

> wrote in message
...
> >ArtKramr wrote:
> >>Cub Driver wrote:
>
> >>Thanks for brightening my morning.
>
> >My pleasure. (grin)
>
> What's this, a drive-by shooting after I tore your argument apart
> limb by limb? (grin)

What a dip**** you are, Mike Marron.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Les Matheson" > wrote in message
news:PMFYa.9988$ug.1099@lakeread01...
> Same concept kill drift, compute crosswind, time, distance, heading for a
DR
> plot.

Then lock up the AP to TRK.



> Les
>
> "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >Subject: Re: Flight Lessons
> > >From: "Les Matheson"
> > >Date: 8/7/03 3:17 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> > >Hey Art, did you guys have a drift meter? Curious.
> > >
> > >Les
> >
> > No, but we had better. The Norden bombsight was the world's best
> driftmeter. If
> > you cranked out the drift by stopping the vertical hair, it would give
you
> the
> > angle needed to correct the drift and track driift free. We call it a
> bomb
> > run. (grin). Can't beat that.
> >
> > Arthur Kramer
> > Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> > http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
> >
>
>

[Tarver Engineering]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, ArtKramr
> > writes
> >>Subject: Re: Flight Lessons
> >>From: "Paul J. Adam"
> >>The problem with GPS is that it works too well while it works. Because
> >>it's quick and easy to program and follow, less care often goes into
> >>checking and planning the route, and often less care gets taken in
> >>double-checking that the real world conforms to what the GPS says.
> >
> >That is not he fault of the GPS.
>
> No, but it's a human mistake. It's a training issue to make sure that
> when the GPS bings off a waypoint, you check a few landmarks to make
> sure you're where the gadget says you should be. Currently, that doesn't
> reliably happen because people have too much faith in the GPS.

Jesus, you think they can see the ground?

[Tarver Engineering]

"Corey C. Jordan" > wrote in message
...

Hey Jordan,

I see your little buddy Copp is still banned from usenet for life.

Bwahahahahahahahaha

[Harry Andreas]

In article >, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:

>
> >That is not he fault of the GPS.
>
> No, but it's a human mistake. It's a training issue to make sure that
> when the GPS bings off a waypoint, you check a few landmarks to make
> sure you're where the gadget says you should be. Currently, that doesn't
> reliably happen because people have too much faith in the GPS.
>
> >>the GPS acts up or the information it provides isn't used wisely.
> >
> >That goes for anything and everything. Not just GPS.

Training is very important. To quote a friend, "You have to be smarter
than what you're working on."

>
> The trouble is, GPS is too damn useful. Mike Marron wrote eloquently
> about how a working GPS can replace most of your flight instruments...
> as long as the GPS is working. But it's a low-powered signal from orbit
> and it's easily jammed. GPS jamming isn't a feature of civilian life,
> but it's a serious military problem. GPS offers much more than any other
> navaid I've heard of, no wonder people turn to it first.

Oh Bo....ks.
GPS is easy to TRY to jam. Well known signal processing techniques are
all that's required to defeat jamming.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[Harry Andreas]

In article >, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:

> Of course, if the GPS co-ordinates are wrongly calculated, wrongly
> entered, or the GPS battery fails midflight, that's a very lost
> formation... with no navigators to rescue them.

Military aircraft GPS use aircraft power with transient backup, not batteries.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[Tarver Engineering]

"Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Paul J. Adam"
> > wrote:

> > The trouble is, GPS is too damn useful. Mike Marron wrote eloquently
> > about how a working GPS can replace most of your flight instruments...
> > as long as the GPS is working. But it's a low-powered signal from orbit
> > and it's easily jammed. GPS jamming isn't a feature of civilian life,
> > but it's a serious military problem. GPS offers much more than any other
> > navaid I've heard of, no wonder people turn to it first.
>
> Oh Bo....ks.
> GPS is easy to TRY to jam. Well known signal processing techniques are
> all that's required to defeat jamming.

GPS is neither "easy to jam", or an apropriate "replacement" for existing
navigation systems. While Mike may have spread the snake oil in a manner
pleasing to our ground pounder lune Paul, an instrument cross check is a
necessity to maintain safe operations. Fused navigation sensors wisely take
this instrument cross check and make it part of the automation; but as Ed
points out, relying on only one instrument often results in errors.

John P. Tarver, MS/PE

[Tarver Engineering]

"Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Paul J. Adam"
> > wrote:
>
> > Of course, if the GPS co-ordinates are wrongly calculated, wrongly
> > entered, or the GPS battery fails midflight, that's a very lost
> > formation... with no navigators to rescue them.
>
> Military aircraft GPS use aircraft power with transient backup, not
batteries.

One has to wonder why Paul is even posting to this thread.

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >,
Harry Andreas > writes
>In article >, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:
>> The trouble is, GPS is too damn useful. Mike Marron wrote eloquently
>> about how a working GPS can replace most of your flight instruments...
>> as long as the GPS is working. But it's a low-powered signal from orbit
>> and it's easily jammed. GPS jamming isn't a feature of civilian life,
>> but it's a serious military problem. GPS offers much more than any other
>> navaid I've heard of, no wonder people turn to it first.
>
>Oh Bo....ks.
>GPS is easy to TRY to jam. Well known signal processing techniques are
>all that's required to defeat jamming.

Harry, with GPS you're trying to not only detect a domestic light bulb
in low earth orbit, but to pull useful signal out of it. Doesn't take
much in-band noise to spoil that game, because there isn't much signal
there to start with. Directional aerials, parking beam nulls on the
jammers, games like that help but they also cost money and volume and
weight.


It's not the end of the world if the enemy whips out a few jammers, and
it's harder to do well than some would have you believe, but it's still
a genuine concern with fewer easy answers you suggest.

If there's a cheap, quick, easy and reliable magic bullet to make GPS
unjammable, then hasten down to your patent office at once.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >,
Harry Andreas > writes
>In article >, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:
>
>> Of course, if the GPS co-ordinates are wrongly calculated, wrongly
>> entered, or the GPS battery fails midflight, that's a very lost
>> formation... with no navigators to rescue them.
>
>Military aircraft GPS use aircraft power with transient backup, not batteries.

Assuming a fully integrated GPS, rather than a civilian handheld
attached to the glareshield as an Urgent Operational Requirement
solution pending the procurement of the fully integrated navigation
upgrade.

Life is rarely as perfect as you'd like.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Tarver Engineering]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
> In message >,
> Harry Andreas > writes
> >In article >, "Paul J. Adam"
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Of course, if the GPS co-ordinates are wrongly calculated, wrongly
> >> entered, or the GPS battery fails midflight, that's a very lost
> >> formation... with no navigators to rescue them.
> >
> >Military aircraft GPS use aircraft power with transient backup, not
batteries.
>
> Assuming a fully integrated GPS,

Clearly Adam has absolutely no information to share in thie area of aircraft
avionics, or systems. One has to wonder why Adam feels his validation of
Mike Marron is more than just fluff.

[[email protected]]

>"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

>Clearly Adam has absolutely no information to share in thie area of aircraft
>avionics, or systems. One has to wonder why Adam feels his validation of
>Mike Marron is more than just fluff.

Speaking of "fluff," you need some fresh bait.

-Mike Marron

[[email protected]]

>"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

>I don't mind if you can learn Mike, but so far, you are just another
>dip****.

Coming from you (of all people!) that's incontrovertible proof that
I'm in good company.

See ya!

-Mike Marron

[Tarver Engineering]

> wrote in message
...
> >"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> >I don't mind if you can learn Mike, but so far, you are just another
> >dip****.
>
> Coming from you (of all people!) that's incontrovertible proof that
> I'm in good company.

You caught the attention of ram's peanut gallery, but insulted the
professionals.

Fluff you are, then.

[Tarver Engineering]

> wrote in message
...
> >"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> >Fluff you are, then.
>
> Speaking of "fluff," you need some fresh bait.

I'm trying to fend you off from the boat with an oar already, lune.

[Harry Andreas]

In article >, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:

> In message >,
> Harry Andreas > writes
> >In article >, "Paul J. Adam"
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Of course, if the GPS co-ordinates are wrongly calculated, wrongly
> >> entered, or the GPS battery fails midflight, that's a very lost
> >> formation... with no navigators to rescue them.
> >
> >Military aircraft GPS use aircraft power with transient backup, not
batteries.
>
> Assuming a fully integrated GPS, rather than a civilian handheld
> attached to the glareshield as an Urgent Operational Requirement
> solution pending the procurement of the fully integrated navigation
> upgrade.
>
> Life is rarely as perfect as you'd like.

Yet airborne GPS systems have been around for a long time.

check out the MAGR system

http://gps.losangeles.af.mil/user/products/magr2000/

and here is a photo of all the platofrms it's used on

http://gps.losangeles.af.mil/user/products/magr2000/m-images.htm

the virtual gamut of all first line US aircraft, with the exception of the
F-15C/D/E.
(I wonder why that is?)

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[Tarver Engineering]

"Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Paul J. Adam"
> > wrote:

<snip>

> > Assuming a fully integrated GPS, rather than a civilian handheld
> > attached to the glareshield as an Urgent Operational Requirement
> > solution pending the procurement of the fully integrated navigation
> > upgrade.
> >
> > Life is rarely as perfect as you'd like.
>
> Yet airborne GPS systems have been around for a long time.

Adam just keeps getting more clueless.

Here is a nice picture of a PDI designed to be driven from a civilian
FMS/GPS, designed circa 1996.

http://www.skylight-avionics.com/panel1s.jpg

[[email protected]]

>"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

>I'm trying to fend you off from the boat with an oar already, lune.

Keep trying. You haven't drawn any high-intensity flames yet...

-Mike (having a slap fighting contest against a man w/no arms) Marron

[Michael Williamson]

Harry Andreas wrote:

>
> the virtual gamut of all first line US aircraft, with the exception of the
> F-15C/D/E.
> (I wonder why that is?)
>

Not a single Transport aircraft? Missing every major airlifter,
not to mention the minor airlifters as well.

Mike Williamson

[Cub Driver]

>> as long as the GPS is working. But it's a low-powered signal from orbit
>> and it's easily jammed.

How true is this, really? In an aircraft, you are between the ground
and the satellite. How does someone on the ground interfere with the
signal?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Michael Williamson]

Cub Driver wrote:
>
>>>as long as the GPS is working. But it's a low-powered signal from orbit
>>>and it's easily jammed.
>>
>
> How true is this, really? In an aircraft, you are between the ground
> and the satellite. How does someone on the ground interfere with the
> signal?


I don't believe that the antenna for the GPS is directional enough
that someone off axis couldn't put a signal into your system- after
all, a single antenna is used to pick up every satellite above the
horizon.

Mike Williamson

[[email protected]]

Michael Williamson >
wrote:

>
>
>Cub Driver wrote:
>>
>>>>as long as the GPS is working. But it's a low-powered signal from orbit
>>>>and it's easily jammed.
>>>
>>
>> How true is this, really? In an aircraft, you are between the ground
>> and the satellite. How does someone on the ground interfere with the
>> signal?
>
>
> I don't believe that the antenna for the GPS is directional enough
>that someone off axis couldn't put a signal into your system- after
>all, a single antenna is used to pick up every satellite above the
>horizon.
>
>Mike Williamson

While this is true (the receiver antennas need to be and are
omni-directional) the satellites broadcast on ~1.5 gigahertz
therefore are very much 'line-of-sight' so any interference must
be transmitted within 'line-of-sight' to the 'interferee'. IOW,
to block a gps receiver you gotta be relatively close to it when
you're on the ground...if you're inflight then....you know...
--

-Gord.

[Harry Andreas]

In article >, Michael Williamson
> wrote:

> Harry Andreas wrote:
>
> >
> > the virtual gamut of all first line US aircraft, with the exception of the
> > F-15C/D/E.
> > (I wonder why that is?)
> >
>
> Not a single Transport aircraft? Missing every major airlifter,
> not to mention the minor airlifters as well.

I only put in a link for one example system, there are many more.
We very recently won a contract to upgrade the entire C-130 fleet.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[[email protected]]

(Harry Andreas) wrote:

>Most airborne GPS systems have multiple antennas and can be
>made directional.
>Not sure how much I can say in this forum until I check security.

AvWeb published a fairly recent article re: GPS jamming:

http://www.avweb.com/news/avionics/182754-1.html

-Mike Marron

[Dave Holford]

Harry Andreas wrote:
>
> In article >, Michael Williamson
> > wrote:
>
> > Cub Driver wrote:
> > >
> > >>>as long as the GPS is working. But it's a low-powered signal from orbit
> > >>>and it's easily jammed.
> > >>
> > >
> > > How true is this, really? In an aircraft, you are between the ground
> > > and the satellite. How does someone on the ground interfere with the
> > > signal?
> >
> >
> > I don't believe that the antenna for the GPS is directional enough
> > that someone off axis couldn't put a signal into your system- after
> > all, a single antenna is used to pick up every satellite above the
> > horizon.
>
> Wrong on both counts.
> Most airborne GPS systems have multiple antennas and can be
> made directional.
> Not sure how much I can say in this forum until I check security.
>
> --
> Harry Andreas
> Engineering raconteur


Must be quite complex to track multiple moving satellites scattered
around the sky from a moving platform with limited antenna real-estate.

From what I understand, from publicly available literature, multiple
balloon mounted jammers could pose a real, and relatively economical,
problem.

Dave

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Michael Williamson
> writes
>Cub Driver wrote:
>> How true is this, really? In an aircraft, you are between the
>>ground
>> and the satellite. How does someone on the ground interfere with the
>> signal?
>
> I don't believe that the antenna for the GPS is directional enough
>that someone off axis couldn't put a signal into your system- after
>all, a single antenna is used to pick up every satellite above the
>horizon.

It can be made directional, for a cost. It can even be persuaded to null
out jammers... for a cost.

Trouble is, jammers are cheap.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >,
Harry Andreas > writes
>In article >, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:
>> It's not the end of the world if the enemy whips out a few jammers, and
>> it's harder to do well than some would have you believe, but it's still
>> a genuine concern with fewer easy answers you suggest.
>>
>> If there's a cheap, quick, easy and reliable magic bullet to make GPS
>> unjammable, then hasten down to your patent office at once.
>
>I might mention that as of the first of '03 I'm pretty much off of
>AESA radars and have been working on airborne GPS receivers.
>It's my first experience with them and it's illuminating,
>but I've learned enough to:
>a] be dangerous, and
>b] know enough of the performance limits to not be pessimistic.

Fair enough - in the same timescale I've been doing work for NAVWAR and
the RN on the effects of GPS denial, how it might happen, how to work
around it, and how to prevent it :)

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Cub Driver]

>Most airborne GPS systems have multiple antennas and can be
>made directional.
>Not sure how much I can say in this forum until I check security.

The one on Zero Six Hotel is velcro'd to a plastic picture frame,
mounted upside-down over the front seat. (I generally don't carry a
passenger.) It has that little swivel "ear" antenna that points up.

I suppose it would work equally well pointing down, but I've never
tried it.

The problem I have in visualizing a jam on an aircraft is this: the
jammer is at sea level, the plane at 20,000 feet and looking to dive
to 4,000, and the satellite is at whatever, feet or miles.

So I'm on the ground on horseback with my handy Green Beret Jamming
Unit, aiming a signal at this plane that wants to attack me. Are you
saying that I can send up this umbrella beam that will wrap around the
GPS in the F-15 and thereby get between it and the satellite?

(You have probably guessed already that I majored in government.)


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Harry Andreas]

In article >, Dave Holford
> wrote:

> Harry Andreas wrote:
> >
> > In article >, Michael Williamson
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > Cub Driver wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>>as long as the GPS is working. But it's a low-powered signal from orbit
> > > >>>and it's easily jammed.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > How true is this, really? In an aircraft, you are between the ground
> > > > and the satellite. How does someone on the ground interfere with the
> > > > signal?
> > >
> > >
> > > I don't believe that the antenna for the GPS is directional enough
> > > that someone off axis couldn't put a signal into your system- after
> > > all, a single antenna is used to pick up every satellite above the
> > > horizon.
> >
> > Wrong on both counts.
> > Most airborne GPS systems have multiple antennas and can be
> > made directional.
> > Not sure how much I can say in this forum until I check security.
> >
> > --
> > Harry Andreas
> > Engineering raconteur
>
>
> Must be quite complex to track multiple moving satellites scattered
> around the sky from a moving platform with limited antenna real-estate.

That's why we have the contract instead of some commercial firm.


> From what I understand, from publicly available literature, multiple
> balloon mounted jammers could pose a real, and relatively economical,
> problem.

Not unsolvable. Just a bit more hardware and some money.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[funkraum]

> (ArtKramr) wrote:

[...]
>There has been number of comments on how much more complicated things are now
>as compared to WW II. But I dont k now about that. When I talk to guys at
[...]


Plus ça change.

WWII navigation might well have looked complicated by the standards of
the twenties:


From:

http://www.imperial-airways.com/History_page_1.html

#In January 1927 a service was opened between Cairo and Basra,
#in the Persian Gulf. To solve the difficulty of navigating
#across the trackless desert between Palestine and Baghdad,
#a furrow, several hundred miles long, was ploughed in the
#sand. It was probably the longest furrow ever ploughed.
#

Anyone know if this is still there ?

Presumably it was filled-in as advances in furrow-less navigation took
place, due to the number of explorers spraining their ankles by
stepping into it while staring intently at the burning horizon, etc.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Flight Lessons
>From: funkraum
>Date: 10/6/03 3:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <etp3ovsqa5thsov4uinu5t0

>WWII navigation might well have looked complicated by the standards of
>the twenties:

Don't know. I never flew in rhe 20's. But I'll take your word for it.

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[[email protected]]

funkraum wrote:

>
> #In January 1927 a service was opened between Cairo and Basra,
> #in the Persian Gulf. To solve the difficulty of navigating
> #across the trackless desert between Palestine and Baghdad,
> #a furrow, several hundred miles long, was ploughed in the
> #sand. It was probably the longest furrow ever ploughed.
> #
>
> Anyone know if this is still there ?
>
> Presumably it was filled-in as advances in furrow-less navigation took
> place, due to the number of explorers spraining their ankles by
> stepping into it while staring intently at the burning horizon, etc.

Lesson 1 in geology - the landscape changes all the time!

The problem would be in maintaining the furrow, wind and water would fill it
in in a short period of time and it would not be detectable with the MK1
eyeball from the air within a period of months? years?.

It may be detectable now by eye from the ground close up if you knew exactly
where to look and looked at the right angle. From the air hi res multi
spectral imagery would probably show it for many years to come. This of
course is for areas of soil with some (not much but some) vegation which is
true for most desert areas.

In the rare areas of a sand sea (rather than discrete moving dunes on soil)
it would completely disappear with the first high wind.

regards

jc

[Cub Driver]

>The problem would be in maintaining the furrow, wind and water would fill it
>in in a short period of time and it would not be detectable with the MK1
>eyeball from the air within a period of months? years?.

I live on salt water, with extensive mud flats. I walk out at low tide
to set a mooring etc. My footprints are visible for at least a week,
maybe two. That would be the low end of "Look on my works, Ye Mighty,
and despair!"

On the other hand, I've been told that the scorched earth where
gliders burned at Arnhem? in 1944 are still visible from the air. And
I have walked with great comfort along the former logging railroads in
the White Mountains, the railroads having disappeared 80 years
earlier.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[M. J. Powell]

In message >, funkraum
> writes
>> (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>[...]
>>There has been number of comments on how much more complicated things are now
>>as compared to WW II. But I dont k now about that. When I talk to guys at
>[...]
>
>
>Plus ça change.
>
>WWII navigation might well have looked complicated by the standards of
>the twenties:
>
>
>From:
>
>http://www.imperial-airways.com/History_page_1.html
>
>#In January 1927 a service was opened between Cairo and Basra,
>#in the Persian Gulf. To solve the difficulty of navigating
>#across the trackless desert between Palestine and Baghdad,
>#a furrow, several hundred miles long, was ploughed in the
>#sand. It was probably the longest furrow ever ploughed.
>#
>
>Anyone know if this is still there ?
>
>Presumably it was filled-in as advances in furrow-less navigation took
>place, due to the number of explorers spraining their ankles by
>stepping into it while staring intently at the burning horizon, etc.

I wonder why they didn't make it a dotted line to save wear and tear on
the plough?

Mike
--
M.J.Powell

[Mary Shafer]

On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 05:53:49 -0400, Cub Driver >
wrote:

> On the other hand, I've been told that the scorched earth where
> gliders burned at Arnhem? in 1944 are still visible from the air. And
> I have walked with great comfort along the former logging railroads in
> the White Mountains, the railroads having disappeared 80 years
> earlier.

You can see where George Patton practiced tank maneuvers in the desert
(at Fort Irwin, the NTC, I think it is) but sort of backward. Joshua
trees grow very thickly in the track because the seed pods have to be
crushed before the seeds can sprout. The tracks are dense groves of
Joshua trees.

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Alan Minyard]

On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 18:32:31 -0700, Mary Shafer >
wrote:

>On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 05:53:49 -0400, Cub Driver >
>wrote:
>
>> On the other hand, I've been told that the scorched earth where
>> gliders burned at Arnhem? in 1944 are still visible from the air. And
>> I have walked with great comfort along the former logging railroads in
>> the White Mountains, the railroads having disappeared 80 years
>> earlier.
>
>You can see where George Patton practiced tank maneuvers in the desert
>(at Fort Irwin, the NTC, I think it is) but sort of backward. Joshua
>trees grow very thickly in the track because the seed pods have to be
>crushed before the seeds can sprout. The tracks are dense groves of
>Joshua trees.

There is also the "plank road", a wooden road laid down in the desert
near Glamis, dating from the ~1890's. Many of the planks are still in
place and are in quite good condition.

Al Minyard