G430 Display/Numbers or Pictures?

In article ,
"karl gruber" wrote:

"track up" gives you more useful information.

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

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

On 9/6/2006 8:22 AM, Roy Smith wrote the following:
In article ,
"karl gruber" wrote:

"track up" gives you more useful information.

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is a very easy way to shoot approaches.

Karl
ATP and "Curator" N185KG



"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"karl gruber" wrote:

"track up" gives you more useful information.

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

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

Mitty wrote:
The "Cheating the ILS" thread prompts my curiosity:

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Jose wrote:
The CDI display
on Nav1 is pretty useless because it is not a real CDI.

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

Jose


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

In article . com,
"Andrew Sarangan" wrote:

Jose wrote:
The CDI display
on Nav1 is pretty useless because it is not a real CDI.

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

Jose


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

Andrew,

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

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

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

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

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

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

You say:

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

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

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

Roy Smith wrote:
In article . com,
"Andrew Sarangan" wrote:

Jose wrote:
The CDI display
on Nav1 is pretty useless because it is not a real CDI.

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

Jose


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

Andrew,

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

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

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

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

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

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

You say:

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peter