GPS switched S for N!

The other day I flew up to Alton Bay. While over the bay, but still
flying north, I went go-to my waypoint for Hampton airport. (Not the
airport waypoint in the database, but one I programmed in, and that
puts me over the start of the 45 from the west.)

When I got up to the mouth of the bay, I turned around and followed
the bug back south. After half an hour I realized that I was west of
my expected track. Indeed I was going almost precisely south instead
of SSE.

What's more, my destination was 5,900 miles distant, and the time to
get there was 84 hours. The day was milky, so I couldn't see anything
on the horizon, so I turned SE until I came over US 4, then followed
that back to the seacoast.

When I got home, I scanned out and out on the map, to find that my
waypoint was now located in the Andes on the Argentinian side of the
Chile-Argentina border. Still, the coordinates looked very familar. On
a hunch, I changed the S to an N, and behold! The waypoint moved back
to the seacoast of New Hampshire.

What happened?

And could it happen to the waypoints in the database?

(Garmin 296)

thanks!


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

Cub Driver wrote:

The other day I flew up to Alton Bay. While over the bay, but still
flying north, I went go-to my waypoint for Hampton airport. (Not the
airport waypoint in the database, but one I programmed in, and that
puts me over the start of the 45 from the west.)

When I got up to the mouth of the bay, I turned around and followed
the bug back south. After half an hour I realized that I was west of
my expected track. Indeed I was going almost precisely south instead
of SSE.

What's more, my destination was 5,900 miles distant, and the time to
get there was 84 hours. The day was milky, so I couldn't see anything
on the horizon, so I turned SE until I came over US 4, then followed
that back to the seacoast.

When I got home, I scanned out and out on the map, to find that my
waypoint was now located in the Andes on the Argentinian side of the
Chile-Argentina border. Still, the coordinates looked very familar. On
a hunch, I changed the S to an N, and behold! The waypoint moved back
to the seacoast of New Hampshire.

What happened?

And could it happen to the waypoints in the database?

Garmin doesn't have the best interfaces. Both the -12 and -60CS that I
use seem very prone to coordinate input errors. I frequently seem to
get N/S switch problem when defining a waypoint.

Another problem could be that your GPS is not initialized properly.
There is an automatic init that takes awhile and a manual init that
requires you to tell it what state you are in. If you get impatient and
abort the init, I'll bet you can wind up with a bad location, maybe on
the wrong side of the equator.

When I got up to the mouth of the bay, I turned around and followed
the bug back south. [...] my destination was 5,900 miles distant, and the time to
get there was 84 hours.

When I got home, I scanned out and out on the map, to find that my
waypoint was now located in the Andes on the Argentinian side of the
Chile-Argentina border.

What happened?

What happened was precisely why I am so vocal about paper charts and
against reliance on this newfangled gizmo thang. (and horrified at the
thought of central computer control of airplane systems)

As a cub driver you are probably with me on this. I've had my home
airport move to the other side of the country several times. Dunno why.

I use 'em when I hafta, and they're cool when they work, but I've never
seen the blue screen of death on a sectional!

Jose
--
My other car is up my nose.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

In article ,
Jose wrote:
As a cub driver you are probably with me on this. I've had my home
airport move to the other side of the country several times. Dunno why.

I use 'em when I hafta, and they're cool when they work, but I've never
seen the blue screen of death on a sectional!


I've never seen the blue screen on a GPS either. I've used Garmin
handhelds for years without a single problem, and now use a
Windows-based PDA system for navigation without a problem--both are far
superior to charts for both navigation and situational awareness.
However, I always have charts on board so that if there is ever a
problem, I can revert to paper. Attempting to resist technology in the
cockpit is a losing battle.


JKG

Jonathan Goodish wrote:

Attempting to resist technology in the
cockpit is a losing battle.

If you own your own aircraft, it's very easy; just don't buy it. What's a losing
battle is the attempt to convince other pilots not to rely on this neat
"newfangled gizmo."

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

In article nj2ue.645$Z.549@trndny05,
George Patterson wrote:
Attempting to resist technology in the
cockpit is a losing battle.

If you own your own aircraft, it's very easy; just don't buy it. What's a
losing
battle is the attempt to convince other pilots not to rely on this neat
"newfangled gizmo."


I'm not sure what you're saying. The fact is, GA cockpits are moving
toward glass. Navigation is moving away from terrestrial navigation and
toward satellites... and the GPS system has been around for a very long
time. Sure, you can stick with legacy technology, but pretty soon
you're either going to be forced to upgrade, or be content to fly around
with limited navigational capability. Cockpit technology isn't going
back to simple transistors and vacuum tubes, it's moving toward a
PC-driven environment, like it or not.

If I were a CFI, I would NEVER discourage the use of technology in the
cockpit. It enhances safety tremendously, and even saves lives. It
improves operational efficiency. It is part of using "all available
information" in order to safely complete the flight. Using technology
like a GPS isn't "required," but those who have access to it and don't
use it are foolhardy in my opinion.



JKG

If I were a CFI, I would NEVER discourage the use of technology in the
cockpit.

There's a difference between the use of technology and the =reliance= on
it. I agree that we should all be able to =use= the available
technology. However, I see too many pilots, especially new ones, that
=rely= on it to such an extent that they could not navigage without it.

=This= is dangerous.

Jose
--
My other car is up my nose.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
...


What happened was precisely why I am so vocal about paper charts and
against reliance on this newfangled gizmo thang.

lol - If you are in the majority of the posters on this newsgroup you fly a
single engine plane with 1970's mechanical technology. The GPS is probably
the single best technology on your plane. In any case, if it concerns you,
you can get a backup GPS for about the cost of a tank of gas. This "railing
against technology" stuff is getting pretty old...

Michael

with 1970's mechanical technology.

With proven technology.

Jose
--
My other car is up my nose.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
. ..
with 1970's mechanical technology.

With proven technology.

Yeah, proven to have dozens of moving parts that wear out and need to be
inspected annually, carbs that freeze, a pitot static system that clogs and
has to be checked every two years, probably some Narco comms that work every
third Sunday...

I have nothing against flying these planes - I fly one all the time. But I
don't kid myself that, after the pilot, the mechanical systems are the weak
link.


Michael