Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:11 AM - All New List Digest Format!! (Matt Dralle)
2. 06:24 AM - handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified GPS (klehman)
3. 06:44 AM - Re: OVM Installation (Mark Phillips)
4. 07:40 AM - Re: OVM Installation (John Slade)
5. 07:51 AM - Re: S-701 Master Switch (Daniel Pelletier)
6. 08:54 AM - Re: handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified GPS (Jim Sower)
7. 09:37 AM - Re: handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified GPS (John Slade)
8. 09:44 AM - Re: handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified GPS (Kevin Horton)
9. 10:00 AM - Re: handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified GPS (Garfield Willis)
10. 02:30 PM - Re: handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified GPS (Greg Young)
11. 02:58 PM - Re: handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified GPS (LarryRobertHelming)
12. 06:05 PM - Re: handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified GPS (Jim Sower)
13. 06:42 PM - Re: handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified GPS (Jim Sower)
14. 07:52 PM - Re: S-701 Master (Battery Contactor) (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
15. 07:57 PM - Re: handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified GPS (Garfield Willis)
16. 09:51 PM - Re: handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified GPS (John Rourke)
17. 11:19 PM - New, NEW List Digest Format... (Matt Dralle)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | All New List Digest Format!! |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Matt Dralle <dralle@matronics.com>
Dear Listers,
I've just finished up some awesome code that will completely change your
thinking about how email Digests should work and look! Yeah, I'm kind of
proud of it, that is true... :-)
What you'll be getting in the new List Digest message is the
following: The main message will contain the new text-based index I
introduced a few weeks back. But here's where things get
different... Instead of simply including all of the day's posts in line
within the message, there will now be included two enclosures - one with a
HTML encoded version of the Digests, and another with the usual text-only
version of the Digests.
I think you're really going to like the new HTML enclosure of the
Digests. All of the Indexes at the top are now hyperlinked to the actual
posts and there are hyperlinks at the top of each post that will:
o Take you back to the Index
o Take you to the next post
o Take you to the previous post
o Allow you to respond to the LIST regarding the message
o Allow you to respond directly to the POSTER regarding the message
You'll have to check it out to appreciate the full goodness of the new
format! :-)
The text-only version is basically exactly the same data that has been
normally sent in line within the message.
You'll also note that the filenames of the enclosures are such that they
can be conveniently placed in a personal "archive" directory for future
reference.
Hope you enjoy the new Digest format!!!
Oh, and don't forget about the Fund Raiser! :-)
Matt Dralle
Email List Admin.
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified GPS |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: klehman <klehman@albedo.net>
While this is probably better than using gps to stay completely on
airways there is the little detail that you will likely fly exactly over
3 or 4 points that everyone else doing something similar is aiming for.
With VOR navigation they will miss those points by a significant margin
but not with GPS navigation.
Flying an offset or minimising direct to points that are VORs or
airports for VFR directs is another technique that may be prudent.
Ken
>I try to have it both ways. My flight planning software begins with
"great circle
direct" from departure point to destination, and I drag-and-drop route
line to VORs
along the way at about 100 nm intervals. I file the VORs (maybe 3 or 4
waypoints)
and fly damn-near-direct and get to use the IFR certified Nav to back up my
handheld GPS. Very small inconvenience. No questions. No hassle. No
problems.
Just a theory .... Jim S.
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: OVM Installation |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mark Phillips <ripsteel@edge.net>
John- after some more perusing it appears that your scenario is what Bob shows
for either an internally regulated or permanent magnet alternator that opens the
B-lead - what I originally described is for externally regulated machine, which
is the format I have been planning on- amazing how versatile this little sucker
is!
Mark
John Slade wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Slade" <sladerj@bellsouth.net>
>
> > My understanding is that the circuit breaker is what kills power to
> > the alternator field on an over voltage condition
> Hmmm. My understanding is different. As wired in my plane, the OV module
> shorts the breaker as you say. However, when the circuit breaker pops it
> kills the voltage to the field of the contactor which is connecting the
> alternator output (B lead) to the battery, thus removing the offending
> voltage from the system whether or not the alternator field is receiving
> power internally to the alternator itself.
>
> Bob, are you back yet? help us out here.
> John Slade
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | OVM Installation |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Slade" <sladerj@bellsouth.net>
> either an internally regulated or permanent magnet alternator
OK. That makes sense. I'm using an automotive alternator with my 13B.
> amazing how versatile this little sucker is!
And all for $14
John Slade
Cozy IV #757
http://kgarden.com/cozy
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: S-701 Master Switch |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Daniel Pelletier" <pelletie1@hotmail.com>
Hi Bob,
A friend of mine which is an electrical automotive mechanical said me that
it was better to install your master switch S-701-1 upside down. Is that
true? Il installed it in this manner for the one I used for my internally
regulated alternator. I'm ready to install the master switch for batteries,
should I install them on the same way or not?
I've some understanding problem with your drawing of that device on your
diagram. You put the two 6/32 studs on the left side of the diagram. How
should we figure it on the real.
Thanks for help.
Daniel
601HDS/W.Soob
>From: BobsV35B@aol.com
>Reply-To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified GPS
>Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 07:00:50 EST
>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>
>In a message dated 11/30/02 5:28:20 AM Central Standard Time,
>khorto1537@rogers.com writes:
>
> > I still think using handheld GPS for IFR is not a good idea, unless
> > you are dealing with some sort of emergency.
> >
> > Kevin
> >
>
>Good Morning Kevin,
>
>I agree that it is probably not a good time to have handhelds approved as
>sole source navigation devices, but I see nothing wrong with the handheld
>being used to provide auxiliary information such as the use most operators
>are making of it today.
>
>As long as the aircraft is equipped with approved navigational devices
>pertinent to the route to be flown, why not use the handheld to fly direct
>routes or to proceed to intersections and such? The FAA folks can approve
>you to fly using nothing more than deductive reasoning to follow a course.
>As a matter of current policy, such navigation is not often approved, but
>it
>could be done.
>
>The use of a handheld in today's environment is similar. The controller
>can
>accept that navigation device if he/she wants to do so. You don't have a
>hard and fast "right" to be able to use it, but it can be used as
>previously
>described. In actual practice, a controller will rarely issue a clearance
>for direct flight that will not occur within a radar coverage area.
>
>I think it is a non issue.
>
>Happy Skies,
>
>Old Bob
>
>
MSN Search, le moteur de recherche qui pense comme vous !
http://search.msn.fr/worldwide.asp
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified GPS |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jim Sower <canarder@starband.net>
klehman wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: klehman <klehman@albedo.net>
>
> While this is probably better than using gps to stay completely on
> airways there is the little detail that you will likely fly exactly over
> 3 or 4 points that everyone else doing something similar is aiming for.
I'm not sure I understand which 3 or 4 points you're talking about
>
> With VOR navigation they will miss those points by a significant margin
> but not with GPS navigation.
How is that?
>
>
> Flying an offset or minimising direct to points that are VORs or
> airports for VFR directs is another technique that may be prudent.
East of the Mississippi you can't NOT be on an airway or fairly near one. If
my waypoints are scenic, and I name them in my flight plan ATC may want
coordinates which I may not be able to provide accurately.
I fail to see what I might gain by flying offsets. No matter what, I will be
constantly crossing (at greater or lesser angles) a lot of airways. I don't
see that as a problem. As Burt Rutan often says, the skies are NOT crowded.
Step outside and look up. You will see a LOT of sky, and rarely ever an
airplane (unless you live in a major metro area and which I agree should be
avoided).
Not sure where we're going here .... Jim S.
>
>
> >I try to have it both ways. My flight planning software begins with
> "great circle
> direct" from departure point to destination, and I drag-and-drop route
> line to VORs
> along the way at about 100 nm intervals. I file the VORs (maybe 3 or 4
> waypoints)
> and fly damn-near-direct and get to use the IFR certified Nav to back up my
> handheld GPS. Very small inconvenience. No questions. No hassle. No
> problems.
> Just a theory .... Jim S.
>
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified GPS |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Slade" <sladerj@bellsouth.net>
> No matter what, I will be constantly crossing (at greater or lesser
> angles) a lot of airways.
Jim.
I think you're missing the point. Airways are long lines. VORs are central
points towards which many VFR navigators converge. Lots of general aviation
pilots are now navigating with superb accuracy, so the tendancy is to arrive
at the same point. Time is the only thing still seperating us all. I've
always made it a habit to be a little more alert for traffic as I approach a
VOR, but the GPS makes these places much more dangerous.
>Step outside and look up.
>You will see a LOT of sky, and rarely ever an airplane
If you're new house has a VOR in the back yard you'll see a LOT more planes.
John Slade
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified GPS |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorto1537@rogers.com>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jim Sower <canarder@starband.net>
>
>
>klehman wrote:
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: klehman <klehman@albedo.net>
>>
>> While this is probably better than using gps to stay completely on
>> airways there is the little detail that you will likely fly exactly over
>> 3 or 4 points that everyone else doing something similar is aiming for.
>
>I'm not sure I understand which 3 or 4 points you're talking about
>
>>
>> With VOR navigation they will miss those points by a significant margin
>> but not with GPS navigation.
>
>How is that?
>
>>
>>
>> Flying an offset or minimising direct to points that are VORs or
>> airports for VFR directs is another technique that may be prudent.
>
>East of the Mississippi you can't NOT be on an airway or fairly near one. If
>my waypoints are scenic, and I name them in my flight plan ATC may want
>coordinates which I may not be able to provide accurately.
>I fail to see what I might gain by flying offsets. No matter what, I will be
>constantly crossing (at greater or lesser angles) a lot of airways. I don't
>see that as a problem. As Burt Rutan often says, the skies are NOT crowded.
>Step outside and look up. You will see a LOT of sky, and rarely ever an
>airplane (unless you live in a major metro area and which I agree should be
>avoided).
>Not sure where we're going here .... Jim S.
>
There was a fatal mid-air collision several years ago up here in
Canada. Two aircraft, both navigating using GPS, one going from
airport A to airport B, and the other going from airport B to airport
A. They were both tracking the GPS direct-to very accurately, and
they had a head-on mid-air. Putting the question of why they were
both at the same altitude aside, the high accuracy of the GPS
certainly was a contributing factor in this accident.
See: http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/air/1995/a95h0008/a95h0008.asp
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified GPS |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Garfield Willis <garwillis@msn.com>
On Sun, 01 Dec 2002 11:54:18 -0500, Jim Sower <canarder@starband.net>
wrote:
>klehman wrote:
>> While this is probably better than using gps to stay completely on
>> airways there is the little detail that you will likely fly exactly over
>> 3 or 4 points that everyone else doing something similar is aiming for.
>
>I'm not sure I understand which 3 or 4 points you're talking about
Umm, perhaps the 3 or 4 VORs mentioned in your previous post. I've
copied it back again, so you can read it. It's at the end below.
>> With VOR navigation they will miss those points by a significant margin
>> but not with GPS navigation.
>
>How is that?
Because conventional VOR navigation isn't precise nor accurate enough to
get you within the locus of hocus pocus. So random variation in
navigation accuracy gives you a large margin of "open sky".
>> Flying an offset or minimising direct to points that are VORs or
>> airports for VFR directs is another technique that may be prudent.
>
>East of the Mississippi you can't NOT be on an airway or fairly near one. If
>my waypoints are scenic, and I name them in my flight plan ATC may want
>coordinates which I may not be able to provide accurately.
>I fail to see what I might gain by flying offsets. No matter what, I will be
>constantly crossing (at greater or lesser angles) a lot of airways. I don't
>see that as a problem. As Burt Rutan often says, the skies are NOT crowded.
>Step outside and look up. You will see a LOT of sky, and rarely ever an
>airplane (unless you live in a major metro area and which I agree should be
>avoided).
>Not sure where we're going here .... Jim S.
I see Ken's point, and agree with it. Especially with the demise of SA,
the courses of two planes navigating between precisely located points
via even handhelds, very likely WILL have their courses within VERY much
greater proximity than previously, especially near the VOR. The
avoidance scenarios were predicated on the navigation between waypoints
being sloppy. An existence proof of this might be found in the rules
about flying oddsNevens altitudes for separation above 3000AGL.
Trouble is low passes into a congested area, like near where I fly.
There is one that is popularly used for east-west transit into the SF
Bay Area, and I've on several occasions flown close enough to other
aircraft to RECOGNIZE the person in the other airplane as belonging to
the same flight club! Not recognizing the airplane (rentals) mind you,
but the person's FACE! This is due to the fact that the pass isn't all
that wide (hmm, maybe why it's called a 'pass'?), and since you're not
operating within the altitude separation rules, the needle's eye is
already surprisingly small. NOW suppose people got in the habit of
shooting that pass off some two waypoints whose straight-line happened
to transit that pass? Or suppose a worse scenario, where ...
We have another coastal mountain range overcrossing that's heavily used
(not much of a pass, but...) with a VOR *just* on the other side of that
range that is often used as a waypoint for the crossing. Here again, you
have altitude separation compression because of the narrowed range of
AGL, AND a common meeting point for two aircraft (namely the VOR).
Another place where precise/accurate navigation now possible could
reduce your assumed separation significantly.
Here's the quote I believe Ken was referring to:
>> >I try to have it both ways. My flight planning software begins with
>> "great circle
>> direct" from departure point to destination, and I drag-and-drop route
>> line to VORs
>> along the way at about 100 nm intervals. I file the VORs (maybe 3 or 4
>> waypoints)
>> and fly damn-near-direct and get to use the IFR certified Nav to back up my
>> handheld GPS. Very small inconvenience. No questions. No hassle. No
>> problems.
>> Just a theory .... Jim S.
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified GPS |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Greg Young" <gyoung@cs-sol.com>
I used to subscribe to the "big sky" theory but two recent incidents
changed my mind. About half way between Houston and Waco, well away from
any airways and at 8500', i.e. middle of nowhere, I got distracted by a
long distance reflection that looked like traffic. When I convinced
myself it wasn't a threat, I turned my head and a Bonanza crossed less
than 100 yds in front of me at exactly my altitude. The other was a
EAA chapter flyout on a low-vis (4-5 mi) day. We had a perfect setup for
overtake collisions. Everyone with the same origin, destination and ETA
following an exact track thanks to GPS with limited altitude separation
due to the length of the trip. I flew a couple miles off track to
compensate. The skies may not be crowded but it only takes one to ruin
your day. I'm seriously considering getting one of those "poor man's"
TCAS boxes.
Regards,
Greg Young - Houston (DWH)
RV-6 N6GY ...project Phoenix
Navion N5221K - just an XXL RV-6A
> don't see that as a problem. As Burt Rutan often says, the
> skies are NOT crowded. Step outside and look up. You will
> see a LOT of sky, and rarely ever an airplane (unless you
> live in a major metro area and which I agree should be
> avoided). Not sure where we're going here .... Jim S.
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified GPS |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
What flight planning software are you using? Thanks. Larry in Indiana
> "James E. Clark" wrote:
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "James E. Clark"
<jclark@conterra.com>
> >
> > For a recent "IFR" flight (severe clear conditions), I informed the
person
> > at the FSS that I was "/I" and had a VFR GPS on-board. I requested/filed
> > "direct". When I called for clearance I got "cleared as filed". Later I
was
> > vectored around a "hot" MOA and when I asked of I could return to my
> > (direct) route, I was asked if I could navigate "direct" from current
> > position. [Me]"Affirmative!" ... [ATC]"Cleared direct xxx".
>
> I try to have it both ways. My flight planning software begins with
"great circle
> direct" from departure point to destination, and I drag-and-drop route
line to VORs
> along the way at about 100 nm intervals. I file the VORs (maybe 3 or 4
waypoints)
> and fly damn-near-direct and get to use the IFR certified Nav to back up
my
> handheld GPS. Very small inconvenience. No questions. No hassle. No
problems.
> Just a theory .... Jim S.
> Also slowly retrieving my IFR rating ....
>
>
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified GPS |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jim Sower <canarder@starband.net>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
>
> What flight planning software are you using? Thanks. Larry in Indiana
FliteSoft. Early release. I'm going to look at others, but I imagine they're
pretty
much the same.
Jim S.
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified GPS |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jim Sower <canarder@starband.net>
John Slade wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Slade" <sladerj@bellsouth.net>
>
> > No matter what, I will be constantly crossing (at greater or lesser
> > angles) a lot of airways.
> Jim.
> I think you're missing the point. Airways are long lines. VORs are central
> points towards which many VFR navigators converge. Lots of general aviation
> pilots are now navigating with superb accuracy, so the tendancy is to arrive
> at the same point.
I wasn't aware that the precision of the navigation with GPS was all that much
better that VOR. I know that a unit angular error makes for increased distance
error as you get away from the station, and that potential for enroute precision
is greater with GPS, but I never knock myself out as much flying right
dead-nuts-on the centerline with GPS. With VOR I only felt confident I knew
where I was when I was right where I wanted to be. GPS has so much nicer a
display and features, I know right where I am no matter where that is, so I
except little "excursions" from the planned track.
As for VORs being a "central point" where folks converge" baffled me because
there are so damn many of them (eastern seaboard) that I can't figure out for the
life of me which ones are "central" :-) I agree that on the left coast there are
some pretty tight "channels" that make for dense traffic
> Time is the only thing still seperating us all. I've
> always made it a habit to be a little more alert for traffic as I approach a
> VOR, but the GPS makes these places much more dangerous.
>
> >Step outside and look up.
> >You will see a LOT of sky, and rarely ever an airplane
> If you're new house has a VOR in the back yard you'll see a LOT more planes.
When I lived in the NE Atlanta suburbs, I was under the NE initial approach
corridor for Hartsfield and also under the corridor for PDK. Hardly ever had
more than two planes in sight at any given moment.
Anyway, I see your point. However, if precision navigation at and between way
points aggravates somewhat head-on and overtake type situations, contention with
crossing traffic will be the same whether you're flying direct or Victor
airways. You just collide a little bit off the beaten path :-)
They taught us when I was a cadet "... a constant, disciplined lookout doctrine
is critical. What with the closure rates of fighters reducing time to react so
much, a half-assed lookout doctrine does little more than give you the
opportunity to die all tensed up ..."
Are we pole vaulting over rat turds again ? :-) .... Jim S.
>
> John Slade
>
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: S-701 Master (Battery Contactor) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 03:49 PM 12/1/2002 +0000, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Daniel Pelletier"
><pelletie1@hotmail.com>
>
>
>Hi Bob,
>
>A friend of mine which is an electrical automotive mechanical said me that
>it was better to install your master switch S-701-1 upside down. Is that
>true? Il installed it in this manner for the one I used for my internally
>regulated alternator. I'm ready to install the master switch for batteries,
>should I install them on the same way or not?
Rotating contactors to compensate for g-loading in flight
is one of those bogus ideas that have been floating around
for a long time. Install them in what ever way makes the
best sense for getting them hooked up.
>I've some understanding problem with your drawing of that device on your
>diagram. You put the two 6/32 studs on the left side of the diagram. How
>should we figure it on the real.
Positioning on a schematic seldom has any significance with
the physical placement in a 3-D world with real estate,
available volume and convenience of interconnection to
contend with. Schematics just tell you where the wires
go, not how they go.
Bob . . .
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified GPS |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Garfield Willis <garwillis@msn.com>
On Sun, 01 Dec 2002 21:42:38 -0500, Jim Sower <canarder@starband.net>
wrote:
>I wasn't aware that the precision of the navigation with GPS was all that much
>better that VOR. I know that a unit angular error makes for increased distance
>error as you get away from the station, and that potential for enroute precision
>is greater with GPS, but I never knock myself out as much flying right
>dead-nuts-on the centerline with GPS.
IINM, current fix accuracy after SA was shut off, is around +-3meters?
IF that's the case, it sure would be a GOOD thing not to fly right on
GPS, that's why the suggestions of an intentional offset. Again, the
problem is that the new navigational hardware will make it all too easy
to fly "right dead-nuts-on GPS" automagically, and if done inadvertantly
and unthinkingly by a large percentage of occasional pilots, sooner or
later two of them are going to converge within that 3meter locus of
hocus pocus.
>Are we pole vaulting over rat turds again ? :-) .... Jim S.
I'd bet not in this case; when GPS can get you down to the 'rat turd'
precision/accuracy, then trying to avoid converging within the same 'rat
turd' sized airspace is no longer majoring in the minors, because now
the minors *matter*. With VOR navigation, the accuracy is WAY lower than
the size of one plane's airspace, so the likelyhood of converging EVEN
IF you were trying to, using VOR navigation is also way lower. But IF
the accuracy/resolution of GPS is now on the order of the dimensions of
your favorite airframe (and even higher), it would seem the likelyhood
has suddenly become much greater.
IIRC, this was also the crux of the worry about publishing, disclosing,
or broadcasting (as in TCAS, ADS-B, et al) current airliner location
(and perhaps even more dangerous, future location in timeNspace), is
that it makes it quite possible to build an 'intercept' or even a
'loiter' terrorist weapon that could rendesvous with the airliner, and
again within that same 3meter locus, detonate in timeNspace without any
actual homing/seeker apparatus needed. Sounds far fetched maybe, but
think about it; it's relatively low-tech given what we have in our hands
at this very moment, at least as far as the positioning part is
concerned.
This isn't my bailiwick, but GPS sure seems to have some interesting
side-effects when combined with (1) a system that relied in part on
randomness & imprecision for separation, OR (2) when combined with a
whirld where organized fanaticism's whole fascination with technology is
in turning it into destructive instruments to be used against the
cultures with the high-tech.
Uugh.
Gar
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Netscape/7.0
| Subject: | Re: handheld GPS Reliability vs Certified GPS |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: John Rourke <jrourke@allied-computer.com>
Jim,
I think you're still missing the point. All VORs are "central points",
relative to the airways that connect them... in a similar way, airports
are central points, relative to the approach paths that connect them.
No, you don't see as high a density of aircraft on the approach paths,
or on the airways. But, if you sat right smack on the airport or at the
VOR station, you will see a lot higher density of aircraft.
How high, I don't know... but I don't think it's insignificant.
-John
Jim Sower wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jim Sower <canarder@starband.net>
>
>
> John Slade wrote:
>
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Slade" <sladerj@bellsouth.net>
>>
>>>No matter what, I will be constantly crossing (at greater or lesser
>>>angles) a lot of airways.
>>
>>Jim.
>>I think you're missing the point. Airways are long lines. VORs are central
>>points towards which many VFR navigators converge. Lots of general aviation
>>pilots are now navigating with superb accuracy, so the tendancy is to arrive
>>at the same point.
>
>
> I wasn't aware that the precision of the navigation with GPS was all that much
> better that VOR. I know that a unit angular error makes for increased distance
> error as you get away from the station, and that potential for enroute precision
> is greater with GPS, but I never knock myself out as much flying right
> dead-nuts-on the centerline with GPS. With VOR I only felt confident I knew
> where I was when I was right where I wanted to be. GPS has so much nicer a
> display and features, I know right where I am no matter where that is, so I
> except little "excursions" from the planned track.
> As for VORs being a "central point" where folks converge" baffled me because
> there are so damn many of them (eastern seaboard) that I can't figure out for
the
> life of me which ones are "central" :-) I agree that on the left coast there
are
> some pretty tight "channels" that make for dense traffic
>
>
>>Time is the only thing still seperating us all. I've
>>always made it a habit to be a little more alert for traffic as I approach a
>>VOR, but the GPS makes these places much more dangerous.
>>
>>
>>>Step outside and look up.
>>>You will see a LOT of sky, and rarely ever an airplane
>>
>>If you're new house has a VOR in the back yard you'll see a LOT more planes.
>
>
> When I lived in the NE Atlanta suburbs, I was under the NE initial approach
> corridor for Hartsfield and also under the corridor for PDK. Hardly ever had
> more than two planes in sight at any given moment.
>
> Anyway, I see your point. However, if precision navigation at and between way
> points aggravates somewhat head-on and overtake type situations, contention with
> crossing traffic will be the same whether you're flying direct or Victor
> airways. You just collide a little bit off the beaten path :-)
>
> They taught us when I was a cadet "... a constant, disciplined lookout doctrine
> is critical. What with the closure rates of fighters reducing time to react
so
> much, a half-assed lookout doctrine does little more than give you the
> opportunity to die all tensed up ..."
>
> Are we pole vaulting over rat turds again ? :-) .... Jim S.
>
>
>>John Slade
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | New, NEW List Digest Format... |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Matt Dralle <dralle@matronics.com>
Dear Listers,
Okay, so I woke up this morning to an email box full of hate-mail about the
new List Digest format. I thought it was cool, but I guess not... Still,
it seemed like too much code to just throw out, so I've modified things a
little and I'm hoping everyone will be happy with the new, NEW
arrangement. Here's how it works now:
o The HTML and TXT enclosures aren't sent in the Digest any longer.
o URL Links to the HTML and TEXT versions of the day's Digests
will be found at the top of the digest email.
o The new Digest Index will be found at the top of the digest email
following the URL Links.
o The full digest text will then be found in the email as before.
o All of the previous Digests will now be available on line. The
URL for the main digest page is:
http://www.matronics.com/digest
From here, you can drill into the specific List Digest of interest.
o Both the HTML and TXT versions of the Digests can be found here.
o The List Message Trailer will contain a Link directly to the given
o Right now there's only one Digest shown, but each day there will
be another. They will be sorted with the newest at the top.
Left-hand column is the HTML version, right-hand column the TXT
version.
A couple people also complained that some messages in the HTML version were
just one long line that went off to the right forever and they hated
that. Come to think of it, this is also an issue in the Search Engine,
List Browser, and Archive Browser. Some email programs don't included hard
Returns at regular intervals and that's what causes this. I wrote a
program tonight that will automatically chop these long lines into 78
characters or less and wrap the rest of the line. After tonight's Archive
transfer, all of the Searching and Browsing tools shouldn't have the
problem any longer either. Woo hoo!
So, back to the new Digest format. What people are going to see in the
new, NEW Digest is a bit of verbiage at the top of the email describing the
URL links to the HTML and TXT on-line versions, followed by the Links,
followed by the day's Index, followed by the day's messages just as
before. Lines longer than 78 characters will also be automatically wrapped
onto the next line.
Hopefully this will be a more pleasing arrangement for everyone. Sorry to
get everybody so stirred up over the format change!
The List of Contributors is coming out tomorrow night... Still time to
make that Contribution! http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Best regards,
Matt Dralle
Email List Admin.
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|