DME readout

ettw · Post by **ettw** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 1:15 pm

Well, I guess I'll take the bait here.

I have to say, I really feel sorry for the new or aspiring pilots who frequent this forum. At first glance it appears to be a great place to ask questions and HOPEFULLY have more experienced pilots help you find the answer or provide you with an answer. That being said, a significant number of replies to reasonable questions on this forum result in this sort of flaming.

I don't believe there is such a thing as a stupid question ASSUMING you have done some homework. If we all knew all the answers, piliots would be running the country replacing the politicians who know most everything.

Please, cut some slack here people! Everyone of us who are pilots once had 5, 10, 50 ,100, 1000 hours. Remember that when you're posting here.

If you have little more to do than to flame, spend your time in the Political Discussion Forum!

Cheers,

ETTW

MUSKEG · Post by **MUSKEG** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 2:18 pm

I believe there is such a thing as a stupid question. It's one that is asked without trying to figure it out yourself first. I call them folks lazy thinkers. He knows it reads slant range so he should be able to dicipher from that the higher you go the greater the error. Is that a problem in common GA aircraft, NO. This thread started with a stupid question.

JigglyBus · Post by **JigglyBus** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 3:40 pm

I have to somewhat agree with Muskeg on this one.

There aren't stupid questions if you have no resources. If I had bumped into this guy on the street and he said, "I can't remember, what measurement does DME display?", then fine, I would gladly explain it to him.

However, this guy asked a slow to respond forum a question that could have been answered in 5 seconds by cracking open a copy of FTGU, or any other aviation text. Could also have been answered in about 2 minutes through a google search.

It's no different than asking what 5+5 is. I don't have any way to figure out the total myself. I don't want to use the calculator on this computer, I'd rather wait a couple of days and get some anonymous persons opinion on the answer.

. ._ · Post by **. ._** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 3:46 pm

I don't see a problem with wanting an answer to a question in the most efficient way possible. Dude probably saved a couple of minutes by asking here, AND I'll bet someone learned something by reading the answer here.

My opinion.

(That, and $14.75 will get you a half case of Lakeport.)

-istp

Spokes · Post by **Spokes** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 6:48 pm

I don't see a problem remiding VFR pilots to use a map and look out. I see far to many new VFR pilots overly reliant on GPS to the detriment of staying profficient in basic map reading.

I cannot think of a reason to conver DME to ground range for a simple DME flight. Even in the scenario that was given, I would think the difference in time would be trivial.

Having said all that, my reply was not meant to be-little the poster, just a friendly reminder of all this.

ettw · Post by **ettw** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 8:23 pm

I totally agree with the map reading angle here Spokes.

I think GPS has gotten way too much attention and some of the very basic skills we should all learn are being put on the back burner. Not cool.

I worked with a pilot once who had to do a 185 mile trip with the GPS deferred. "How do I do that" he asked. The old fashioned way I replied....NDB outbound and pick up the NDB inbound as per the airway illustrated on the LO chart

THAT question should never be asked.

Cheers,

ETTW

Pete · Post by **Pete** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 8:56 pm

I agree with the over use of the GPS...I have a couple friends who have pretty nice handhelds....or the ones that mount on the control column and they dont take their eyes off of it. I enjoy looking at the map....looking down at the ground....seeing how accurate I can get with the map. Even with float flying...I bought some charts in Muskoka at an outdoors place, with all the small tiny lakes etc...I find using those in the float plane really helps with map skills.

As far as the question goes...that formula is in FTGU...even C******. Im sure though like many, Id ask here first out of lazyness hehe.

Pie Lot · Post by **Pie Lot** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 9:48 pm

I cant really believe that someone is getting all worked up about the very minimal difference in DME vs GPS distance due to Slant Range Error.

If I'm flying around YRL, alot of times the controlers clear us to decend at our discretion and give them a call clear when clear of controlled. When I look down at the DME readout at 22,000 ft and it says 60.3 DME I'll give them a call stating flight ??? is clear of Controled and switching enroute. Centre come back and says roger, position checks, cleared enroute, talk to you southbound or something to that effect. I've never been told that actually you're 1.5NM in the zone still due to slant range error. For a VFr guy to be worried about this is crazy. So yes, I agree, stupid question. Read FTGU and also think real world situation, flying VFR is this really going to make any difference.

That's why I get pissed when we get new FO's that use this type of thinking and think they are being smart, and showing me their "knowledge"; when all it shows me is how they never learned to think outside the box during all their training. That they don't have a clue how the real world works, and couldn't be bothered to try and find out.

justplanecrazy · Post by **justplanecrazy** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 9:49 pm

Sure there are stupid questions:

Should I have the gear up or down when I land on this runway?
Should I use the throttle or the mixture levers to take-off?
If I point the nose straight towards the ground will I descend?
Can I jump out of this plane and land on that strip of pavement without hurting myself?
Does George Bush likes Sushi?

I despise that saying. A stupid question is one displaying a complete ingnorance for a subject at which you should be well versed. Oldtimer's reply was the correct one. How do people like this get permision to fly an airplane by themselves or as acting PIC copilot of a C150. Do people really get licences now without having to do a cross country by navaids and maps and just get to stare at a fancy map with a line and arrow on it. I've seen pilots spin circles trying to figure out how to get to their destination while they type in idents for their GPS. They have no clue what an approximate heading to their destination is even. Our flight training is laughable, this shit is scary!!!! At what point should we expect a person to not be ignorant, after he has his licence but before he's an astronaut. I say holding a licence should mean that you have reached a certain level of knowledge and that some questions will be considered stupid.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 8:41 am

Personally, until you're licenced I dont think you should touch a GPS. I've had students ask if they can bring a GPS along on a cross-country, and I tell them sure, but its going to "fail" 5 minutes in. It teaches absolutely nothing. If you want to use it later on as an add-on to your map-reading and pilotage, then go ahead. But proper planning beforehand, a good eye, and steady flying should be all you need.

Where I learned to fly, all the planes had nice GPS's in them, and I found that flying a VFR cross-country with some of the other students there was almost an exercise in computer programming rather than flying an airplane. All they did was fiddle with the GPS, not ONCE taking out a map...

Technology is great, but too much of it takes our focus away from the primary job, particularily when experience and exposure is low...

Another tip, if youre using one particular practice area, or travelling a pretty steady route VFR, buy the fold-out or book-style road maps of the area. I have them for our practice area and they help when students get confused about roads/towns. It builds their confidence in map reading and allows them to supplement the VTA and VNC.

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 8:47 am

Unless you know every tree and rock along your route, bring a map. Even if you know every tree and rock, what if you have to divert?

Bring a map.

P.S. GPS failure is no big deal. You're going direct, right? So after you're airborne, push on the rudder pedals until the "bearing to" and "track made good" numbers are the same on the GPS.

Then, write down the heading on the DG. Write down your ETA.

Then, if the GPS fails, fly the heading until your ETA, and look down.

Writing down 2 numbers is really not rocket science, and a GPS failure is no big deal.

FamilyGuy · Post by **FamilyGuy** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 8:43 pm

Good to see there is nothing new under the sun.

I remember a very similar heated debate back in the "good ole days" when kids (well heeled ones) would show up at flight school with one of them there fancy E-lec-tron-ic WHIZ wheels.....OH the outrage! What if the batteries fail - then what Mr Fancy Pants!

I agree VFR pilots should be able to read maps and, to a degree, the question asked was a touch simple. Nice job ragging on him - atta boys!

However - welcome to the new(er) digital age. Get used to it.

Now go practice with your trusty ole CR-3 and highlighters ya slackers.

justplanecrazy · Post by **justplanecrazy** » Wed Sep 20, 2006 8:34 am

You gotta be kidding me. Being soley reliant on a GPS is nothing like being reliant on an electronic flight computer. When you take off from an airport, you aren't staring at a flight computer wondering what airspeed you should be climbing out at, it is a planning tool only and yes no matter how advanced the plane is, there probably is an old wizz wheel kicking around in the back somewhere for good reason at least if there's someone with experienced at the controls.

The point I'm getting at is when an individual is given take off clearance with a left turn to point him south towards his destination in the U.S and he keeps turning left until he's pointing almost due N for a while, then W, then E then orbiting, trying to re-input the letters into the GPS we have a problem!!! Its not just old guys having a problem adjusting to the digital age.

I don't know how many times I've had students spinning circles until finally asking them if they are using a GPS. Then when they reply yes (99% of the time), I have to give them an approximate heading to get them towards their destination. And when they flight plan to a number of airports that are in a direction completely opposite to the departure runway they do a hard right or left turn right into the approach to make sure they're right on that trusty yellow line.

If you want to make the switch from VOR's to GPS's as your main navigation tool, that's fine but how about teaching the same things that were taught with the VOR's. Know an approximate heading, plan your legs to start from somewhere other then the approach to the active(s) and please, lets still know how to use the damn instruments in the plane. Vortac's aren't rocket science and to have the instruments and not know how to use them is foolhardy and giving a guy a licence before they understand it is ridiculous.

Everyone's bitching about how little they're getting paid because of the million pilots out there and only a few thousand jobs available. Well how about not sticking up for those that got their licence when they don't know anything and start putting some expectations and higher standards in the licencing department. If only the top pilots received a licence, the industry would be a much nicer place. I'm still hoping that this is simply a good troll.

FamilyGuy · Post by **FamilyGuy** » Wed Sep 20, 2006 7:10 pm

Uh I guess I assumed we were dealing with a basic level of intelligence on the part of the student pilots. Spinning around in circles waiting for the magical little GPS to tell them what to do isn't an equipment issue - it's a basic attitude issue - that I'd say some instructor didn't teach properly.

Point is, we're talking VFR. CR3, CX1, VOR's, GPS whatever - those are just peices of equipment or aids to navigation. If you can't aviate, navigate and communicate without them, there is a bigger problem than the equipment.