more Ameriflight....

Re: 135 cross country times

Cal Goat said:
I actually have Logbook Pro. I was unaware that I could get it to add up point to point flights...
Click to expand...

I have LPB too, but I made a 135 X-country column. Not sure if you can get point to point with LBP.
 
Re: 135 cross country times

FWIW, I did a number of NDBs in training. So if your concern is not doing well due to not having flows, don't let something else like not knowing how to fly an NDB be another unsat. Like jtranny said, they have a great training program, BUT they do expect results.
 
Cal Goat said:
I've never had an issue with arcs. Done one or two in actual. Dunno, maybe trying it in the Navajo will scramble my brains.... :p

It's interesting to see Amflight's relatively slow/late embrace of the GPS. Seems affordable enough these days and you can't put a price on that kind of SA, not to mention the theoretical fuels savings of going direct when it's available.
Click to expand...

If you're uncomfortable flying without a GPS, you will very likely be umcomfortable at amflight for a very long time. Nearly four years after I left, they haven't gone too far with it, and I doubt things will speed up anytime soon.
 
jtrain609 said:
If you're uncomfortable flying without a GPS, you will very likely be umcomfortable at amflight for a very long time. Nearly four years after I left, they haven't gone too far with it, and I doubt things will speed up anytime soon.
Click to expand...

I'm not uncomfortable without it, I was merely questioning the logic behind not incorporating it as means of improving safety/SA and to a lesser extent, efficiency.

This is sort of where there's a lame dichotomy among certain groups of pilots: the GPS-is-for-pilots-who-aren't-real-pilots camp and the pilots who just enjoy having as much positional accuracy as possible. I'll navigate with 2 VORs all day long, but I'm not going to poo-poo the GPS as some crutch for the navigationally challenged. It's a damn good tool, and makes more airports more usable in IFR conditions. And they're getting better and more affordable everyday.

Really, what argument is there against GPS anymore? Too many database updates required? You can't even really say that it makes pilots navigationally complacent because, in order to successfully use it in IMC, it requires training and just as much IFR ability [from the pilot] as navigating with 2 VORs and a DME. Only difference is, the GPS leaves far less gray area as to where you actually are in space. And there ain't nothing wrong with that.

Sorry, for the rant there. Like I said, I'll fly IFR with whatever equipment they give me; but I won't play the I'm a Better Pilot than You Because I Don't Need GPS game.

Just my 2 cents.
 
Cal Goat said:
You can't even really say that it makes pilots navigationally complacent because, in order to successfully use it in IMC, it requires training and just as much IFR ability [from the pilot] as navigating with 2 VORs and a DME. Only difference is, the GPS leaves far less gray area as to where you actually are in space. And there ain't nothing wrong with that.
Click to expand...

DME?! What kind of nancy crutch equipment is that?! Real pilots navigate with VOR's and a watch. :rotfl:
 
Cal Goat said:
I'm not uncomfortable without it, I was merely questioning the logic behind not incorporating it as means of improving safety/SA and to a lesser extent, efficiency.

This is sort of where there's a lame dichotomy among certain groups of pilots: the GPS-is-for-pilots-who-aren't-real-pilots camp and the pilots who just enjoy having as much positional accuracy as possible. I'll navigate with 2 VORs all day long, but I'm not going to poo-poo the GPS as some crutch for the navigationally challenged. It's a damn good tool, and makes more airports more usable in IFR conditions. And they're getting better and more affordable everyday.

Really, what argument is there against GPS anymore? Too many database updates required? You can't even really say that it makes pilots navigationally complacent because, in order to successfully use it in IMC, it requires training and just as much IFR ability [from the pilot] as navigating with 2 VORs and a DME. Only difference is, the GPS leaves far less gray area as to where you actually are in space. And there ain't nothing wrong with that.

Sorry, for the rant there. Like I said, I'll fly IFR with whatever equipment they give me; but I won't play the I'm a Better Pilot than You Because I Don't Need GPS game.

Just my 2 cents.
Click to expand...

The down side is that nothing in a part 135 company is cheap, to buy and install GPS recievers means more than buying the box and throwing it in, there are often additional parts and pieces necessary to be updated, OBS/HSIs, indicators, etc. in addtion to those costs the plane is usually in the shop for several days/weeks to get the panel refitted which means man hours spent and revenue flights lost, then thre is the training program (already in place) that needs to be done, in short...it takes money and time.

From the company's point of view, the average leg at AMF is <1 hr, if you are in an area that is rural enough to support direct to intersections/navaids where significant time savings are available you are generally able to get vectors, direct when able, and achieve nearly the same thing. If you are in terminal areas you will typically get vectored to high hell anyway and therefore the direct feature isn't all that necessary. Yes you get more airports you could go to, but you are going to fly to the airports AMF wants you to and these typically have some regular navaid based approach that works 99% of the time. Yes, podunk muni might only have a GPS approach, but the company doesn't care, because they don't fly there. The runs are customer driven, if the customer wants us to go to a airport with only a GPS approach, then we can make that happen, but again 99% of the time that is not the case.

As to better situational awareness, I agree that GPS is great for that, but to say that it somehow increases safety is rather amusing. While it does make things easier, a proficient IFR pilot is not going to run into a hill or mountain following a NDB/VOR/LORAN/INS/AN RANGE or any other type of navaid. When you run into the mountain or hill is because you aren't following the procedures correctly, and the GPS can't fix stupid.
 
flyboy6585 said:
...

As to better situational awareness, I agree that GPS is great for that, but to say that it somehow increases safety is rather amusing. While it does make things easier, a proficient IFR pilot is not going to run into a hill or mountain following a NDB/VOR/LORAN/INS/AN RANGE or any other type of navaid. When you run into the mountain or hill is because you aren't following the procedures correctly, and the GPS can't fix stupid.
Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying for the most part about cost, training, etc. But this last part is misguided IMO. It sounds like you're making a point about all the Johnny Private Pilots who use their GPS to go direct to and then watch the pretty clouds float by, oblivious to airspace and terrain. I don't think this is [nearly as] applicable to the professional pilot operating on an IFR flight plan. I'd rather have the most precise tool available for the job. Not because I need it as a crutch, but because I want to fly with as much navigational precision as I can.

Again, just my personal opinion.
 
So far most airports I have flown to have had a VOR on the field or within ten miles of the field. The money it takes to install and update the GPS systems outweighs the benefits in the case of Ameriflight. Not to mention with bank work shrinking throughout the nation why upgrade a fleet that primarily carries bank work? This is the case for the Navajos. Turbine equipment could be different.
 
The last NDB approach I shot was into Winnipeg Manitoba. There is also a airway out of Miami that uses an NDB that we fly daily. You will have to get comfortable with flying without a GPS unit. All of the aircraft have HSI's and DME's with the exception of a few navajos. I agree with flyboy. A gps unit does not make you anymore of a safe of efficient pilot. Knowing the equipment and resources that you have, knowing their limitations, and being able to use them to it's full extent is the key.
 
KLB said:
The last NDB approach I shot was into Winnipeg Manitoba. There is also a airway out of Miami that uses an NDB that we fly daily. You will have to get comfortable with flying without a GPS unit. All of the aircraft have HSI's and DME's with the exception of a few navajos. I agree with flyboy. A gps unit does not make you anymore of a safe of efficient pilot. Knowing the equipment and resources that you have, knowing their limitations, and being able to use them to it's full extent is the key.
Click to expand...

More Safe? No, not really, but I take exception to the efficiency argument. The GPS makes useful those handy great-circle distances, and a "cleared direct to KABC" beats the hell out of "fly V123, then V456, then Radar Vectors to KABC." If you really want to know just how much more efficient those routes are, plug the airway route into fltplan.com and it'll tell you how much longer your route is than the great circle distance.

Also, even the most basic GPS steps up your SA by a large factor.
 
KLB said:
The last NDB approach I shot was into Winnipeg Manitoba. There is also a airway out of Miami that uses an NDB that we fly daily. You will have to get comfortable with flying without a GPS unit. All of the aircraft have HSI's and DME's with the exception of a few navajos. I agree with flyboy. A gps unit does not make you anymore of a safe of efficient pilot. Knowing the equipment and resources that you have, knowing their limitations, and being able to use them to it's full extent is the key.
Click to expand...

Miami has an NDB?
 
If you look at skyvector you will see dark brown NDB routes in south Florida. Mainly because of the islands.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top