When GPS going down is no longer a theory

ppragman

FLIPY FLAPS!
Three spheres.

Need to know.
Nice to know.
Don’t need to know.

What the controls on the flight deck do is need to know. Some of the higher order systems stuff is nice to know. Things you cannot do anything about? don’t need to know. Especially if you displace anything from the former two categories.

“This engine has a variable geometry compressor.”
“Can I do anything about it?”
“Well, no.”
There are plenty of things I couldn't do anything about in the cockpit that are useful to know.

I look at it like this, yeah there's 3 spheres, but they are:

Need to know
Nice to know
Trivia.

You know the "need to know" stuff to pass.your checkride, you know the "nice to know" stuff because you want recurrent to be easy, and you learn some of the trivia because you're a professional trying to learn everything you can about your craft.

Knowing that the engine has a variable geometry compressor might not allow you to actually change anything in flight, but the knowledge might help you make a decision if there is a condition that could be sensed that could imply that it failed. Even if not, I want to know how all this stuff works because I strap myself into these things and hurl myself around the country on them.

About 6 years ago, I was flying the same PC12 I'm flying now. One of our pilots had a pressurization failure where the aircraft wouldn't stop pressurizing. It would push up to the red line, the overpressure valve in the outflow valve would vent some pressure then it would do it again.

The checklist was followed, and guess what, nothing happened, it kept doing the same thing and the pilot couldn't get it to depressurize. Why? Well, the vacuum ejector to the boots had failed and that was upstream of the pressurization controller and Pilatus must've just never figured an ejector would fail and wrote no checklist to respond to this event. The end result? It was fine, the pilot descended then turned off of the environmental control system and waited for the cabin pressure to come down, then landed uneventfully. And yet a higher level of knowledge would have helped that pilot, instead of flying around in circles with a load of people for a half hour while he trouble-shot the problem, he could have said, "oh the dump valve doesn't work but the pressurization keeps working, the valve is stuck or the vacuum line has failed, guess I'm just going to have to shut it off."

We can do better than, "oh well I can't do anything about it so I don't need to know it." That's embarrassing - we should know as much about these things as we can.
 

Autothrust Blue

"...I know bait when I see it..."
Knowing that the engine has a variable geometry compressor might not allow you to actually change anything in flight, but the knowledge might help you make a decision if there is a condition that could be sensed that could imply that it failed. Even if not, I want to know how all this stuff works because I strap myself into these things and hurl myself around the country on them.
Sure.

But if a graduate of your program can tell you all about the variable geometry compressor on the CF34, and can't tell you what every switch on the flight deck does, you have misplaced priorities in your program.

Yes, this is a real thing.
 

ppragman

FLIPY FLAPS!
Sure.

But if a graduate of your program can tell you all about the variable geometry compressor on the CF34, and can't tell you what every switch on the flight deck does, you have misplaced priorities in your program.

Yes, this is a real thing.
Sure it is, but that's because we have • instructors developing content and tests.

It isn't a binary choice, we can instruct and train to an adequate level of understanding.to safely operate this heavy equipment. We can also challenge ourselves as aviators to do better because we're curious about our craft and care about doing a good job.

The training house isn't this place where you show up, they pour knowledge into your head and then you leave, you should crack the books occasionally at times other than just at recurrent. If we don't want to be replaced by robots we should probably try to be better than robots - that might (egads!) require that sometimes we learn a little more than "can I control it, is it in the checklist."
 

CFI A&P

Exploring the world one toilet at a time.
In this case, the problem was the insertion of a leap second. Some avionics suites could work without the GPS, others can’t. “Am I grounded or do I have to utilize an MEL procedure because this?” - that’s where the curiosity ends for most of us. As a pilot, I can’t program the GPS beyond entering a navigational course, nor am I going to Iowa and telling a Rockwell Engineer “You forgot to carry the 1, that’s why this is happening.” There are times to be curious, but inventing a new procedure while ignoring an established one is not the way to go about operating a part 25 airplane. Not to mention the liability involved by creating and using unapproved procedure.
 
Last edited:

CFI A&P

Exploring the world one toilet at a time.
I’m flying a 30 hour total time brand new twin turbine transport categories airplane today /A because of this.

Just wanted to humblebrag a little about my sweet sweet VOR skills.

Just kidding. I have no idea what I’m doing.
Did you bring your goggles and Sporty’s E6B? Take it back to IR training days.
 
I’m flying a 30 hour total time brand new twin turbine transport categories airplane today /A because of this.

Just wanted to humblebrag a little about my sweet sweet VOR skills.

Just kidding. I have no idea what I’m doing.
It's weird, my VOR skills deteriorate tremendously as soon as I exit class 1 airspace.
 
Sure it is, but that's because we have • instructors developing content and tests.

It isn't a binary choice, we can instruct and train to an adequate level of understanding.to safely operate this heavy equipment. We can also challenge ourselves as aviators to do better because we're curious about our craft and care about doing a good job.

The training house isn't this place where you show up, they pour knowledge into your head and then you leave, you should crack the books occasionally at times other than just at recurrent. If we don't want to be replaced by robots we should probably try to be better than robots - that might (egads!) require that sometimes we learn a little more than "can I control it, is it in the checklist."
Robots are a comin' no matter how often you crack the books. Even if through some bend in the time/space continuum you somehow transcended to processing and storage superiority over a robot you would still demand bio breaks, coffee breaks, social breaks, I-need-a-life-breaks, JC-breaks, vacation-breaks; and you would still demand more pay because you are doing the same damned job 10 years after you started doing the same damned job. Robots don't whine like jet pilots and jet engines; They just resolutely keep doing their repetitive tasks. And that, my friend is why the rich neo-fuedal lords will employ robots instead of people. Rich feudal lords don't care about people or much anything else other than the most profitable means of producing profit. Those rich feudal lords will side track humans and employ robots for their unflinching, unthinking cheap service as long as they are able... They will be able precisely until the singularity occurs, the A/I robots turn on their masters, extinguish the humans, and utter a collective "Mwahahahahaha."
 
Last edited:

T/O w/FSII

Well-Known Member
Update. I made it single pilot to the field. Turns out the thing will go into VOR/DME on the FMS. But it flew like a absolute crackhead on both pink and green needle. Cancelled as soon as I could...for a day off side gig this sure turned into a lot of work.

Guess where I am
 

thevideographer

Well-Known Member
So lets say dispatch files you direct between 2 VORs that are far enough apart that you can’t just go direct to the next one. Is there a way in Jepp FD to see the outbound and inbound radials you need? Easy to do in Foreflight but Jepp FD doesn’t seem to facilitate that. Maybe we need to go back to paper too (jk)
 

T/O w/FSII

Well-Known Member
Somewhere in California.
BTW, awesome job going full old-school... Well, it seems you used A/P, so that's not really full old-school. If you're under 40, it probably felt that way.
I’m 30. So yes, yes it does.

The nice thing about the G-IV is that it’s old enough that the GPS was almost an after thought. Something something spinning ring laser something. They don’t seem to have a problem.

Bring back the DC8 damn it.
 

trafficinsight

Well-Known Member
Update. I made it single pilot to the field. Turns out the thing will go into VOR/DME on the FMS. But it flew like a absolute crackhead on both pink and green needle. Cancelled as soon as I could...for a day off side gig this sure turned into a lot of work.

Guess where I am
Is that Foxy's landing or the Waypoint Cafe?

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

woodreau

Well-Known Member
So lets say dispatch files you direct between 2 VORs that are far enough apart that you can’t just go direct to the next one. Is there a way in Jepp FD to see the outbound and inbound radials you need? Easy to do in Foreflight but Jepp FD doesn’t seem to facilitate that. Maybe we need to go back to paper too (jk)
Back in the 1900 days, we just told ATC the radar vector we wanted. 99% it was "approved as requested, fly heading (whatever we asked for),direct when able" - when able was around the time we got visual on the field and cancelled. Never bothered flying the VOR/VOR airways we were filed for.
 

Beefy McGee

Well-Known Member
So lets say dispatch files you direct between 2 VORs that are far enough apart that you can’t just go direct to the next one. Is there a way in Jepp FD to see the outbound and inbound radials you need? Easy to do in Foreflight but Jepp FD doesn’t seem to facilitate that. Maybe we need to go back to paper too (jk)
Yes. Just click/tap on the icon for the VOR or fix and if it is defined by radials, they will show up in the info pop-up.
 
Top