Has anyone seen this before--ADF required for procedure entry??

[DXB]

5 minutes ago, Jerry 5TJ said:

When GPS constellation is down...use the iPad which also receives GLONASS.

 

Very interesting!! I didn't realize this - it is on the newest ipads it appears, including my 5G ipad mini 5. I assume the portable GPS receivers like the Stratus I use don't have this backup GLONASS reception.  I had an unexpected GPS outage in flight recently (luckily VFR but still caused a bit of pucker). It affected both my panel and my portable receiver, so I think it was real.  I wonder if turning off the portable receiver would have let my ipad pick up GLONASS.  Is there any way to test this particular reception in isolation?

[PT20J]

5 hours ago, Jerry 5TJ said:

When GPS constellation is down...use the iPad which also receives GLONASS.

 

Cool. I didn’t know that! I just looked up the specs for my iPad mini 5 and it supports   Assisted GPS (evidently this uses the cellular network to provide an initial position for faster acquisition)  GLONASS, Galileo, and QZSS. 

Skip

[EricJ]

Many of the silicon gns receivers (i.e., chips) out there doing gps reception now seldom do only gps.   Most do at least gps + glonass, but even the really cheap silicon like what goes in the $20 USB receivers you can get on Amazon do everything, i.e., gps/glonass/beidou/galileo.   Whether all of it is available may often just be dependent on whether the software makes use of them or not.  Expect this to be more common.

https://www.amazon.com/Receiver-Antenna-Support-Galileo-GLONASS/dp/B07P8H27CF/

Edit:  note this also does WAAS/QZSS/etc.

 

Edited December 9, 2019 by EricJ

[Jerry 5TJ]

5 hours ago, DXB said:

Is there any way to test this particular reception in isolation?

There are apps available to evaluate the various nav satellite systems.  

[cliffy]

On 12/9/2019 at 9:47 AM, Jerry 5TJ said:

When GPS constellation is down...use the iPad which also receives GLONASS.

 

I just pull out my chart book and go back to basics

When in doubt- go back to basics!

[midlifeflyer]

8 hours ago, cliffy said:

I just pull out my chart book and go back to basics

When in doubt- go back to basics!

Well, I haven't had a chart book for...let me check...a bit over 8.5 years. But I have flown without "own ship" position on a tablet and the charts work just fine.

[kortopates]

I just pull out my chart book and go back to basics

When in doubt- go back to basics!

Ha Ha!

My idea of going back to basics is whipping out the sat phone (worst case) and calling the TRACON for an ASR approach! But before all the electrons stop flowing I still have many much better options.

Of course I love technology.

 

Hope the new hangar is working out for you!

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[cliffy]

I've seen it written that back in the days of J-3s that if one was caught over and undercast that the thing to do was put it into a spin and hold it until you broke out below. That way you knew exactly what condition you were in when you saw the ground. Exit the spin and fly to the airport. No ATC or clearance required! :-) No fancy technology in evidence. 

Alas, today, no one even does spins anymore. I was doing them before I got my Private, A C-150 spins beautifully. My Commercial check ride was 2 turns about a point and 45 mins of spins in my Cessna 140. 

[DonMuncy]

2 hours ago, cliffy said:

I've seen it written that back in the days of J-3s that if one was caught over and undercast that the thing to do was put it into a spin and hold it until you broke out below. That way you knew exactly what condition you were in when you saw the ground. Exit the spin and fly to the airport. No ATC or clearance required! :-) No fancy technology in evidence. 

 

Without trying to be too much of a contrarian, if you don't know what is below the undercast, what is the advantage of spinning straight down vs descending gradually down through it. It would appear to me that if the space under the undercast was minimal, breaking out in a glide might be safer than breaking out pointed straight down.

[cliffy]

Not trying to debate whats better Just pointing out history  Obviously not being in that position is best. 

Lots of things were done 80 - 100 years ago that we are aghast at today. 

Read some books on WWI pilots like "No Parachute"  Its an eyeopener   :-)

[EricJ]

2 hours ago, DonMuncy said:

Without trying to be too much of a contrarian, if you don't know what is below the undercast, what is the advantage of spinning straight down vs descending gradually down through it. It would appear to me that if the space under the undercast was minimal, breaking out in a glide might be safer than breaking out pointed straight down.

Spins are stable, so you won't come out upside-down, but in a known attitude.   That said, in many airplanes a sustained spin will get you to and over Vne if held too long.**

There's another idea, which is to slow way down, put the gear and full flaps down, trim it for low airspeed and let it do a slow descending spiral, which is also stable in many airplanes, i.e., you will come out of the clouds in a predictable attitude.    I haven't tried this in the Mooney yet, but it works in a number of small airplanes.    Can't remember where I first saw that, but it does seem like a good plan for airplanes that cooperate.   IIRC I saw it demonstrated in a C150, but I can't find the vid now.

Edit: ** I think I probably should have said exceed Vne during recovery.

Edited December 13, 2019 by EricJ

[Jerry 5TJ]

4 hours ago, cliffy said:

back in the days of J-3s that if one was caught over and undercast that the thing to do was put it into a spin and hold it until you broke out below

The early US airmail pilots would sometimes parachute out if unable to land due to weather.  

(Perhaps they called it the Cirrus option......)

[cliffy]

51 minutes ago, Jerry 5TJ said:

The early US airmail pilots would sometimes parachute out if unable to land due to weather.  

(Perhaps they called it the Cirrus option......)

Yes and a lot of them ended up in a smoking hole due to weather also. It was a risky profession.