Backcountry Pilot

[Idaho SuperCub offline]

I'm not sure who spread the rumur about GPS usage in Idaho as well as other backcountry airstrips as being unusable. It works great! Most of the interesting airstrips in Idaho are not on the charts. In Hells Canyon, none are listed. I am an avid Idaho flyer and I have these airstrips loaded in my GPS. I also have hazards loaded (powerlines). GPS is a great tool, use it.

Idaho SuperCub

[Zzz]

I made reference to this in a recent post. The term I used was "useless" not "unusable," although I guess the difference between those two words is mere symantics.

Good conversation on this already in this thread, although I'm sure more will chime in here.

The bottom line is that while GPS is obviously a very useful tool, it has practical limitations in some environments.

[qmdv offline]

I have a panel mounted gps in the 182B and really love it. I do not use it very much in the backcountry. If in Idaho you take off from Graham you cannot hit the direct to button for Weatherby. You have to fly down one canyon then up another. My gps is not expensive enough to have all ridges and canyons built in.

Being very familiar with the charts and using pilotage are the best tools I feel. The gps is in the on position but I am looking out the plane most of the time.

Tim

[Idaho SuperCub offline]

Gps is a great tool. Use it or loose it!


As a profesissonal and avid backcountry pilol, if you got the the equipment and"Use it or loose it".

[qmdv offline]

On my trip from Graham to Weaterby why not put in 50 way points and just turn on the auto pilot linked to gps. You know, if you have the equipment etc etc.

Tim

[mtv offline]

Holy crap, have any of you guys used a Garmin 396 or 496? I navigated by maps in BIG country, not that little bit of land they call the Idaho backcountry for a long time before GPS came along. As soon as GPS came out, I had one, and have had ever since. I always know where I'm at on the map in any case, but that GPS has a lot of valuable and useful features.

Now, consider this: You are zooming around in your favorite canyons, dodging clouds and such, navigating away with a map. You go up one drainage, slither over the top into the next drainage (barely) and run down that one several miles, only to find a great big thunderstorm in the middle of it. Now you go back up the drainage, and find the hole you came in through is closed.

The Garmin units with nexrad radar would have showed you the location of that cell.

I have used that feature to make the decision to work around the end of a line of cells versus landing somewhere to wait it out, and I've used it to decide to land and wait them out as well.

This is a safety device of great value, as well as a great ASSIST to navigation. It simply verifies that I am where I think I am, and the airport I'm looking for (based on the coordinates I entered prior to flight) is right around this corner.

Why wouldn't you want one of these things?

MTV

[sector15 offline]

gps units only enhance your piloting skills... you can set it up to plot your actual course traveled logging waypoints every 5-15 seconds depending on your unit and save it for future reference, then you can also start adding notes to specific points of interest. everyone should learn what these things can do and then at least try using one in the backcountry... you'll be sold...

[Zzz]

Gps is a great tool. Use it or loose it!

So why exactly would we "loose" it if we don't use it? GPS isn't going anywhere if a couple taildragger pilots who want to be more like Lucky Lindy than Richard Collins don't use their GPS receivers.

Like I said in the other post, I embrace technology and am a power user more so than a lot of people. What rational person wouldn't think GPS has incredible usefulness in any flying situation? The benefits are obvious. The point being made is that it shouldn't be a crutch or a substitute for sectional reading and pilotage skills when flying in harsh terrain at or below ridgetop level.

That's changing somewhat however, with the new units like the 496 that have incredible resolution in the sectional overlay(not to mention Doppler radar and even satellite and forecast data.) It can actually be used in leiu of a paper chart. No one is really criticizing GPS, just saying that you should never leave without a paper sectional, cuz God forbid your batteries go dead or your 12V power cable goes gunnybag.

[Idaho SuperCub offline]

The point is it is an effective tool. The reason I use GPS, "Because I Can". These strips are at most times are only identified when you pass directly over them. Lindburg did great job across the Atlantic on his compass. But that's all he had. I agree every one should learn to navigate with charts and dead recogning. I did that 35 years ago, I prefer to go direct. I have no pride to prove, I have fuel to save and a destination to make.


Idaho SuperCub

[LowAndSlow offline]

I've used a 296 extensively in the backcounty, and love it. GPS is a fantastic tool, but like everything else in airplanes, it's a bad idea to depend upon it solely. I'd say it even saved my bacon a couple times durning hunting season, clouds, fog and snow squalls everywhere - look at the GPS and you know exactly where you're at - takes the second guessing out. I really like that it stores the routes for the last x number of miles flown, so if you need to, you can turn around and follow your track back.

I was flying up the Main Salmon, down river from Riggins and started chatting to a guy in a Maule who must have had a 396 or 496. We were under a solid overcast layer that came down to the tops of the canyon, and he read me the current METAR for McCall. I thought that was pretty cool.

MTV - I don't think the radar feature will do much for you in the Idaho backcounty. There is no radar coverage back here, unless the stuff gets really high, like above 20,000. I haven't tried it, or heard from anyone else, so I may be wrong. I'd still love to have it though!

John

[YELLOWMAULE offline]

My primary navigational tool is still my thumb on my sectional. The little GPS III is a great tool for confirmation of my pilotage and for in flight decision making when encountering a head wind and fuel endurance. I don't rely on it for primary ever. The "nearest" key has helped on the odd occasion the bladder has gotten the better of a passenger or two.
My navigation instrumentation is rudimentary at best simply due to a desire for simplicity, weight & budget. I would not hesitate to use some of the amazing tools that are on the market though. The XM weather updates would be pretty neat but think of all those bored FSS guys & gals.

[RockyTFS offline]

I have some comments on MTV's post here. I agree that GPS's primary use in the backcountry is for **precise** positional awareness, most importantly when the visibility is poor and the ceiling is low enough to prevent flying over the ridges. It is that much more effective with a moving map and ALL of the strips, usable or not, programmed in as user waypoints. I'd much rather land and run into the trees at the end of Dewey Moore than crash in the river if I had an engine problem. Of course a well marked up Sectional chart will do the same thing for you, IF you keep one finger on your position at all times, but I sure like having both.

As for the use of XM weather to show Nexrad on a Garmin, Idaho has one of the worst Nexrad gaps in the lower 48, it simply isn't going to show anything in central Idaho. Both the WSR 88D's at Boise and Pocatello are sited low in the Snake Valley and really can't see into the mountains very far, even though their coverage maps show that they do. Another issue is that our canyons are so narrow that it only takes a small but intense shower a mile wide to close out any of them. You all DO know how to make a quick minimum radius 180 turn in your plane with no time to set it up, I presume? This might be an interesting new thread.

My personal favorite GPS is the Garmin 96C. I've had it for two years and think it's perfect for this use. It's small and light with a great screen, it doesn't need any cables, gets 25 hours on 2 AA's, works great in the car or on foot, and loads detailed topo maps from USA Topo software. Of course it also has all the Jeppesen data too, really nice on longer trips into unfamiliar territory. I hardly even look at my panel mount anymore.

Regards,

The Flying Squirrel

[UP_M5 offline]

is anybody here using a garmin with XM weather in alaska?

i just purchased a 396 and i am learning its capabilities. so far it has proved to be very useful, and its weather is very acurate.
BUT... scrolling up to alaska to check conditions- there is no weather shown for anywhere north of the lower 48. this isn't good because i bought the unit to fly up the alcan this spring. a call to XM verified that there is no coverage for canada or alaska. is this really true?!?!?!?!?

i guess i'll be canceling my subsciption as soon as i turn north out of montana. i knew it was too good to be true

[mtv offline]

The XM satellites are geostationary, as in over the equator. No coverage to speak of in Alaska, unless you can get up to 350, maybe.

Squirrel, good comments. I'd still defend the 396 for the availability of tafs, metars and winds aloft forecasts, if nothing else.

Flying low in the mountains is a visual game, and being proactive is no doubt the key to survival. Nevertheless, a good GPS really helps to maintain situational awareness. If nothing else, it verifies what you "think" you already know, based on your maps.

I carry current maps everywhere I go, by the way.

MTV

[GumpAir offline]

The point is it is an effective tool. The reason I use GPS, "Because I Can". These strips are at most times are only identified when you pass directly over them. Lindburg did great job across the Atlantic on his compass. But that's all he had. I agree every one should learn to navigate with charts and dead recogning. I did that 35 years ago, I prefer to go direct. I have no pride to prove, I have fuel to save and a destination to make.


Idaho SuperCub

I'm betting Lindberg would have given his eye teeth to have had a GPS on his trip across the pond. As a saftey tool, marking spots you want to find again, and heaven forbid you gotta park on the rocks somewhere, you can tell 'em exactly where you are. GPS is the greatest advance in backcountry flying I've seen in my almost 40 years of doing it.

[GumpAir offline]

is anybody here using a garmin with XM weather in alaska?

i just purchased a 396 and i am learning its capabilities. so far it has proved to be very useful, and its weather is very acurate.
BUT... scrolling up to alaska to check conditions- there is no weather shown for anywhere north of the lower 48. this isn't good because i bought the unit to fly up the alcan this spring. a call to XM verified that there is no coverage for canada or alaska. is this really true?!?!?!?!?

i guess i'll be canceling my subsciption as soon as i turn north out of montana. i knew it was too good to be true

Sorry, but the XM weather stops at the Canadian border, and doesn't work at all in Alaska. Now the XM radio... Works like magic all the way up until about Tok, then you loose some of the transponders (channels). And once up towards Fairbanks you have to have a good southern view for the antenna or it all goes away. But it was sooooo nice to have music for a change flying the highway. What a treat. And the color moving map on the 306 is hard to beat too.

[RockyTFS offline]

I created this mosaic of Nexrad Coverage (or more properly Mountain Attenuation) in the area of Idaho from files I got from NOAA. It's considerably more detailed than anything else I found on the Internet.

This graphic will interest those with, or thinking about, XM weather.

Keep in mind that the coverage rings are at AGL altitudes from the SITE elevation, not MSL altitudes. I have that info if anyone is interested.

There are two other large gaps in converage around Burns to Lakeview, Oregon, and around Tonopah, NV. If anyone is interested I can produce mosaics for those areas too.

As I have researched this more, I have realized that under some circumstances there IS Nexrad coverage in Central Idaho. It depends on what setting the operator is using at the time, and unless we are looking at one of the sites on our computer we have no way of knowing that. Looking at the graphic, I would predict that only the Missoula site (at 7800 ft.) would have a chance of showing a storm there, and it would have to reach about 25,000 feet before it would start to show. Thus I believe that XM NexRad isn't much use below the mid Flight Levels in certain parts of the West. Your eyes are still the best indicator of all.


Rocky

[tgiencke offline]

RockyTFS-

That is a very interesting picture about the radar attenuation around the Rockys.

I'm a flatlander (MN) and have flown ~100hrs with the 396. I absolutely love the XM weather on the 396. But if I was going to rate weather features as how useful they have been to me I would rate...

1- Winds aloft. Updated at the top of every hour and pretty accurate.
2- Graphical METARs. It might be low overcast everywhere but it is nice to be able to see where the visibility has gone to hell also.
3- NEXRAD radar. This is nice when having to deal with thunderstorms or squall lines. But it wouldn't be a deal breaker if I lost the NEXRAD.
4- TAFs. It's good to plan ahead.
5- TFRs. Good to have around major cities.

IMHO the different levels of GPS are...

Garmin 96c- For flatlanders that can't pay the $50/mo for the XM weather. It has the obstructions (towers) for low/night flying. (This is my backup/car nav GPS)

Garmin 296- For highlanders that can't pay the $50/mo for the XM weather. It adds terrain avoidance to the picture.

Garmin 396- Most bang for the buck. Adds XM weather.

Garmin 496- Little more features for a lot more money (Before even the 496 came out I bought a 512mb card for my 396 and added ground navigation maps for ~1/3 of the USA. The only feature of the 496 that I wish I had is the private airport database.)

-Todd Giencke

[GumpAir offline]

The bottom line is that while GPS is obviously a very useful tool, it has practical limitations in some environments.[/quote]

[RockyTFS offline]

Upon ruminating on my previous post about the usefulness of XM Nexrad, I decided that I should say that Nexrad in the West is not AS useful in the East, but it still can be used for the big picture. Just because you can't see an individual large cell doesn't mean that you couldn't get an idea of how fast the weather is growing or where it's moving to. This can be of great value on longer cross-countries, allowing a change of plans long before you can actually see what's going to stop or turn you.

As far as the other cool stuff you can get, if I flew longer XC's I would probably go for it, but most of the places I want to go to don't have any reporting and they are only an hour or two away, so I check everything I can get my hands on before leaving for the airport and then just get a few pireps or Metars enroute. (Or use the cocoanut telegraph on 122.9 when in the Frank.)

Rocky