Your video thumbnail of the aircraft panel caught my attention. When I started flying, and he’ll for nearly 20 years of professional flying I was doing, the panel you show in your thumbnail was just about the best of the best. Of course in those days you had your King avionics folks (like me) and the top notch competition Collins folks… But the King KX175’s King KR86(?)ADF, King RNAV with DME, 2 VOR heads, 1 with glide scope, Yea, that was all state of the art top not and SO damn expensive it would make your head spin if you had to replace a radio! (These are the days long before GPS and even LORAN approved units. Many old timers like me will also remember the King KX170B transceivers. The older version of the silver crown units. I actually kept one of my KX170B’s when I upgraded the entire panel in my own personal aircraft, because those old radios were so good, sometimes better than the newly releases KX175’s! The average light aircraft of today are stacked with 10 times more avionics than the 727 I was flying back in those days. All that being said, while todays avionics make it simple to navigate, and do all the work for the pilot, I can’t honestly say it’s a 100% good thing. With the severely lowered work load, and avionics that instantly do all the long hand technical computations we used to do in flight, it’s made the cockpit of commercial carriers much more accessible to pilots of much lower proficiency IMO. Many say, with the reduced workload, pilots now have it so much easier. Well, IF those avionics had been put in aircraft 35 years ago, when all pilots had to be at the top of their game to get a seat at a major, yes, those avionics back then, would have increased safety by 100’s of percent etc, because of pilots multitasking and skill set back then. But now, pilots aren’t required to reach the same proficiency we used to have to reach. Because the avionics do all the work. So our pilots in general, don’t have all the capabilities in every aspect as they used to. It’s a tough argument, that no one likes. I don’t blame them. But, we’ve become to reliant on new avionics IMO. After all, it’s not double and triple redundancy if new pilots aren’t still competent and fully proficient if forced to navigate the old fashioned way on the spur of a moments notice. Are you still proficient? ETE, fixes, mandatory reporting points, full approaches with no radar coverage, no vectors, timed turns and timed approaches, back course localizer approaches, Arc DME approaches etc etc?? These are things we did while we hand flew the aircraft, very often single pilot IFR. No autopilots, broken autopilots, or sometimes just a wing leveler at best. Point is, sometimes you don’t know how easy you’ve got it, until you’re forced to do without it. And to handle all the things I’ve mentioned above, and be proficient at them in a real IFR environment, handling and flying the aircraft itself has to be almost second nature to you. These other calculations and all involved, create such a workload, if you’ve got to stop thinking, and concentrate on whether or not you’re hand flying the aircraft properly, you’re not gonna make it. Flying the aircraft has to be almost second nature, we had to be so proficient at it, it was automatic. That way we had enough left to work out all the details of the approaches and enroute reporting and all specified above. And it seems to me that new pilots aren’t being held to those high standards we were back in those days. It seems many kind of slip under the radar and even at 1000hrs their skill set is nowhere near where it should be. Anyhow, we’ve got some great pilots today also! I just think the FAA is going to have to raise the bar now, since complex inflight navigation is no longer stressed on commercial pilots. With the avionics they have, todays pilots “should be” the best and safest pilots history has ever given us, because their workload is almost nonexistent now, and flying the aircraft can receive so much more attention now than it has ever been able to receive! But sadly, this is not what I’m seeing on the flight deck these days. Just FYI….
looks ro certainly simplify VOR nav @ non-VOR aerodromes.. however as you mentioned its still quite easy to simulate this style of approach with this clever bit of radio nav tech, provided you DME & have 2# Nav radio stack and two HSI or CDI and a map you can simply do much the same, that is to say using distance and the angle of the radial you navigate to the threshold with one HSI and set runway heading with the other and use the VOR plate/chert to get your approach and glide/DH etc..I do this all the time in the Sim for a challenge..ADF can assist also if in range.. Though I can see the ease of use handy in a pinch..
Thank you so much for sharing this precious knowledge! :) This KNS is even more retro and abstract than the Airbus MCDU user custom waypoints because it has no visual guides except the needles (I wish it had at least a point shown on the HSI) - but revision 3 from the KNS80 is from July 1981 while the Airbus EIS1 navigation screens are from 1988. Every cool eighties tech beats the sterile and cold and uniform G1000 cockpit design line hm?
Once again you have delivered some of the most in-depth, detailed and fringe content for MSFS. You are a true addition the community and last but not least your presentation is stellar. Keep it up, I learn a lot from you!
Good discussion! Basically, all you are doing is placing a "VOR" at that location as far as the A/C Instruments are concerened. As far as accuracy is concered, I don't remember ever noticing an error while flying "RNAV"; it was just like having a VOR there. A major help for Air Taxi pilots, who are constantly going into strange airports!
Once you start using KNS, you won't fly by gps anymore. VOR navigation is so much more engaging and keeps you focused in the whole flight, compared to gps nav, where the plane flies itself all the way. Once you make a whole flight over a few vors with changing frequencies, going back to gps is so boring.
Thanks for this. I was looking into RNAV approaches. Do you know if it's possible to do an RNAV approach using the GTN750 and the HSI or OBS? I was trying to follow the RNAV for RW08 at Innsbruck (LOWI), which is a fun approach through the mountains. But couldn't get the RNAV to show.
I appreciate your effort and youtube content....however NOT being a licensed pilot with lots of experience makes a big difference. I MUCH prefer the actual pilots training, but they are FEW AND FAR BETWEEN. Thus thanks.
@@jonbeckett i have them engaged as well. Oddly enough the GNS 530 gets stuck on the satelite search screen as well so I'm wondering if it's a bug with the gps. I'm using the pms50 GTN 750 as well
I have a similar issue with the Blacksquare King Air and Caravan models. It was easy enough to set up but the autopilots won't track the virtual path generated by the RNAV. In the King Air, the autopilot never switches from "Nav Arm" to "Nav". Some experimentation shows that even when the source is set to RNAV rather than NAV1, the autopilot is still expecting the signal to come from NAV1.
And then I finally get to the answer. In the FAQ at the end of the King Air manual, the author states that it's not possible to drive the stock MSFS autopilot system with a custom nav source w/o implementing a whole new autopilot system and recommends steering the autopilot via the heading bug with reference to the RNAV course deviation shown on the CDI. Nuts.
I think i remember mentioning of this technique of using VOR in some FAA materials I will study soon on IFR. I think some VORs were strategically placed in those days to provide such functions and given that this function is available from unit it is probably something common and forgotten. Thanks a lot for the video
