The G1000 and G500 do indeed have pages for the nearest VOR, NDB, Intersections, and user defined waypoints. The G1000 Integrated Flight Deck Pilot’s Guide gives a list and flowchart / interface map for these.
Commercial and GA often do use different airways near their respective airports, but when at cruising altitude, you may find GA and small turboprop flying on the same airway, at the same altitude. For example, a small regional Q400 flying from Toronto to Ottawa might be assigned at FL220, and since most GA aircraft are capable of that, it is possible that ...
"GA aircraft" covers a lot of ground. A private pilot out on a VFR cross-country cruise would typically elect to not use airways at all, at least in the US. Why go where the other traffic is concentrated?
GA encompasses a huge range of aircraft operations, some of which look a lot like airlines and some which don't. For instance, a student at a flight school is very different from a private jet. That said, most GA operations are VFR in small, low, slow planes.
While it varies by country, VFR aircraft are generally not required to file a flight plan nor, in ...
The boundaries of the European airspace are not defined by waypoints. There are however many waypoints on the boundaries. This is mainly for practical purposes related to air traffic control. These waypoints are used as clearance limits and transfer points for coordination between adjacent Flight Information Regions.
I think the additional points you ...
No, your assumption is not correct. Airspace boundaries are not defined by waypoints, but by WGS84 lat/lon pairs, which you can probably just use directly without a lot of manual work.
You need to consult the national Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP) for the country in question to get the coordinates for their national airspace, called a Flight ...
That is the map of the European airspace, however you have mirrored it such that north is now south and vice versa.
GC Spain Canarias
AZ Portugal (Azores)
LP Portugal Lisbo
LE Spain Continent.
I was taught the 10 degree drift line method and was encouraged not to fly by the chart. Rather, the method was to select your heading at a waypoint and fly for a reasonable amount of time, then review the chart.
Obviously it requires some features and judgement, but you'd then take out the chart and make a determination using the 10 degree lines as a guide....
This question is flawed because it is based on a fallacy: It presumes that true and magnetic bearings are mutually exclusive. They are not.
Every time you fly a track you are following both a true and magnetic course. They are simply different frames of reference.
So the correct answer is you fly both. You would normally fly the magnetic heading you ...
You fly the magnetic heading if you want to fly any track using a compass, or a DG set to match a compass, because that's your pointing device. It's providing a magnetic indication, so magnetic headings it is.
If you are flying in the Canadian Arctic or Alaska, different story; the compass becomes useless and all you have is a directional gyro that you ...
In theory it is up to you whether you want to work primarily in terms of magnetic or true headings/ bearings/ courses. Obviously if your choice is mismatched to the readout of the instrument you are looking at at a given instant, then you will have to make a mental correction, which can be either merely inconvenient, or disastrous, depending both on the ...
If you are using dead reckoning, you will need to follow your magnetic bearing including the magnetic deviation. In so doing, you will also be following your true bearing. In the air, you are following your magnetic compass and compass card unless all of your landmarks are within sight of one another. This is incumbent on not having to adjust your heading ...
The modern equivalent is the ring laser gyro, a gyrocompass made out of light. A laser beam is split, with each half being bounced round the same triangular cavity but in opposite directions. The interference patterns between the beams are very sensitive to rotation.
Laser gyros are cheaper and all-round better than mechanical gyros. Most modern inertial ...
I think the answer is "no and yes". Bear with me... That sort of device as a stand alone heading sensor has never been used in an aircraft and if you parse the Wikipedia article carefully it becomes apparent why, under the paragraph titled "Errors".
A gyrocompass is subject to certain errors. These include steaming error, where rapid changes in course, ...
A, B, and C are the names used by Airbus. As a short summary:
If you want text communication with ATC (CPDLC), you need FANS A in USA/oceanic, and FANS B or C in Europe.
If you want position/trajectory reporting at set intervals (ADS-C) in continental Europe, then you need FANS C (still being tested).
See the Airbus slide below for more:
Of course it can be done, and astronavigation was often used in long-range flights, and transatlantic passenger liners such as the Super Constellation were fitted with a plexiglas astro-dome so that the navigator might 'take' the stars with a bubble sextant.
You sure can! It's not really done all too much any more in the days of GPS but it was done quite a bit in the early days of aviation. Historically, this was done by the "flight navigator" a position that no longer really exists. Some aircraft even had mounted sextants.
Here is a video of it being done in practice (fanta optional)
This was even ...
It has in the past. Though the process for both pilots and sailors is a little more complex than just looking at the stars. See a previous AviationStackExchange question.
Do pilots need to know how to use a sextant?
Modern aviation has so many other navigation tools:
Inertial Navigation Systems
They make Celestial navigation obsolete. ...