GPS PPL Syllabus

[dublinpilot]

Rather than hijack the other thread, I thought I'd start a new one.

Whenever people talk about GPS here, many suggest that some sort of gps training should be included in the PPL syllabus.

I'm just wondering what people think should be included?

Personally I think that all pilots should be thought to navigate without a gps first. Only after they have mastered that, should they be introduced to a gps. I'm not convinced that they need to do any more than a single flight, if even that, with a gps, during their PPL course.

However, they should be thought about the various functions, and reports that are available, what the various abbreviations mean, and in particular, the best way of using their unit. They should also be thought about the importance of having a backup plan, and keeping the database updated.

One obvious problem is the fact that there are so many different unit available, which are being updated on such a regular basis. It would be unfair to expect all students or flight schools to buy the same one, or for all instructors or examiners to know about all the units.

I would suggest that most of what needs to be thought about gps usage could actually be done on the ground. Perhaps as part of the pre skills test ground briefing, the student would have to demonstrate to the PPL examiner that they could input a flight plan, what the different items on the display meant, how strong their signal way, and how up-to-date the database is? This could all be done on a single school owned gps.

What do others thinks?

[TotalBeginner]

The aircraft that I fly all have a panel mounted GPS. I found that the best way to learn how to use them was by downloading a free simulator from the manufacturers website.

I still fill out a FULL plog when I go flying, just as I was taught for the PPL syllabus. But find that programming the route, CAREFULLY into the GPS can serve as a useful backup.

[got caught]

We touched on the theory of GPS on our schools radio-nav course, and very useful it was to.

I certainly would have found a more "applied" course useful.

[IO540]

I agree.

However I am very negative about the chances of anything happening. Too many vested interests.

The Ontrack report (which incidentally I think is a poor piece of statistics; a lot of the categories of causes are highly unprofessional) states that of the infringements surveyed only 18% were using a moving map GPS. The report's writers even bravely suggest that GPS should be included in the PPL. Yet, all the official farts at the top of this game keep saying that as many people with GPS as without are busting airspace, even saying that the rising infringments demonstrates GPS mis-use.

As for improving nav generally, the training industry isn't going to go for that because they don't want a more expensive PPL. They would fiercely resist the obvious (and IMV the most useful) piece of progress: mandatory panel mount GPS installation. Then there is the pretence that if you teach dead reckoning properly, and ram it down peoples' throats with a hammer, GPS will quietly go away....

I actually think that if aviation was invented today, nobody would come up with the stupid slide rule, and the whole edifice propping up dead reckoning. The logical way to navigate a plane is fully IFR. Plot a route on a computer, load it into a GPS, and follow the GPS track. That's how instrument pilots do it, but the "VFR" bit of GA is a separate army fighting its own battle.

It's interesting to look at how the FAA approaches this. You can do your PPL (or the IR) in a really basic plane. They can't stop you. But if you turn up for a checkride in a C172 with an autopilot and a GNS430, the examiner will expect you to know how to use the AP, and how to use the 430 for basic nav (or for flying a GPS approach if it's an IR checkride). So, somebody who is determined to be a luddite can just make sure they pick a school that has only basic planes.

So, not even the FAA have put GPS into the syllabus. They have side-stepped the issue of flying school opposition by insisting on equipment knowledge on the checkride, and they know that customer pressure will gradually make schools install the equipment. This is not something that could be done here in the UK, where most punters are skint so the market is fiercely price sensitive. Here, it would work only on owner pilots but they usually have their licenses already.

And if anybody would like to, I am sure the FAA would. The USA has a bit of a problem with wealthy pilots buying nice new planes (definitely not a problem in the UK) with avionics they don't understand. Here in the UK it's just the same (harder in fact because so few instructors know anything about the stuff) but the pilot numbers are far too small to show up.

Finally, is the CAA still in this business? I know EASA have not yet taken over FCL but perhaps it is only through EASA that anything might happen.

[FlyingForFun]

At my school, I have recently started a drive to get lowish-hours PPLs (100-250 hours) to spend time with an instructor, improving their skills beyond what they learnt for the PPL syllabus, by introducing an advanced course. By building the course out of a series of modules, I have allowed PPLs to pick and choose the modules which they feel they would most benefit from, so that I can customise the course for each person.

One of our school's aircraft has a panel-mounted GPS, so therefore one of the modules which I have given people the option of taking is in use of the GPS for VFR navigation. This would consist of planning a route, entering the route into the GPS, and then flying the route both with and without autopilot, including altering the route during flight (bypassing a waypoint, or diverting around some weather), using the GPS to back up the visual navigation.

The total number of people who have so far expressed an interest in learning to use the GPS? Erm.... zero. (But as soon as I can convince someone to do it, I'll report back on how it goes!)

FFF
------------

[Fuji Abound]

There is a problem with GPS in that there are many styles of units on the market and an array of ways of accessing their functions. This is the antithesis of most other light aircraft equipment where one VOR or VOR/GS looks and functions much like any other.

That said part of the PPL syllabus should introduce pilots to the type of equipment they might commonly expect to find in a light aircraft - and increasingly that will include a GPS unit. That introduction should give them an overview of the capabilities of a modern moving map GPS and should include a resume of the main functions you would expect the unit to provide and the pitfalls with their use.

This would achieve two significant and obvious steps forward. Firstly, it would expose all pilots to the use of GPS and give them a good insight into what a capable aid to navigation GPS provides and secondly it would ensure they were aware as with most things there are steps pilots need to take to ensure the equipment is used reliably and safely.

I find the suggestion that there is insufficient time in the syllabus extraordinary. To achieve these objective I doubt more than an hour or two at most of ground school is needed combined with using a GPS in the air on one of the navex excercises.

They key is to make students aware of the use and advantages of GPS AND their pitfalls rather than students being fed the usual misinformed views from either the pro or anti GPS brigades in the local flying school bar.

[dublinpilot]

Most PPL renters would use some sort of handheld gps, I would suspect.

Those who have expensive panel mounted ones, I suspect would tend to be the more exerienced pilots, who can afford their own aircraft.

Most of the PPL training aircraft won't have expensive panel mounted equipment, and as IO540 points out, schools simply won't pay to have it fitted.

But surely a lot of work could be down on the ground, with say one garmin 196 or similar owned by the school for practical demonstrations.

A student could learn how to properly use it with two hours ground instruction, and maybe another 2 hours of "playing time". Total cost addition to the PPL course would be two hours instructors time.

I'm inclinded to think that even that, would be a big improvement on the current situation. Am I wrong?

[slim_slag]

GPS isn't on the PPL syllabus in the States but GPS use is widespread in GA. I don't think GPS is required to fly an airplane safely so no need to have it in the PPL which already cuts corners in order to get people through before they get bored of being a student. GPS are so easy to use you can pick it up yourself, as evidenced by the lack of formal teaching in the States. What the UK needs is for the CAA to embrace GPS technology and its use in the GA environment. GPS has been proven to be safe, extremely accurate and extremely useful in the US. The CAA needs to allow pilots to use GPS as they see fit, then pilots can decide whether they use it or not.

[bar shaker]

Whilst I initially thought it was a good idea, do we actually need it on the sylabus?

After all, its not that complicated. Surely if people are having problems then they should seek help and advise, but should it be mandatory for those of that have got the hang of it to waste an hour of dual training flying with a GPS?

And who would train the trainers?

Much better to organise your own club night, held by those that can use them, for those that would like help. A group talk followed by some one to one on the troubling specifics would be a good club night.

[Lower the Nose!]

It's interesting to look at how the FAA approaches this. You can do your PPL (or the IR) in a really basic plane. They can't stop you. But if you turn up for a checkride in a C172 with an autopilot and a GNS430, the examiner will expect you to know how to use the AP, and how to use the 430 for basic nav (or for flying a GPS approach if it's an IR checkride).

This is true of the Instrument Rating but not I think of the Private Pilots checkride.

A panel GPS of some type is almost standard in flying clubs and rental fleets in the US. Most people can do the basics (enter a flightplan and follow the straight line), few know all the ins and outs. But even the basics are a great help in keeping you out of trouble around restricted airspace.

[BEagle]

"The logical way to navigate a plane is fully IFR."

Never in a hundred years.

You can play airliners for as long as you like, IO540, but the vast majority of UK PPL flying will remain Day VFR. Thankfully.

And it's 'aeroplane' - NEVER 'plane'!

[Fuji Abound]

"but should it be mandatory for those of that have got the hang of it to waste an hour of dual training flying with a GPS?"

Who said anything about wasting an hour??

During a navex demonstrate the use of a moving map GPS to the pilot, there is plenty of time when no other teaching is going on and it exposes the pilot to what he might be missing if he does not fly with a GPS and at least will permit him to make an informed decision!

"After all, its not that complicated."

Its not but there are some obvious pitfalls with the use of a GPS. Tell the student what these pitfalls are and test his knowledge of these because you can be assured this is one aspect the manufacturers are not good at highlighting and then there is all the misinformed rubbish written and spoken about GPS.

[charliegolf]

I'm a low houred pilot, and the one man band who is my instructor-owner has a Garmin fitted to his 150.

I can't afford to fly as often as I'd like, and so there's an element of re-learning how it works every time I fly.

This position in my view potentially invites the 'radar assisted collisions' that became a little too regular in the sailing world when radars became affordable and widespread. So I don't use it. I feel I should, in an 80 kt aeroplane, be able to navigate with a map, compass and watch.

Said it now haven't I!

CG

[Fuji Abound]

Charliegolf

Ok but let me put this question.

I would guess you have not yet got lost or if you have the instructor has helped out. Maybe when you qualify you never will.

However I have seen pilots lost on more than a few occasions - really lost. I have seen them searching for familiar ground features, fixating on the ground whilst doing so, fixating on the map hoping it will tell them where they are and if they do find inspiration struggling with various contraptions to help them plan where they are going. Finally they break the lead and all :mad: ensues.

Of course I hope you never get lost.

However if you do remember one button on the GPS (usually marked ON/OFF) will tell you where you are and one other button (usually marked NRST) will give you some options of where you might want to go.

If that is all too complicated .. .. ..

[charliegolf]

Fuji

Of course I've been lost, (and have a licence already by the way) but whilst using simple functions is not 'too complicated' as you put it; neither is basic nav with aids that are unlikely to fail. Looking out is, I've always thought, better than looking in.

Each to his own.

CG

[Lister Noble]

I may have posted this somewhere before!
My wife and I have sailed extensively around north Europe.
We had Radar,GPS,chart plotter,autopilot,wind vane etc all linked together, it was like having an extra crew-member on board and relieved long stretches of helming etc.
We always set a radar safety "ring" around the boat which we usually fixed at 5 miles,anything coming into range triggered an alarm so we would never have a radar assisted collision.
Re GPS on the boat,it was invaluable and I think that it is also really useful in a plane,you can always swith it off,but I bet you don't!
We always kept an hourly log and chart postion update to check that all was correct and in case we had a power failure.
I think anything that can get your head out of the cockpit is a safety bonus,
I am still a student and find I can spend a bit of time head down on chart locating my postion on the chart,OK only a couple of seconds at a time but still not looking out.
I've not been lost yet but quite confused once when at low tide Blakeney Point looked nothing like it normally does.
I was pretty sure of my position from previous fixes and carried on ,it all worked out OK but a GPS would have relieved some of the doubt.
I fly with friends who use GPS and they swear by it,but also mak sure where they are via the chart.
When I get my licence I hope to fly vintage planes, and will definitley investigate some sort of portable GPS that I can take from plane to plane.
Lister:)

[IO540]

A colleague who has some sort of yacht masters certificate (2 year course?, I know nothing about sailing) tells me the GPS "issue" was more or less settled in sailing about 10 years ago, and now they just use it.

I suppose that the sailing community doesn't have the huge respect for rules, many of them unbelievably obscure, which aviation generally has. It doesn't have the problem of everybody living in mortal fear of the CAA. This is what creates the present ridiculous atmosphere where some PPL reads some bull in some magazine about GPS being illegal for primary navigation or whatever, and gets really worried about it, starts to hide the GPS in a bag and pretend that it is used as a backup only, switched off until needed, etc.

[slim_slag]

Yeh Lister, there is another thread dealing with that, would you include it in the PPL syllabus?

[Mariner9]

Not just Yachts IO, the worlds merchant fleet navigates largely by GPS these days, especially when out of radar range of land. GPS data is used by the (relatively) new Ship identification system. (a sort of ADSB for the marine world)

GPS training for Merchant Navy officers is also included within the Electronic Nav Aids course. Despite that, I personally dont think there's a need to mandate GPS training for the PPL. However, if a training aircraft has a panel mount GPS fitted, an instructor should in my view ensure that the student knows how to use it before letting him loose away from the circuit.

[rustle]

I suppose that the sailing community doesn't have the huge respect for rules, many of them unbelievably obscure, which aviation generally has. It doesn't have the problem of everybody living in mortal fear of the CAA. This is what creates the present ridiculous atmosphere where some PPL reads some bull in some magazine about GPS being illegal for primary navigation or whatever, and gets really worried about it, starts to hide the GPS in a bag and pretend that it is used as a backup only, switched off until needed, etc.
As we're talking about VFR flying, any comparison with sailing is a bit meaningless as the limit of visibility (due horizon) from a yacht is considerably closer than it is from 2000+ altitude.

The likelihood, therefore, of being "lost" at sea is greater than that of being lost at 2000+ feet on a VFR day where more ground features are visible through the window ;)

[Julian]

IO540 / LTN - Yes this is definitely the case with the FAA on the IR. If the kit is in your aircraft then they will expect you to know how to use it! When I did my IR a few years ago we had only briefly touched on the GPS and how GPS autopilot approaches could be flown and therefore prior to the test the Db card was removed and the unit marked InOp - problem solved :}

The aircraft I fly now has panel mounted IFR approved GPS which I am currently teaching myself to use - albeit slowly! The AP is not as good as on the training aircraft I used though so doubt I will be flying any coupled approaches unless the group decides to upgrade it which we are currently discussing.

It is nice to see instructors such as FFF going the extra yard and offering bolt-on courses on GPS, etc and surprised no-one has taken him up on it. Its not only good for the student to give them confidence and also explore any areas they probobly wouldnt otherwise but it generates revenue for the clubs (and instructors of course :O ).

Advances in technology should be embraced as has been emphasised ealier! I am all for learning dead reckoning, never any question about that, but to then go on to say that that is the only way and will always be the primary method of navigation is madness!!!! The logical method, and also to reduce cockpit workload, is to use map, visual and GPS together - which is how I fly.

If the 'old school' want to bury their heads in the sand and just write GPS and other advances off then let them, but I take it they are also still travelling round in horse and cart because obviously they are all throughly aware that travelling above 20MPH will cause you to suffocate! :E

Julian.

[Lister Noble]

The one thing you normally have at sea is thinking time,travelling say 8-9 knots in a boat against 115kts in a plane.
The important thing that is mandatory for a PPL is obtaining a licence,believe it or not,in the UK a total plonker with no knowledge of the sea ,nav,collision regs ,met, etc, can buy a million pound boat and drive it away without a licence.
The yachtmaster offshore,(which my wife and I have) is not mandatory,amazing!
What sometimes happens is they take the wife and friends away for the weekend,land up on a sandbank or worse,frighten themselves s**tl**s,then sell the boat.
Lister:) ;)

[IO540]

Other than relative acceptance of GPS in the former, one cannot compare sailing with flying.

This stating the obvious, but sailing is 2D, flying is 3D. If it wasn't for CAS, nobody would really care where people end up. And CAS can be infringed both laterally and vertically. It's got to be REALLY hard to make a nav error on a boat with a GPS showing the marine chart, yet one can still make a £5000 error in a plane with the best GPS available, because there is no vertical guidance.

In my FAA PPL checkride I was told very clearly that I had to know all the kit fitted. This included a GNS430 and a Stec 55X autopilot. The examiner got me to use it all, including using the AP to hold the plane in a 5 degree left bank orbit while I worked out a complicated diversion. This is exactly the correct procedure for any sort of emergency: autopilot comes on immediately and you sort out whatever needs sorting out. Airlines got thinking this way decades ago but in UK GA, you are supposed to grow an extra 0.5" of chest hair to demonstrate you are a real he-pilot. The old farts at the CAA must really love this stuff..........

[Lister Noble]

IO,
Sailing not 3D?
Tides?
OK,not 1000's of feet but enough to get you into very serious trouble.
;) ;)

[Fuji Abound]

IO540 - I know you have said previously you do not sail so your comments are understandable and have some merit.

However accurate navigation in a yacht can still be pretty important and challenging. IFR becomes sailing in fog - not uncommon. An ILS becomes navigating through the loo channel (a narrow channel off Selsey where you may recall Ted Heath's yacht Morning Cloud sank near there) between the sand banks at night, and CAS becomes your crew of "innocent" fellow sailors who would far rather not find themselves swiming.

Charliegolf - yes, each to his own BUT I still feel strongly enough to disagree only because I am concerned about other pilot's safety. Believing that navigating over any long distance with a chart on your lap, and mark 1 computer in your hand and stop watch on the other seat gives you more time with your head outside the cockpit is just daft and when you are looking outside for ground features believing you have got an effective scan going is also daft. Sorry but I just have to beg to disagree. Fly with someone who uses a really good moving map and see how little time they spend looking in the cockpit and how good an effective external scan they have going and then tell me I am wrong.

[robin]

I have flown with friends with really good moving map GPS. They are great tools.

My concern is that they -and they may well be in a minority - have developed a habit of sticking firmly to the pre-determined route. Not sure why!

I'm all in favour of this type of GPS to help in diversions, within limits. What does worry me are pilots, such as the one I encountered on Saturday, ploughing a furrow between two waypoints and failing to make a turn to avoid a head-on collision.

[dublinpilot]

Robin,

I think you are mixing two unrelated issues up.

I tend to stick to my predetermined route. I stick to it now that I fly with a gps, and I stuck to it when I navigated solely with a compass and stopwatch. I do my planning on the ground, and it leaves my brain free to deal with operational issues while in the air.

Changing the route while in the air, involves too much heads down time, checking for airspace/obstructions/frequencies etc if I want to change my route. While if I follow my predetermined route, I have all the info I need on my knee board, in the correct order. That's not to say I don't sometimes change it, but it's not usually on a whim; it's usually because something about the flight or conditions have changed.

As for thinking that I would not take avoiding action when I see someone else coming straight for me, simply because it's my predetermined route that I programmed into my gps, well....that's just silly. No one would do something like that.

The only reasons that someone would not turn to avoid a collision is
A) they are insane
B) the wish to take their own life, and yours
C) the didn't see you.

I suspect that on a balance of probabilities that c is the correct answer; they didn't see you. Perhaps they were studying their chart, and working out headings and timings for a new route, instead of looking out?

dp

[Droopystop]

In some ways, sailing has more issues with GPS than aviation. There are indeed restricted areas (some mobile) at sea and possible fines for those who infringe them. Two major issues with GPS at sea is the issue of accuracy when navigating close to shore (mainly due to the accuracy of the chart) and colliding with solid waypoints. For general GA aviation, GPS is more than accurate enough and is certainly capable of generating a flock of spam cans over published waypoints.

I think that GPS should be introduced into the last few hours of the PPL course and should cover the following:

General theory (very basic)
Possible problems and threats to reliability of the satelite system
Where to find information on planned jamming activities
How to set up the unit and view the satelite screen
Put in a basic flight plan accounting for terrain, CAS etc
Reverse a route and use the NRST and/or GOTO function
Set up a heading indicator so that the course can be followed.
THE IMPORTANCE OF FOLLOWING THE NAV ON A CHART AND NOT TO GET DISTRACTED BY THE SET ONCE AIRBOURNE.

My issue with GPS is simply that pilots get suckered into following numbers/needles on a box in the cockpit rather than setting the aircraft up in the right direction and flying towards the landmark on the nose. IFR pilots follow needles on dials, VFR pilots follow their nose. IFR pilots follow rules that ensure they don't fly into someone else or the ground, VFR pilots use their eyes to make sure they remain safe.

GPS is a great tool, but you cannot let it distract you from your responsibilities of your flight rules.

[charliegolf]

"My issue with GPS is simply that pilots get suckered into following numbers/needles on a box in the cockpit rather than setting the aircraft up in the right direction and flying towards the landmark on the nose. IFR pilots follow needles on dials, VFR pilots follow their nose. IFR pilots follow rules that ensure they don't fly into someone else or the ground, VFR pilots use their eyes to make sure they remain safe."

I agree with Droopy.

And I never mentioned sailing with GPS! My (lost) point was that the then new 'safety toy', radar, aided the commission of several accidents through distraction and sense of security.

CG

[IO540]

Droopystop

Your "numbers/needles" comment shows you haven't got (or haven't seen) a decent moving map GPS.

The principal control on a moving map GPS is the on/off switch, which you depress, and wait a minute or two.

If you want to get really advanced, you load your route into it, but you do that on the ground.

[Fuji Abound]

Charliegolf and Droopystop

Your post are really worrying because they suggest you actually no not have the faintest idea how to use a moving map GPS.

Lets assume you input a course. The course is shown as a line and hopefully the aircraft is on the line. The line will usually be long, unless you happen to be flying a number of very short legs each followed by a turning point. With the aircraft on the line set a course you think is correct and looking out the window aim at a visual reference point on the horizon. After 10 minutes or so glance at the GPS and see if you need to adjust a bit right or left and select another visual reference point accordingly. Eventually you will get to where you are going. Quite how that results in your spending any time at all with your head in the cockpit completely escapes me other than a very occasional glance at the moving map. It also beats me that if you were comparing a chart on your lap with what you see on the gorund you would not spend more time looking down.

Whilst setups I know vary I like the GPS as high up on the panel as possible - that way it is a quick glance slightly down from the screen to see all is well rather than on to your lap or knee baord.

Now you tell me how you would go about an unplanned diversion. Presumably your head is down in the cockpit and the sequence might go a bit like this:

Refold the map becasue your diversion is over the current fold - bother!

Draw a line (where is the ruler)

Oops just broke the lead

Find the calculator

Do a few calcualtions to allow for the cross wind

Do a few more calculations to work out a heading

Spend a while peering down, left and right to see whether the ground features vaguely resemble what you expect

Get a bit uncertain of position

:confused:

That all results in a pretty sold scan then.

Now the GPS version.

Hit the NRST button

Select the diversion and hit enter - thats 10 seconds.

Steer onto new heading (all the while looking out)

Glance at GPS every 10 minutes to check established on new heading.

Am I missing the point?

[BEagle]

All fine and good, but you must ALWAYS ask yourself the question:

"What will I do if the GPS fails right now?"

Dual redundant IFR approved systems are one thing, more basic VFR systems quite another. But both are EXCELLENT tools when used with respect for their limitations.

I wish that more of the pilots at my club could be bothered to learn how to use the panel-mounted GPS systems we bought for all the aircraft. The user guides are on our Yahoo! Newsgroup, freely available for members to download and study at their leisure. But even some of the FIs can't, it seems, be bothered to switch them on and use even the basic 'Direct to' function....

The CAA's CFE has now decided that an element of visual navigation must be included in SEP LPCs/LSTs. If a candidate wants to use GPS for that, that's fine by me - if he/she does so correctly.

[slim_slag]

Perhaps people who insist on having their GPS strapped to their leg throughout their PPL student course should be issued with a licence "Only Valid in Aircraft fitted with Panel mounted GPS". If it fails they declare an emergency and land ASAP, though how would they know where the nearest airport is?? :)

[FlyingForFun]

Fuji,

Please add into your diversion checklist a check that you are not going to cross controlled airspace, danger/restricted/prohibited areas, any relevant NOTAM'ed areas, etc. Either using your GPS (if it is up to date) or your chart.

Also, what radio frequencies are you going to use, both for the en-route phase of your diversion and the arrival? Almost any GPS will be able to give you the relevant frequencies (so long as the database is up to date, of course), usually with just a couple of button presses, but do you know which buttons to press? In a high workload situation, in bad weather?

It's well worth knowing how to really use your GPS before you set out!

FFF
--------------

[Fuji Abound]

FlyingForFun - I agree completely with your comments. I was simply seeking to illustrate why I do not accept the claim that you spend more time with "your head out of the cockpit" navigating traditionallly compared with navigating by GPS.

Slim_slag ad Beagle - I also agree completely with your comments. I personally think all pilots should be able to navigate employing other means should the GPS fail.

However the anti GPS lobby would have you believe GPS is a more vunerable tecnology that everything else we use. With the exception of the mark 1 eyeball, this is not my experience. As posted previously I have had two VORs fail never mind the numerous occasions the signal was too weak, but I have never had a GPS failure. Before the advent of GPS operating IFR IMC there were times pilots were falling back on dead reckoning so I think we have to be very careful painting this myth that other radio navigation equipment is ultra reliable. Any equipment can fail, but in my opinion GPS is actually more reliable than mostof the kit carried in a typical SEP.

[BEagle]

I've had to get one of the GNC250s repaired (input selector failed) and one of the GPS150s repaired (ENT key failed). But overall the reliability of our Garmin kit has been much higher than the failure rate of Bendix King KX155 NavCom, DME and ADF displays which seem to fail with monotonous and expensive regularity!

And as for the actual cost and usefulness of the ADF receivers....:\

We get the odd RAIM ALERT, but apart from that (and the end of epoch rollover nause a couple of years ago) the GPS performance has been superb.

[Droopystop]

OK, I think you regular, experienced flyers with your own GPS kit are missing my point. You and I know that you need to keep your eyes out and know how to use the GPS in conjunction with standard VFR lookout procedures. My point is that a low time, infrequent pilot who might not be as familiar with the a/c panel mount/ their own hand held as they should is likely to be distracted by the gadget. This is exacerbated by a busy flying school where hire slots are tight leading to the "I'll sort the GPS out once I am up" syndrome. Hence the need for proper training.
I do fly with a basic moving map - if you knew my trade you might be amazed at how basic it is, but it works very well. Yes a proper moving map with CAA charts and OS maps would be great but (with the exception of memory map) unavailable to the consumer market.
I am not anti GPS and I know that GPS will make low time pilot's flying less stressful, but IMHO the distraction issue is significant and would need to be addressed by training.

[dublinpilot]

but IMHO the distraction issue is significant and would need to be addressed by training.

Which brings us right back to me original question!

What would you include in the training?

[IO540]

I struggle to give a sensible answer to that question, because I think that including GPS in the PPL would make everybody realise what a load of useless cr*p they have been taught the previous X hours. I really do think that is the biggest reason PPL instructors don't want this; it would undermine so much of their whole approach to flight training.

But anyway....

Mandatory moving map (anything less is just too difficult and dangerous)

How to switch it on.

The general principles of loading a route (a "flight plan") into it, checking that it looks right, and flying it by adjusting the heading to make the aircraft's track match the flight plan leg track.

[slim_slag]

would make everybody realise what a load of useless cr*p they have been taught the previous X hours. I really do think that is the biggest reason PPL instructors don't want this

You are wrong, but anyway. I also think kids should be taught (and demonstrate) how to do long multiplication and division on a piece of paper before they can use a calculator. Call me old fashioned if you like :)

[rustle]

I also think kids should be taught (and demonstrate) how to do long multiplication and division on a piece of paper before they can use a calculator. Call me old fashioned if you like :)

Maybe then they'd know how to calculate accelerate/stop distances :p :8

[slim_slag]

Ah rustle, I don't need to know how to do that stuff, haven't taken the CAA IR you see. All I need to know is how to multiply by 0.75 :) (that's 3/4 to the old farts)