VFR navigation question

[mad_bear]

Hi folks

I've just discovered that, although I've lived in North London for several decades, I don't recognize any of it from the air. I haven't been flying for long, and of course my flying instructors seem to know their way around, but I don't know if that is because of long familiarity with the area when airborne, or some other navigational skill you have to develop.

I've tried looking at aerial photos and trying to line up what I see with roads, towns, etc; and I can do this (sort of) for my area. But what I see from the cockpit doesn't really look like an aerial photo.

Is there some exercise for getting better at this? Or am I missing something?

Any advice gratefully appreciated.

[cirrus01]

It will come with practice...............get your instructor to tell you how he does it..........more than likely he has spent many hours over the same area.

One town can look very similar to another so I always look for line features first..........Rivers, Railways, major roads, then distinctive features like power stations, lakes and large woods . keep in mind that the view can change very dramatically with different visibility, time of day, and seasons throughout the year.

Rgds cirrus01

[IO540]

I am sorry to give a useless reply but I think the answer is "it's hard".

That's why dead reckoning is not half as good as they make out when they teach it in the PPL (while slagging off GPS).

The #1 trick in dead reckoning navigation is picking ground features that are unique within a reasonably wide area. For example no use picking a lake as a waypoint when there is another one 2nm away, especially if the other one is even vaguely similar. (Picking the group of two adjacent lakes, with say the smaller one on the left, might be a better idea in this case). Same with towns & villages and that's hard because so many villages look exactly alike. It's easy along a coast which has plenty of curves and nicks in it; you just tick them off on the chart. Roads are hard to use; if using them one should pick up on a weird looking intersection which one isn't going to see every few miles. Railways are often hidden in vegetation and can't be verified unless one is on top of it by using a GPS first; it's said that the clue is the straight lines and gentle curves but plenty of hedges do that also.

The #2 trick is not to just fly for X minutes and then start looking for the expected ground feature. One should check off other (probably less obvious) features down below as one is progressing along the route. This is how you do street-level nav from a map in a car; you (or preferably a passenger) check off each street as you pass it. Obviously this jacks up the cockpit workload, but some people like it :)

That's why so many official VRPs are useless - except for the locals who can't possibly understand how anybody can fail to recognise them.

None of this stuff works on nice hazy English summer days :)

Specialised units (e.g. S&R helicopter pilots & the military) get specialised training and lots of currency, plus they tend to know the area. Plus they use a GPS whenever it's useful.

[slim_slag]

I am sorry to give a useless reply but I think the answer is "it's hard".

That's why dead reckoning is not half as good as they make out when they teach it in the PPL (while slagging off GPS)

IO540, What mad_bear is descrbing is called pilotage, not dead reckoning. Learn your stuff before you slag it off.

mad_bear. Pick things you can see from a distance. Pick things you cannot easily mistake for something else. Don't pick things where there are two of them close together. When picking landmarks, plan so you can see your next but one landmark before you get to the next landmark. Pick landmarks where two lines cross eg motorway intersections. Quite simple really.

[the dean]

go fly with a friend ( or pay to have your instructor do it ) and LOOK...do'nt fly.admire and look for landmarks you recognise.remember of course that these will change with height so the hills you recognise one day may not be so obvious the next day if you are higher.

why dont you go google earth..you can sit in one place and look at ground features for as long as you like...sometimes distorts elevation features but you can lower yourself and still see anything that is relatively high..

type in GOOGLE EARTH to your search facility, download and off you go...:D
remember you will need to be on broadband...

strikes me however if you have been training in the locality you should get to know the ground features...but maybe you have not done too many lessons yet ..and i assume this from your post so do'nt worry it will come with time...anything outside or your area is only of passing interest so to speak....

concentrate on the horizon for the moment (...pitch/attitude..!!):ok:

[IO540]

Slag

IO540, What mad_bear is descrbing is called pilotage, not dead reckoning. Learn your stuff before you slag it off.
mad_bear. Pick things you can see from a distance. Pick things you cannot easily mistake for something else. Don't pick things where there are two of them close together. When picking landmarks, plan so you can see your next but one landmark before you get to the next landmark. Pick landmarks where two lines cross eg motorway intersections. Quite simple really.

You don't miss one chance to take the mick out of stuff I write. Not sure why; I don't think we have met and I refused to buy you a beer, etc. Why don't you forget the slagging off and spend the time saved typing a worthwhile contribution to knowledge.

In this case, you take the mick and then go on to paraphrase half the stuff I wrote.

[Kirstey]

Slim_Slag.. what you are describing is "Feature Crawling".

The WORST type of navigation, the refuge of people who have a talent for nothing more sophisticated.

It's people like you being here that make other forums more enjoyable.

[waldopepper42]

Not much to add to the advice given above, just an anecdote from my own experience to back it up!

When I first started student cross countries from my home base of Netherthorpe, I always had diffuculty spotting the airfield (field being the operative word here - in amongst lots of other, mostly bigger, fields!). The trick, when I discovered it, was as noted above - stop concentrating on the field itself and look for more obvious landmarks (like the large wood and the quarry).

Kirsty - not sure I can agree with you - identifying obvious features to right or left or on track is surely an effective method? I would consider feature crawling to be zig zagging on and off intended course to overfly said features.

p.s. Or maybe I'm just rubbish at navigation!

[slim_slag]

No kirstey, what I was describing was a way to select landmarks that can help an unsure pilot like mad_bear not get lost. What advice would you give?

[Kirstey]

My initial advice would be don't worry about it. The problem mad_bear has is he's too busy trying to learn to fly an aeroplane to worry too much about working out where is and how to NAVIGATE from A to B. He needs to work out the nuts & bolts of getting the aeroplane to do what he wants and to understand what and how this is all happening. As he gets the hang of that a little more then he can split his looking out of the window time between "seeing & avoiding" and taking in his surroundings. It's not a black art navigating. But is best learnt when one can handle an aeroplane safely without it taking 95% of ones brain power.

When it comes to nav I agree in many respects Slim. Good nav is dependent much more on knowing what's between the waypoints and where you should be in relation In my OPNION new PPLs spend too much time with Whizz Wheels. Hours are spent planning a route, working out the wind and calculating times to the nearest millsecond. All of this based around the assumption that the wind speed and direction is going to be exactly as forecast and that the compass, DI will be perfect and nothing will come up to make the pilot change is flight at all.

For me? If I'm heading north and the wind is from the east then I'll just add a few degrees and amend my heading en route. The forecasters are guessing so why can't i a little bit? If there's a bit of a headwind I'll add a few minutes to my estimate etc etc.. this side of the flight planning I'll do en route and make changes as i see fit.

This frees up more time to check weather, notams and most importantly go over the planned route. The number of PPLs I see who do the maths beautifully and then dive into an aeroplane without actually LOOKING at where they're going and what they expect is amazing.

That said, all the above works for me.. may not work for others. I use GPS, not as a sole means of nav, but if I spot a town, I work out where I think it should be and then I don't use three distinguising features.. i look at the GPS!

[gcolyer]

At the ned of the day it all comes down to time an experience. You have your license you know know the theory.

As with anything theory does not all ways seem to tie up with the practical.

I used to live on the Isle of Man. Now this is a tiny island which is easy to navigate around on the ground, it is also fairly easy to navigate around from the air. Trying to pick out a specific village can be tough even on the Island. After a while it became easy. I flew quiet a lot with a well seasoned pilot who knows the Island from the air. He gave some cracking pointers on how recognise the various places from the air.

But all in all...time and experience.

Don't sweat it. As long as you know roughly where you are and are not busting airspace and know where you are going, you will be fine.

[pistongone]

The best advice i had from my instructor was this "FLY THE NUMBERS". Do your plog and then set off overhead the field(as departing straight out can put you a few miles off before you even start) and fly the numbers. Concentrate on heading and altitude, dont forget your freda's every 15 mins or so and try to look out the window at angles of less than 30 degress below the horizon. Looking down at what your almost ontop of is not really going to help you. I agree with IO540, GPS is the way to go and it should be covered in some detail in the syllabus, in however many years GPS has been up and running i cannot think of one instance where it has been intentionally turned off. That was always the reason trotted out for the reluctance to embrace the technology. Whilst on the subject of GPS, a note of caution for you all before putting your complete trust in GPS. My freind was on a holliday in the Carribean on a chartered yacht and bought a GPS to navigate. His words were "It guided me litteraly into the harbours even in thick fog". So when we were on a long leg, Cark back to Stapleford, he had his hand held on and i was tracking LAM. My DME and VOR were telling me i was where i expected to be, but his GPS was saying we were about 15 miles off to the east which worried me due to Stansteads zone. I cross checked all the intruments ADF VOR 1 and 2 and i was sure that the kit in the plane, which had been there for many years was right and his GPS was wrong. He re-checked the co-ordinates from the pooleys for Stapleford and i looked at his entry on the screen and it was correct. However the vis was good enough for me to confirm my instruments were correct and his GPS wasnt. I must admit that if i were in IMC i would possibly have been inclined to believe the GPS:= := . As a sort of Thursday morning test, can any of you guess what was the problem with his GPS, as we did indeed arrive at Staplford on track and time??

[mad_bear]

Thanks for the replies.

As other have said, with my limited experience flying the plane requires 100% of my meagre brain-power, so I have little left for navigation. But I'm not really trying to navigate, as such; merely to recognize things in my local area. I have been surprised how difficult that is for me. Yesterday I flew over what ought to have been a highly distinctive landmark -- a 300-ft tall windmill. I can recognize it from miles away on the ground, but in the air I didn't spot it until it was pointed out to me. I found this rather disconcerting.

I appreciate that I don't `need' to be able to navigate yet, but I'm working on a very tight budget, and if there is anything I can practice on the ground that stands a chance of improving my skills in the air, I'm willing to give it a try.

I fly out of Elstree, and there are two (maybe more) VRPs marked on the chart within a few minutes flight. I really can't imagine that I would have recognized either of them from the air had they not been pointed out to me. Without being shown, I would have had absolutely no idea what a golf couse looks like from the air. I'm not sure how I would cope with recognizing VRPs I've never seen before.

I've tried Google Earth but, for far as I can tell, it can only view from directly above (unless other people know different). What I see out of the cockpit doesn't look the same. Maybe I can make the adjustment with practice, or maybe you have to have some built-in image processing skill that I lack.

As for GPS: I appreciate that this may be the wrong place for a moan but, when I started flying, it appalled me that GPS wasn't a standard part of training and of navigation examinations. I would have thought by now that a GPS unit would have been as essential a piece of cockpit equipment as a magnetic compass, and use of GPS an essential skill. It's not even particularly expensive. Of course a GPS unit can fail, but so can any other piece of equipment. Moan over :)

[slim_slag]

Ho Ho,

Didn't take long to turn a question about recognising visual features into a "GPS is the only way" thread.

How about a navigation thread which doesn't mention GPS? mad_bear wants to know how to fly visually, looking out of the window. How about we stick to the original question? I know there are people on here who love a rant and will turn any subject their way, but lets knock it on the head for this thread, eh?

So to feature hopping.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the PPL syllabus does a poor job of equipping people to fly outside of the local area. In fact a freshly qualified PPL is barely competent to take passengers more than 10 miles from the airport. IMO. So mad_bear, don't get all worried that you cannot easily do things when you get your PPL, that's not your problem. The problem is that it's important to get people through the PPL quickly, so the system concentrates on the real basics i.e. you are safe.

So, as gcolyer says, it comes down to experience. What I want to see from a new PPL is a desire to head off to another airport 100 miles away to buy a burger. I don't want him to worry and make a mistake, and i don't want him to get lost. If he is just starting off and wants to fly a dog leg route using easily recognisable features then I say go for it. His achievement is getting to the burger, not the way he flies there. When he realises it is easy to reach another airfield and not get lost, then I'll tell him to not fly in a dog leg to the hill, fly abeam it. As he gets better at that, he can make his route even more straight.

If that means he has used The WORST type of navigation, the refuge of people who have a talent for nothing more sophisticated then so be it. I see a guy with a smile on his face as he managed to take a plane to go and buy a burger and get home in one piece.

I would encourage him to take a GPS as they are brilliant, but remind him that relying on gadgets to navigate falls into the WORST type of navigation, the refuge of people who have a talent for nothing more sophisticated :)

[Kirstey]

mad bear,

In terms of your meagre budget. I can see your thought process and your reasoning, but I didn't even consider navigation until I'd finished my solo circuit consolodation. I did what I needed to when I needed to. I also finished my PPL in 45 hours. Again knowing me and my limitations I would've taken longer if I'd have tried to do it all in one go.

obviously my advice and pistonones "Fly the numbers" are very much contradictory.. use what's best for you!

[High Wing Drifter]

mad_bear,

Regardless of whether your technique is pilotage or dead-reckoning, there certain things you can do to make VFR altogther easier.

Apart from the basic speed/heading/timing, I think firstly, one must look at the route on the chart and pick things that you think will be easey to spot and plan to use those. The trick, as you have discovered, is to pick things that are easy from the air. Don't be tempted to try and id features by going ground to map. To remain in control maintain a map to ground philosophy. The ground to map id method essentially means you are no longer confident that you know where you are and takes much more time away from flying accurate headings. Also, always orientate your map so the direction you are travelling in faces forward/up - if you don't you'll get caught out one day!

Things which I find most easy to spot are:

The shape of large lakes
Complex Road Junctions
The shape of a town
The relative co-location of small hamlets
Parallel road/canal/river/active railway line
Stacks (towers, ariels).
Single carriageway road with dual carriageway sections.
Motorways
The way roads radiate from or orbit around towns. You have probably misidentified a town with four roads to the west if the maps shows only three.

Things are can be extremely difficult to find but tempting to use:

Windfarms - the big ones are easy, but the CAA chart sometimes suggests multiple when only one itsy-bitsy windmill exists
Minor roads, rivers and disused railway lines: They can all look the same!
Smaller lakes, some are shown, some aren't.
Disused airfields. Some stand out for 10 miles. Some are just marks on the ground. Same goes for some active airfields!

Once you get tuned in, you start using the following:

Forests
Pattern of high ground
Pure timing, because eventually you'll learn to have faith that maintaing your heading accurately for the right amount of time at the planned speed always puts you roughly where you planned to be :)

Regardless of the above, as others say, it is difficult. But general confidence comes from getting the brain to see how features are placed in relation to each other, rather than concentrating on finding a single feature. The former guards against mis-identification and help greatly with spotting the 'pattern' before you get there.

[pistongone]

Kirsty it was my instructors advice and i found it worked for me. To reinforce the reasoning, try doing dead reckoning the RAF way! They use an advanced DR technique called the IP technique. This involves picking a very prominent grond feature, something that is easily recogniseable from low level. No guesses as to why that particular requirement is necessary! This feature should be within 20 minutes of your target. Then using 1/4mil charts and OS maps, plan your route from said IP (initial point) to target in a STRAIGHT line. Mark off at five mile intervals and fly at a speed which is a multiple of 60. This makes it easy to compute eta, eg- 15 miles to run? 7.5 mins at 120Kn or 10 mins at 90Kn. Concentrate on flying THE NUMBERS and you WILL arrive at the target on time. The reasoning is obvious, its not too challenging to fly accurate NUMBERS for a period of 15 - 20 mins after finding the IP. So in summary, they fly numbers as it may not allways be possible to find suitable ground features every 10 miles! Think desert or sea:confused: :confused:

[Kirstey]

"Concentrate on flying THE NUMBERS and you WILL arrive at the target on time."

Unless the wind is the opposite of what's forecast, unless your compass and DI are out, assuming you remember to make a note of the time at each way point. How do you make sure you fly at 60, 90 or 120kts. A 20 kt headwind component takes 20kts off your cruise speed.

If I'm flying down the VFR corridor from The Isle of Wight to Cherbourg, I'll have a good 45 mins in the air to assess what direction the wind is blowing from and how it's impacting my ground speeding and heading. So far everytime I've managed to pitch up in France within 5 mins of my estimate and within half a mile of my intended track!

Five years of flying, I've never been remotely uncertain of position. Not saying that will last! but my system works for me.

Have complete faith that your sums will get you where you want to go at your peril!!

[Darth_Bovine]

As a sort of Thursday morning test, can any of you guess what was the problem with his GPS, as we did indeed arrive at Staplford on track and time??
Pooley's was wrong? Or some sort of user error?

[pistongone]

Kirsty,
I would have thought most pilots would have assumed i meant ground speed, and not IAS, as flying into a 30Kn head wind at 90Kn would OBVIOUSLY make a big impact on your Actual time of arrival! So if you have flown say 100 miles to your IP, then you would have an accurate estimation of the prevailing weather conditions, wind included! This is why you only fly the last twenty minutes to your target with reference mainly on your numbers. I also said mark off your chart at 5 mile intervals, and see what is there and cross check that with your map and watch. Trust me it works!
""If I'm flying down the VFR corridor from The Isle of Wight to Cherbourg, I'll have a good 45 mins in the air to assess what direction the wind is blowing from and how it's impacting my ground speeding and heading. So far everytime I've managed to pitch up in France within 5 mins of my estimate and within half a mile of my intended track! "" So you have proved my point! What were you using to navigate accross the sea? I suspect time and heading were much more use than ground features! Or a GPS:ok:
Darth Bovine, the reason his gps showed bad info was user error, i n as much as he had the wrong datum for this side of the world! This would probably not have happened had he had training in the correct use of GPS, hence the need for proper training in its safe use!

[foxmoth]

One thing Mad Bear does not give us is his experience level. Reading between the lines he is not yet at the Nav stage of a PPL and just trying to find his way round the local area, if so a lot of what has been talked about is not particularly relevant. If this is the case he needs to do similar to Pistongones technique, learn obvious features near enough to the field to know that you can get back from there, if needed using a set heading and time (less than 5 mins), do this in as many directions as you can, then expand the range at which you find known features, you will soon get familiar enough with your local area to find your way without a map (though of course you should still carry one!).

[Kirstey]

Pistongone...

The point you're missing is the sums I'm using to get myself accross the channel are based on my inflight experience NOT what I do on the ground. Also do you arrange your flight so that your groundspeed is a convenient factor of 60? Or do you fly at 2350rpm etc etc however your POH tells you to fly an aeroplane?

The point I was making was I think in my opinion that people spend to much time working out the numbers and basic their assumptions on other peoples' guessing (ie forecast winds aloft). Becasue of that I prefer to have a route on a chart and estimate my headings and timings dependant on what I think is right at the time. And THAT gets me accross the channel not working out the numbers beforehand.

As I say if your method works for you then that's grand.. mine works for me!

Bottom line is.. GPS rocks!

[Mariner9]

As a sort of Thursday morning test, can any of you guess what was the problem with his GPS, as we did indeed arrive at Staplford on track and time??

Longitude for Stapleford entered as 9' W rather than 9' East :confused:

[gcolyer]

As a sort of Thursday morning test, can any of you guess what was the problem with his GPS, as we did indeed arrive at Staplford on track and time??


As a sort of Thursday afternoon answer.

(If i was you i would get a big mug of coffee for this one)

http://users.erols.com/dlwilson/gps.html

[pistongone]

GCOLYER,
How big are your coffee mugs and do they have heaters in them to keep the black stuff warm :}

[the dean]

mad bear....

some good advice here...but then you got into GPS and NUMBERS and then some..( by the way if you were with me and i had a GPS i would turn it off )

heads up guys..he started simply saying ( since we know he's not yet reached navigation stage yet ) as i understand it..he was having trouble recognizing features to get used to in his locality and by that i assume he refes to the area in which he ( sorry..better not assume too much )/ or she trains and the airfield area...so see my original submission..

and by the way there is a way of reducing your altitude on google so you can see mountains with any sizeable height but it distorts a bit and tends to flatten buildings ( i'm still learning also )..go to the grey vertical lever near the right hand arrow button which swivels you round...hold it down and watch yourself descend so you can see the horizon..

good luck...and keep your eyes off the dashboard and outside the aircraft..:ok:

[gcolyer]

GCOLYER,
How big are your coffee mugs and do they have heaters in them to keep the black stuff warm :}

hahahaha.

I thought someone might pick out

"intentional degradation of non-military GPS accuracy "

I also thought that the above statement was fairly common knowledge. it is one reason why I do not rant on about GPS useage. Although they are good and accurate enough for GA as long as you use map, compass and timer as well.


I think we could well be off on a tangent here!!

[Darth_Bovine]

Kirsty,
Darth Bovine, the reason his gps showed bad info was user error, i n as much as he had the wrong datum for this side of the world! This would probably not have happened had he had training in the correct use of GPS, hence the need for proper training in its safe use!

Can u clarify? I know when I switch the GPS on I set it to a starting position (my home airfield). Is this what you are referring to? I had thought that with enough satellites (4 or more IIRC) you could always be located on one point where all the circles intersected on the surface of the earth (ok.. you may be at 2000ft or whatever.... but close enough in this context). I'm certainly not an expert in GPS! So maybe I'm talking Ball-socks? :ugh:

Sorry for the thread hijack by the way! :O

Cheers,
R.

[pistongone]

Darth,
if you look at the setup menu, depending on what unit you have, you will probably find a list of datums. Here you can set your unit to standard Lat and Long, or Decimal System for easy entry of co-ordinates, then mine has a long list of datums, you can get it to use OS mapping grids, american, tokyo and all other strange datums. I have experimented when in the car and dont seem to get much of a difference, so i cant proffess to be an expert, you could however try reading GColyers site. You will need a VERY BIG coffee mug.:ok: :ok:

[IO540]

I've just had a quick glance at that David Wilson's site.

Very interesting, but unless I am missing something, it tells me what I already knew which is, basically, GPS is accurate to less than the width of the average motorway.

I'd say that's adequate for navigation, most of the time :)

I don't think anybody can accuse me of hijacking this thread in favour of GPS though.

The error between WGS84 and some other commonly used datum should be of the order of a few hundred metres; not enough to make a difference in any practical enroute navigation application. If the unit was showing the correct lat/long coordinates but its moving map was showing the location some miles away, that's a pretty basic software problem. I saw that once, on an old version of Jeppesen FliteMap running on a tablet PC, somewhere in the Greek islands. The error was probably less than what one would have got using the nearest VOR. I reset the PC and it went away. The IFR GPS (KLN94) was fine all along.

[172driver]

Wrong datum is a very common error, especially if flying club a/c. As many people are neither trained in using a GPS unit nor take the time to self-study, they tend to fiddle - and change the datum to something useless. Happened to me once flying a club a/c, had the GPS on w/o really looking (t'was a local bimble in an area I know by heart) and, approaching a VRP, discsovered it was about 5 miles out on the GPS. Checked after landing and sure enough, the datum was set to something weird. Reset it and hey, presto! all was well again. Just shows that it's idiotic NOT to train the use of GPS during the PPL.

Anyway, back to the OP. FWIW, one thing that helped me early in my flying was to not only look at the charts but also at road maps. In fact, I always had one with me in the a/c. These maps often display roads and topographical features in a better way than aeronautical charts. Plus, you're probably used to looking at them and finding you way round using them! Obviously not for primary navigation, but helps. Another thing to remember is that you will be looking at any feature at an angle, while the map depicts lakes, towns, etc as seen from straight above. Unless you do your PPL in the Space Shuttle, an unlikely view. In general the UK's a bitch for visual nav anyway, as there are relatively few distinctive features - it all sort of looks alike (at least in the South East), even the Tescos all have the same sign ;)

It therefore helps to try to pick isolated landmarks, like power stations, cement factories and the like. Initially, make sure you have something to refer to every 10 miles or so, as you progress you'll increase the distance between these landmarks. Venturing further afield, always try to find some long(ish) feature running perpendicular to your track, such as a highway, river, ridgeline, etc. that can act as a sort of 'catchline'. I'd be careful using lakes as landmarks, especially if they are not islolated as they can look very different at an angle than as depicted on the charts. Also bear in mind, that if said lake is a reservoir, it can change shape and size considerably.

HTH

[pulse1]

mad_bear,

I can understand how you feel as it took me a long time to get confident about flying around my local area even after I got my PPL. I found it helpful to choose a few landmarks around the area and to work out the approximate compass bearing relationship between them and to my home base. Get to know those landmarks well and, as long as you know roughly where one of them is, you can quickly fly a heading which will bring the certainty of seeing it, even in reduced visibility. You will then, with practice, develop a sense of spatial awareness based on compass bearings. In my opinion it is important to develop this skill before getting used to having a GPS.

If you are into FS2004 with VFR scenery, you can practice this in your local area at no extra cost.

[IO540]

172, what datum was selected to cause an error that big?

Going back to the ground feature recognition business: I don't think the pilot is free to pick landmarks. He has to use whatever is on the CAA chart, and that doesn't show that much detail. Not even the 1:250k chart, which is better for dead reckoning than the 1:500k one.

I gather that specialised flyers, e.g. pipeline and power line inspection people, use the 1:50k Ordnance Survey charts. I don't know how they manage something like that in the cockpit, but one can run them on a GPS running Memory Map. However, such a chart is going to be very hard to use for normal flying.

So it's back to the CAA chart, or whatever chart you can get for some other country you are flying in, and what appears on that. One can't make use of a ground feature that doesn't appear on the chart. I don't think learning the local area is of much help; that's what instructors do by rarely venturing past the nearest crease in the chart but it won't work further afield.

[the dean]

again..as i understand it we are only talking about getting used to features around the airfield and training area...not doing a cross country so..no maps...just local features so as to find the airfield and set himself/herself up for downwind/base and finals....:ugh: right ??!!...not into cross countries yet...

[unfazed]

How about looking at some nice landmarks in North London

1- Elstree Lake
2 - St Albans Cathedral / city
3 - Old Leavesden aerodrome (NW Watford)
4 - Hatfield
5 - Lea Valley resorvoirs
6 - M25 Motorway

Suggest you plan a local solo flight using these features in your plan and fly in your armchair the night before. Back it up with a bearing on LAM VOR or BPK and you should be able to extend your knowledge and confidence of the North London area without too many prob's

In that area though if "unsure of postn" for more than a couple of minutes then get straight onto 121.5 or Luton / Thames radar as appropriate and "confess"

Good Luck !:)

[172driver]

IO540 Can't remember, that was a couple of years ago. Also, it may have been less than 5 miles but it definitely was a serious error, miles, not a couple of hundred meters.

What this emphasises (as if that was needed) is the absurdity of not training people in the use of GPS.

[Droopystop]

Navigation, however you do it takes practice and more practice. Hopefully you will be properly taught the basics and you will make sure that you understand them (ie don't hesitate to ask if your intructor makes a complete bish of teaching it). Sadly there are many instructors who cannot navigate very well themselves. Most of us navigate using a mixture of techniques, all of which are valid providing the user understands them.

"Track crawl" ie the technique of navigating by ground features is difficult to pick up but extremely useful. Afterall it combines enjoying the view with navigation. I find the half mil charts about as good as useless except for planning long legs. The quarter mill is far better and can be used to pick out the shapes of towns, lakes and woodland (very useful). Often it is a combination of features that confirms a location (eg motorway junction with forrest on its east side). Helicopter pilots will also use 1:50,000 OS maps, but only for finding a private site or for low level poor viz nav in a specialist role.

Get your instructor to point out land marks AND their relative position to Elstree. The Buncefield depot (or what's left of it) is a good one as it is also close to the Luton zone. Also learn the shape of the local motorway junctions - there are many in that area, but by judgeing the directions each motorway goes in helps with identification. Familiarity will eventually mean that you will be able to readily recognise where you are.

By the way, I think we all as students were concerned with navigation at early stages of the ppl. You are not alone!

[Kirstey]

the dean... the thread has moved on.. get with the picture

[FREDSIMTH]

Originally Posted by pistongone
As a sort of Thursday morning test, can any of you guess what was the problem with his GPS, as we did indeed arrive at Staplford on track and time??

Map datum wrong ?

[captain Binns]

Hi Everyone,
I am currently building up my solo nav hours for my PPL. I find VFR navigation fairly easy around my local area as there are big landmarks and other airfields. My question is; could I take a GPS unit up with me as back up in case I ever found myself lost or just to confirm position fixes when flying routes further afield? Would it be wise therefore to take it on a first cross country solo as a safety aid?
Just out of curiosity.
Thanks.
Andrew

[shortstripper]

I'm not sure that it would be allowed? But at this stage I really don't think it's a good idea anyway! I know all the arguments about GPS being the way forward ect, but I still think you really do need to learn the basic traditional skills first. They've served many of us very well for many years and can always be trusted as a back up to GPS if that is the way you eventually decide to go. If you carry a GPS at your stage of training, the temptation will be to use it and never really learn or have faith in traditional nav methods.

SS

[Greyman]

Mad Bear
The key skills in learning air navigation are situational awareness and planning. Planning can be dealt with later as you progress through your syllabus. Situational awareness can be worked on now. Earlier posts have recommended that you learn ‘key’ features in your local area; this is definitely the way forward.
To help build up your air picture, or ‘situational awareness’, give yourself a challenge: every 10-15mins, when you carry out your Ts & Ps check, try to identify your position from known ground features. Check with your instructor that you are correct, then give him the approximate bearing and distance from your home airfield. In the event that you are not immediately adjacent to a feature you know, but still in sight of one, try to estimate your position with reference to it, e.g., 5nm NW of the reservoir. Thinking in terms of range (in nm) and compass bearing is a good habit to get into early. You will find that this will help you build up a mental picture of your local area and help with your position reporting to ATC.
It is important that you choose features that work for you as everybody’s brain is wired differently. After you land, go over your route with your instructor using a scale of map that you would normally use (1/4 mil probably) for flying, and try to relate the features you saw to the map. Try this every time you go flying and you’ll soon get the hang of it. You can even practise this when out in the car and you see one of your features. When you get a chance, check it against your map. It all helps to reinforce the mental picture.
Remember that a good pilot is rarely lost but only temporarily unaware of his position. However, a great pilot is quick to realize when he is lost and is equally quick to admit it!
Good luck :ok:
GM

[tangovictor]

if you can, go to a seminar, that the royal institute of navigation run, very interesting, in a nut shell, every single person who spoke, summed it up with,
GPS as a back up ONLY, never ever, get to rely on it !

[mstram]

Thanks for the replies.

As other have said, with my limited experience flying the plane requires 100% of my meagre brain-power, so I have little left for navigation. But I'm not really trying to navigate, as such; merely to recognize things in my local area. I have been surprised how difficult that is for me. Yesterday I flew over what ought to have been a highly distinctive landmark -- a 300-ft tall windmill. I can recognize it from miles away on the ground, but in the air I didn't spot it until it was pointed out to me. I found this rather disconcerting.


I fly out of Elstree, and there are two (maybe more) VRPs marked on the chart within a few minutes flight. I really can't imagine that I would have recognized either of them from the air had they not been pointed out to me. Without being shown, I would have had absolutely no idea what a golf couse looks like from the air. I'm not sure how I would cope with recognizing VRPs I've never seen before.

I've tried Google Earth but, for far as I can tell, it can only view from directly above (unless other people know different). What I see out of the cockpit doesn't look the same. Maybe I can make the adjustment with practice, or maybe you have to have some built-in image processing skill that I lack.

As for GPS: I appreciate that this may be the wrong place for a moan but, when I started flying, it appalled me that GPS wasn't a standard part of training and of navigation examinations. I would have thought by now that a GPS unit would have been as essential a piece of cockpit equipment as a magnetic compass, and use of GPS an essential skill. It's not even particularly expensive. Of course a GPS unit can fail, but so can any other piece of equipment. Moan over :)

MB,

You can "tilt" the GoogleEarth map with MMB or using the "tilt view" controls. It's pretty cool, and is the ultimate "VFR flight simulator !" If you press CTR-G you can then "fly" the map using RMB-drag-up to speed up, RMB-drag-back to slow down, and LMB-drag-down / up to "pull" and 'push' the "control wheel" :) You can also set markers and save images, turn on legends and names of roads and landmarks, it's a great learning aid.

I just "flew" over to your field with GE, and see that you have a large lake and a predominant highway near to the airport.

You also have two VOR's close by, BPK, BNN and it looks like the airport is on the intersetion of the BPK 238l, BNN 119 radials.

I see there's a large golf complex about 3mi SW of your field, and a smaller one to the SE. I love spotting golf courses from the air or even from G.E. :)

As for GPS, if you're plane has one, learn it, and take advantage of it, along with VOR, ADF, pilotage, d.r., maps, ATC and any other aid to orient yourself.

Mike

[172driver]

if you can, go to a seminar, that the royal institute of navigation run, very interesting, in a nut shell, every single person who spoke, summed it up with,
GPS as a back up ONLY, never ever, get to rely on it !

Sounds like another institution in this country living in the 19th century :yuk:

[IO540]

if you can, go to a seminar, that the royal institute of navigation run, very interesting, in a nut shell, every single person who spoke, summed it up with,
GPS as a back up ONLY, never ever, get to rely on it !

Never in the history of navigation is so much bo11ocks spoken by so few to so many as in a lecture by the RNI. I've been to one of them; the old boy spent an hour explaining what a DOP was...

What really amazes me however is how many obviously intelligent people on the flying scene buy into this anti-GPS stuff.

Sure, a GPS can pack up. I've had the panel mount one pack up, on the ground, and had to fly VOR/DME/vectors for 700nm all the way home. No big deal at all. I had a couple of backup GPSs which worked but not much good for airways. A VOR or DME could pack up just as easily; the difference is that somebody will just have a moan and get his cheque book out whereas with a GPS he tells everybody about it, as some sort of apocalyptic warning of impending doom for all things that get airborne.

But the most amazing thing is who finances these wonderful olde English institutes, with their grand buildings in London full of old master paintings of their past famous chaps dressed up in fancy coats and collars and stockings and high heeled shoes (they'd do OK in certain bars in Brighton which I have dropped into by mistake) ... all the way back to Isaac Newton (who was truly brilliant).

[mad_bear]

Thanks for the advice. I didn't realise you could tilt the view in Google Earth. This is a major step forward :)

[DenhamPPL]

For fear of sounding like an anorak (or something even less polite) I can highly recommend Microsoft FS2004 and the UK VFR Photographic Scenery. I am currently at the NAV stage in the PPL and use the above software to practise NAV flights before I fly them for real.

I draw up the route on my 1/2 mil map, fill in the VFR nav log as for real and then "fly" the route in FS2004. You can even add "real weather" if you are so inclined (invariably being in the UK the weather is :mad: so it's easier to dial in "clear skies" and just practise spotting the landmarks from 2000ft!)

Doing it this way has helped to familiarize me with our local training area and get a good idea of what VRPs look like from altitude especially on the longer legs to unfamiliar airfields.

FS2004 CANNOT replicate such things as density altitude airspeed differences or magnetic (or compass) variation. However as a basic tool for familiarizing yourself with your local area from altitude I find it an excellent tool.

Regards

Andy

[possel]

<snip>

What really amazes me however is how many obviously intelligent people on the flying scene buy into this anti-GPS stuff.

Sure, a GPS can pack up. I've had the panel mount one pack up, on the ground, and had to fly VOR/DME/vectors for 700nm all the way home. No big deal at all. I had a couple of backup GPSs which worked but not much good for airways. A VOR or DME could pack up just as easily; the difference is that somebody will just have a moan and get his cheque book out whereas with a GPS he tells everybody about it, as some sort of apocalyptic warning of impending doom for all things that get airborne.
<snip>

I am not anti-GPS but I think that many people place too much reliance on it, to the extent that when it packs up, they are unable to navigate in any other way as IO540 describes. You just have to use it as part of your navigation method, just like you use a map or a VOR. If you regularly update your map with your position from GPS, then, when it goes, you know where you are (or rather where you were at your last update).

I recall in 2001 coming south from East Fortune in August when it failed - I think it was MoD jamming testing. My mate as PIC had a total brain failure - "what do I do now?". "How about continue on the same heading and look at the map?" "What heading were we on?"!!!

In IFR you expect, and practice for, failure of various systems. The difference is that there are lots of people without IRs who use GPS as their primary and ONLY navigation means, and forget their spare batteries (etc).

[Mariner9]

The difference is that there are lots of people without IRs who use GPS as their primary and ONLY navigation means, and forget their spare batteries (etc).

Where is the evidence of this? Amongst the 200-odd zone infringements mentioned in this years GASCO summary, how many were due to GPS failure? (Answer = none)

[IO540]

There is always the assumption that everybody without a GPS is practicing proper airmanship, whereas everybody with a GPS is a d***head who is relying on it totally and goes hysterical when the batteries run out.

"Baby" and "bathwater" comes to mind here.

I am going to get jumped on by the usual people for defending GPS but I am going to keep doing it, in the proper context.

There are good pilots who fly without a GPS and there are awful pilots who fly with a GPS. There are pilots who go for a flight without a physical fuel check (I used to during my entire high-wing PPL training; doing what I was told: check the tech log, it's good enough); lots of people don't check weather, or don't understand much about it, etc.

BUT, as I've written before, I don't actually think GPS is the real issue. After all, who cares how somebody else navigates? If somebody out there is flying with a sextant, it's 100% their business. Or dipping down to 499ft to read the motorway signs, as the bar proppers often claim to do. I think this subject is a constant hot potato because a mention of GPS very reliably triggers the traditionalist v. modernist (moderniser?) debate, which is a hot potato in UK GA.

Why modernisation should be such a hot potato, I am not sure. I have heard sentiments at a certain airfield which was going to put in an ILS, from "grass roots" pilots who feared the place will go commercial, prices will go up, and they will be priced out of it. Perhaps this is the real driver in all this.

The CAA doesn't help at all. Education, rather than muck spreading, would be a good idea. If they spent as much time into educating about GPS as they spend slagging it off and collating airspace bust data, we would be ahead.

Carrying a GPS (which you know how to use) on a pre-PPL solo x/c flight.... hmmm, not sure. Safety wise it is an excellent idea and I am sure many have done it. After all, if you mess up really badly, get totally lost and run out of fuel before you can find a runway, you are risking wrecking the plane in a forced landing. I think there is about a 10% chance of a forced landing going very badly but that figure covers experienced pilots as well. During my training, one student vanished on his x/c. Everybody in charge was tearing their hair out, and were doing so doubly five hours later when it was obvious his fuel must have run out. The poor instructor was sweating rather a lot. Eventually the pilot contacted the school; he got totally lost and flew randomly all over S England until he found a runway, and landed on it (somewhere in Kent). Even a good field landing is probably recoverable only with a trailer, which is a few grand. BUT.... if anybody finds out that you carried a GPS, you could be in serious trouble. I won't express a view on this either way. It's actually highly likely that a student will not be sent on a x/c unless the weather is perfect, guaranteed perfect, and there are really really obvious landmarks to follow, and the route is very simple and well away from controlled airspace. The instructor can't take the risk.

[scooter boy]

Fell off my chair laughing at the one about the old boys at the Royal Navigational Institute! Hilarious!

C'mon chaps, IO540 is right here - GPS is entirely dependable as a primary navigational aid - period.
Relying on other navigational sources to the detriment of GPS just because some numptie programmed in the wrong coordinates once and got lost and then broadcast it on a forum - what utter nonsense.

Both of the helicopters I have owned have had GPS as the sole navigational gadget - sure I carry a current chart and know how to look out of the window still but your eyes are far more likely to deceive you than the GPS!

The aircraft I currently own has 2 GPS units fitted and I am happy navigating IFR across europe in airways using them as the primary nav source and VORs for backup when I can be bothered to tune them in.

Lets be honest here - the GPS denouncers are just wasting time turning knobs and identifying navaids when they should be reducing workload and looking out of the window more.

I really cannot believe that this debate goes on.

All those old duffers at the RNI twitching at the thought of GPS - they would have bloody apoplexy if they came flying with me!

Bygones etc...

SB

[tangovictor]

Fell off my chair laughing at the one about the old boys at the Royal Navigational Institute! Hilarious!

C'mon chaps, IO540 is right here - GPS is entirely dependable as a primary navigational aid - period.
Relying on other navigational sources to the detriment of GPS just because some numptie programmed in the wrong coordinates once and got lost and then broadcast it on a forum - what utter nonsense.

Both of the helicopters I have owned have had GPS as the sole navigational gadget - sure I carry a current chart and know how to look out of the window still but your eyes are far more likely to deceive you than the GPS!

The aircraft I currently own has 2 GPS units fitted and I am happy navigating IFR across europe in airways using them as the primary nav source and VORs for backup when I can be bothered to tune them in.

Lets be honest here - the GPS denouncers are just wasting time turning knobs and identifying navaids when they should be reducing workload and looking out of the window more.

I really cannot believe that this debate goes on.

All those old duffers at the RNI twitching at the thought of GPS - they would have bloody apoplexy if they came flying with me!

Bygones etc...

SB

oh dear, what a great example, you set to new aviators, I doubt, that your engine, ever runs out of oil ! so why bother checking it, before every flight ?
just forget everything you have ever been taught, of course it will be ok,
I wouldn't fly with you. if it were offered for free, apoplexy, sure, it could, no, will save my and others lives one day.
oh the "old duffers" at the RNI do NOT denonce GPS at all, what they say is, GPS should be used secondary NOT primary, what did you do, when the GPS signal failed ? apart from pray

[scooter boy]

oh dear, what a great example, you set to new aviators, I doubt, that your engine, ever runs out of oil ! so why bother checking it, before every flight ?
just forget everything you have ever been taught, of course it will be ok,
I wouldn't fly with you. if it were offered for free, apoplexy, sure, it could, no, will save my and others lives one day.
oh the "old duffers" at the RNI do NOT denonce GPS at all, what they say is, GPS should be used secondary NOT primary, what did you do, when the GPS signal failed ? apart from pray

Still giggling! He He He!

SB

[High Wing Drifter]

GPS should be used secondary NOT primary, what did you do, when the GPS signal failed ? apart from prayThe same could be said for DR, what do you do when you realise the you've been following the wrong railway line for...oh I forgot to note the time minutes.

Primary, secondary, makes no difference. The basic emphasis of navigation is you sensibly use what data is available. If you are IFR, regardless of whether a TSO'd GPS is used or just using a VOR to track airway, you would be daft not to use NAV2 tuned to another VOR (or the same if unavailable). Why have an ADF not tuned to anything that will be or is within the DoC, etc.

The same goes for VFR, if you have a chart on your lap and you prefer DR, why not also switch on the GPS (if available) and cross-reference. If you use GPS, why not use the chart and eyeball pre-determined points. Which is primary and which is secondary? Who can say, I guess what is important is that the pilot has organised himself such that his work load is reduced and the chance of erring is reduced and the chance of picking up errors is increased. Simply saying GPS must not be used as a primary aid means very little IMHO.

[mm_flynn]

oh the "old duffers" at the RNI do NOT denonce GPS at all, what they say is, GPS should be used secondary NOT primary, what did you do, when the GPS signal failed ? apart from pray

As others have said - one should be conversant with all available means and be able to fail over from one navigation technique to another. For Airways drivers though I would be surprised if anyone is actually working out radials and DME distances and programming them into their RNAV vs using their BRNAV GPS as the primary navigation system to get from intersection to intersection.

I do think the magic of GPS navigation can lull one into being under-prepared for a trip (i.e. not have another plan - be it PLOG, line on chart, whatever) and if proper training was given in its use this risk could be reduced.

[IO540]

WR

As I wrote, I don't concern myself with how someone else navigates, and I am pretty sure there is not one other pilot in the UK who actually cares how somebody else navigates.

(If I was a passenger in a some spamcan and the PIC was dead reckoning, I would carry a GPS and quietly watch it).

The thing which I genuinely think is worth questioning is why this subject results in such long debates.

The GPS thing itself is irrelevant - until one gets onto CAS busts and measures which are being introduced probably largely to counter those.

[tangovictor]

As others have said - one should be conversant with all available means and be able to fail over from one navigation technique to another. For Airways drivers though I would be surprised if anyone is actually working out radials and DME distances and programming them into their RNAV vs using their BRNAV GPS as the primary navigation system to get from intersection to intersection.
I do think the magic of GPS navigation can lull one into being under-prepared for a trip (i.e. not have another plan - be it PLOG, line on chart, whatever) and if proper training was given in its use this risk could be reduced.

I totally agree, I love new technology, inc GPS, its fantastic, the problem is, gps usage isn't being taught,
its only as good, as the person inputting the information

[IO540]

WR - we have been here before. The problem is the awful statistical analysis that has been done on data that was awfully unprofessionally collected in the first place. These people need to go to college, on an elementary stats course.

But, let's have a go...

Does anyone have a URL to the latest busts survey? I read one a few months ago. I have just done a quick google and found a 2003/5 one

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAPAP2003_5.pdf

which appears to be amazingly similar to the one I read.

The first thing that hits you is on page 12 (page 19 of the PDF) - 40.6% used a "GPS", 17.6% used a "moving map". What the hell is this supposed to mean? It means either the report was written by somebody who doesn't know what a GPS is, or 40.6% of the pilots used a non-moving map GPS (the kind you buy at Milletts, alongside your £25 tent and a £20 sleeping bag) which is truly awful since these give you little or no situational awareness.

To me, 17.6% of pilots using a moving map GPS sounds very low, given that the bulk of busts were done by pilots with 100-499 hours. These are not novices, especially given that perhaps 90% to 95% of PPL holders never ever make 100hrs. These are pilots who are hanging in there for the long term. I can't find data on pilot age or license age breakdown; if there was one, one could get an idea whether these are real old-timers or just more current pilots who have not been flying long but do a lot of hours. A pilot doing 200hrs/year all over the UK gets more exposure to the risk than one doing 10hrs/year locally.

On page 9 (16 of the PDF) it shows Stansted is the #1 place for busts. Why? On the chart, there is nothing about that airspace which is complicated or ambiguous. Also everybody knows that these airports are there somewhere. It just needs accurate nav especially if squeezing into the Luton/Stansted gap. Clearly, IMHO, plain old nav accuracy is the real issue here.

Anyway, one could take the whole thing to bits. Lots of categories of causes which don't really mean anything.

Curiously, on page 31, the report issues the stunning recommendation


CAA should issue training schools with a formal GPS initial training syllabus and issue course approval to FTOs
.


Hilariously, on page 29 it says

Poor database accuracy. This is either due to incorrect depiction or the absence of some CAS boundaries. American databases do not appear to cater for every UK airspace category. Moreover, the onus is on the pilot to maintain database currency by purchasing updates from the manufacturer. Manufacturers are reportedly reluctant to reveal detail of their updates, and no open forum exists to publicise any shortcomings. Formal CAA equipment and database compliance would eradicate these problems.

and what has the CAA done to make their charts available in electronic form, free or at a nominal cost, ready to be used on a moving map GPS without inflating its price by a few hundred quid? Nuffink! Their Head of Charts just tells you it's not the CAA's business to interfere with commercial providers (like Memory Map). The excuse is that Ordnance Survey charge so much for their data, but you don't need O/S data for an aviation chart.

The thing that is missing is a survey of pilots who did not infringe, and their navigation habits. Anybody who has done Stats 1 Part 1 would know this. Without such data, one cannot say anything about how different nav methods affect busts.

So you are right, WR, there is no data on correlation between nav methods and busts, but that's none has been collected.

[GANNET FAN]

Bit of an idle question really but after an exhausting and frantic dogfight, say over the Channel, I have always wondered how fighter pilots managed to find their home base especially if their action was largely above cloud. Any ideas?

[IO540]

I gather the answer is that often they didn't.

It's also very easy to find coastal airfields. Just fly along the coast.

But those days were different. You could fing a feature on the coast and then zoom off on a heading. There was no CAS; I am sure a military pilot could fly freely.

Also, there is little or no terrain in the south of England. You could descend to say 500ft, and fly around at random, and the chance of hitting anything is very small (obviously not around Shoreham etc so make that 1000ft around there). The typical warm front cloudbase is 500-600ft, no lower. At 2000ft there is nothing to hit for hundreds of miles, unless you get incredibly unlucky. I guess they would make some effort to descend over the sea - much as many people do today.

If those battles had been done over Switzerland, I don't see how they would have got back down without navaids, radar or DF.

Today's cross country nav is a lot more regimented (regardless of what method you use) and if you get it wrong, a lot of **** hits the fan.

[shortstripper]

So you are right, WR, there is no data on correlation between nav methods and busts, but that's none has been collected.

It also shows IO540, that your usual statement that most CAS busts are most likely low houred non GPS pilots is based on .... errr? Guesswork? Feeling in your water? :rolleyes:

I've nothing against GPS; in fact I've just started using a PDA/GPS as it's a lot easier in my cramped open cockpit. It seems very good I must say, although I did overlay a route pointing to Lasham instead of Popham on my first try (don't ask why :\ , but it was on a route I know well so soon realised my mistake). However, in the past I've always just drawn a line on the chart and nav'd as I've gone. I've never busted and know several pilots who fly the same way and haven't either. The accusation that traditional navigators are more likely to bust than GPS users is IMHO rather offensive. None of us are infallible, but those who get lazy are more likely to bust than those who keep on top of the game. GPS use is potentially brilliant for accurate navigation, but in the hands of a lazy pilot it really is a licence to cock up!

SS

[Kirstey]

You can't beat a pro/anti GPS debate!!

GPS CAN pack up... but as I've found out.. Doors can open and charts can end up in the Solent!! so don't rely just on maps and dead reckoning either lol

[IO540]

It also shows IO540, that your usual statement that most CAS busts are most likely low houred non GPS pilots

The accusation that traditional navigators are more likely to bust than GPS users is IMHO rather offensive

Where?

[Greyman]

Wow, people, you have got to relax a little over this! :rolleyes:
The most important aspect not really touched on must be safety – yours and every other poor f*@?** up there. As far as the originator of this thread, and every other low-houred GA pilot is concerned, good airmanship must always prevail. That means if you are still working towards your PPL then the priority must be on gaining a solid proficiency in time-tested navigational techniques – which means primarily visual navigation and lookout. Why do you think the military spend so long training in this way, despite all the Gucci kit you can shake a stick at. If you spend most of your time ‘heads in’ playing with kit then you’re just a liability up there.
Once you have a degree of proficiency and, most importantly, capacity, then is the time to start using your aircraft, and all the kit, as a tool to allow you to accomplish more – which is presumably why people want to fly anyway. Electronic navigation aids are amazing bits of kit that reduce pilot workload and can increase efficiency and accuracy. However, sometimes that comes at the price of distraction and reduced lookout (in a VFR context). They have a place, but all in good time. Master the basics first and you will always have a solid foundation to refer to. :ok:
GM

[tangovictor]

Greyman, couldn't have put it better, well done

[mstram]

The most important aspect not really touched on must be safety – yours and every other poor f*@?** up there.

Of course I agree 100% with that.

If you spend most of your time ‘heads in’ playing with kit then you’re just a liability up there.

Well that's where I disagree. Using all navigation aids doesn't mean you have to be "heads in". It all comes down to being prepared ahead of time. You can setup your VOR('s), GPS, ADF, radio comm freqs while on the ground, then use them as a cross check against the plotted map course / visual lookout.
With the equipment "preset", it shouldn't require "heads in" playing, rather just glancing at the readouts to confirm them, just like you'd glance at a speedometer in a car.

Once you have a degree of proficiency and, most importantly, capacity, then is the time to start using your aircraft, and all the kit, as a tool to allow you to accomplish more – which is presumably why people want to fly anyway.
Electronic navigation aids are amazing bits of kit that reduce pilot workload and can increase efficiency and accuracy. However, sometimes that comes at the price of distraction and reduced lookout (in a VFR context). They have a place, but all in good time. Master the basics first and you will always have a solid foundation to refer to. :ok:
GM
As others have mentioned, not using all available aids, is akin to "handcuffing" yourself.
Why not cover up the ASI / ALT and all othe other instruments while we're at it, as they are just "distractions" and cause a pilot to be "heads in" ? :(
Mike

[Greyman]

mstram,
You are absolutely correct in what you say - for a pilot with an established degree of competence and, most importantly, capacity. No doubt about it that preparation will reduce ‘heads in’ time.
Please remember though that I was specifically referring to new guys starting out, trying to master the basics (the original point of the thread), not to more advanced and seasoned pilots. Naturally, being adept with your aircraft’s avionic fit will always help to increase your overall SA and should be encouraged – however, not at the expense of the basics for the new guys!
;)
GM