do you use gps

[jxc]

Are most people now own or even use gps when flying or do you really rely on eyeballs mainly for long trips around the U.K.
Also do you know if for taking a cpl if you are allowed use a gps for the skills test ?

Cheers

[Fuji Abound]

The work of the devil, I say.

You dont want to get involved with it, map, pencil, and eyeball is all you need. If it was good enough for my Dad in the RAF to fly all round Europe, it is good enough for me. God gave you eyes for a reason.

Terribly unreliable as well what with batteries running out, GPS signal being switched off and the MOD jamming trials all round the country.

No, you dont wanted to get involved my boy - stick to tried and tested means.

:)

[future.boeing.cpt]

Fuji,
how do you know god didn't give us GPS for a reason to?

GPS is fantastic for private flying as a supplement, but you would be a darn right idiot to use it as a sole means navigation aid.

But I say again, it is one of the best tools at hand, and it gives you so much more useful information than you could ever retrieve with the manual flight comuters.

[Chilli Monster]

Methinks somebody has a problem with the concept of irony.

[ShyTorque]

Maps, pencils?

Work of the devil. :}

I use my memory and set the QNH on a clay tablet. :E

Perfectly good enough to keep me 0.01 nm outside ChilliMonster's airspace. ;)

[Chilli Monster]

It's that rough chart you scribble on the back of a fag packet that worries me mate :)

[DavidHoul52]

GPS a nice to have but I can't afford one right now and really not necessary for VFR.

Mind you I never go anywhere in my car without SatNav but then flight nav is so much easier.

I sometimes leave my basic Garmin walker type GPS on when flying - the track imports nicely into memory map.

[IO540]

The work of the devil, I say.

You dont want to get involved with it, map, pencil, and eyeball is all you need. If it was good enough for my Dad in the RAF to fly all round Europe, it is good enough for me. God gave you eyes for a reason.

Terribly unreliable as well what with batteries running out, GPS signal being switched off and the MOD jamming trials all round the country.

Couldn't agree more. A real pilot, with a hairy chest, is prepared to die if he gets lost. It's a matter of honour.

[BackPacker]

I sometimes leave my basic Garmin walker type GPS on when flying - the track imports nicely into memory map.

DH, I have a basic Garmin outdoor type GPS as well (the yellow eTrex Euro, the first of the eTrex series) and combined with the appropriate serial or USB cable and OziExplorer, with the VFR maps I scanned and calibrated myself, it makes for a really useful bit of kit while flying. Just like the fancy aviation GPSs, you put the route in and follow the magenta line (well, black line in my case since the display is monochrome).

To be used as a backup for other types of navigation of course.

[will5023]

Fly with both, map and GPS....hairy chest then and option, depends what you are flying around in, open cockpit vintage machine, or cocooned retractable crusier with leather seats...oh and an autopilot! But you must carry a map to be legal!

Will.

[A and C]

In the centre of my radio stack is a GPS and in the aircraft flight manual it states that it is approved for IFR area navigation and N.P. IFR aproaches.............................Why would I not use it?

[IO540]

But you must carry a map to be legal!

Reference please

:)

[gsora]

Sounds interesting, and I`ve been trying to stabilise me sextant and sundial! :ok:

[will5023]

Referance..! Being legal for a GA private flight you must carry an up to date Aviation map on board the aircraft, the captain of the aircraft should ensure that one is present or the hairy chested men will get you :eek:... we wre drifting here, what was the origional question :\ ?

Will.

[ShyTorque]

Couldn't agree more. A real pilot, with a hairy chest, is prepared to die if he gets lost. It's a matter of honour.

And of course, some do....

As for flying in cloud, I just hold my breath till I'm out of it again.

It's that rough chart you scribble on the back of a fag packet that worries me mate

Chilli, Aaw, you hurt my feelings; I thought it was quite good for a 1,000,000 VMC airways chart.

[IO540]

Being legal for a GA private flight you must carry an up to date Aviation map on board the aircraft

No you don't. No such requirement. You are 100% legal with sufficient navigation data (whatever that means) and with a GPS as the only navigation device.

[will5023]

The other navigation data being...? A map maybe, ok for a commercial flight they use charts but for mere mortals.., be interested to see were you got the data from though, I personally thought that carrying a map on board was a legal requirement in a "G" reg aircraft(private flight), please correct me if things have changed and you can now fly with a GPS only. I guess this relates to more IFR operated aircraft on a Cof A.

Cheers Will.

[Shunter]

I think the point is that is doesn't say "map", is just says "sufficient nav data" which most have interpreted as "map". Since most aviation law seems to be acquired from clubhouse gossip instead of reading the actual rules this kind of thing becomes common belief, just like the IMC rating 500/600ft approach minima (which is bolleaux).

[vanHorck]

There was a time when maps were either wrong on not available. In those days we used to use Ground Positioning System (GPS) for navigation.

There days, I must admit, my GPS navigation skills are not what they used to be so I confess to using a map and when available a radio beacon....

[SkyHawk-N]

FAA standpoint from FAA Website (http://www.avn.faa.gov/index.asp?xml=naco/faq#q2e)

What is the FAA policy for carrying current charts?

The term "charts" is not found in the FAA's Part 91 regulations (other than for large and turbine-powered multiengine airplanes in 91.503[a]). The specific FAA regulation, FAR 91.103 "Preflight Actions," states that each pilot in command shall, before beginning a flight, become familiar with all available information concerning that flight. What is not specifically addressed in the regulation is a requirement for charts. You should always carry a current chart for safety's sake. An expired chart will not show new frequencies or newly constructed obstructions, some of which could be tall enough to be a hazard along your route of flight.

The only FAA/FAR requirements that pertain to charts are:

Title 14 CFR section 91.503[a] (Large and Turbojet powered aircraft)
Title 14 CFR section 135.83 (Air Carriers-Little Airplane)
Title 14 CFR section 121.549 (Air Carrier-Big Airplanes)


The FAA has rendered interpretations that have stated the foregoing. The subject of current charts was thoroughly covered in an article in the FAA's July/August 1997 issue of FAA Aviation News. That article was cleared through the FAA's Chief Counsel's office. In that article the FAA stated the following:

1. "You can carry old charts in your aircraft." "It is not FAA policy to violate anyone for having outdated charts in the aircraft."

2. "Not all pilots are required to carry a chart." "91.503..requires the pilot in command of large and multiengine airplanes to have charts." "Other operating sections of the FAR such as Part 121 and Part 135 operations have similar requirements."

3. ..."since some pilots thought they could be violated for having outdated or no charts on board during a flight, we need to clarify an important issue. As we have said, it is NOT FAA policy to initiate enforcement action against a pilot for having an old chart on board or no chart on board." That's because there is no regulation on the issue.

4. ..."the issue of current chart data bases in handheld GPS receivers is a non-issue because the units are neither approved by the FAA or required for flight, nor do panel-mounted VFR-only GPS receivers have to have a current data base because, like handheld GPS receivers, the pilot is responsible for pilotage under VFR.

5. "If a pilot is involved in an enforcement investigation and there is evidence that the use of an out-of-date chart, no chart, or an out-of-date database contributed to the condition that brought on the enforcement investigation, then that information could be used in any enforcement action that might be taken."

If you, as an FAA Safety Inspector, Designated Pilot Examiner, Flight Instructor, or other aviation professional are telling pilots something other than the foregoing then you are incorrect.

[Whirlybird]

Since I know just about every inch of the area around Tatenhill, from teaching zillions of trial lessons, does memory count as 'sufficent nav data'. I honestly would like to know. Just to be safe, I always take my out-of-date chart with me.

But one thing I really, really, really would like an answer to is how I've managed to get back to the airfield every time....with no hairs whatsoever on my chest!!!! :)

[Gertrude the Wombat]

In the centre of my radio stack is a GPS and in the aircraft flight manual it states that it is approved for IFR area navigation and N.P. IFR aproaches.............................Why would I not use it?
Basically because the user interfaces on all these devices are complete pants, so it's a question of "is it worth my while fiddling with all the knobs and buttons"? For some flights I decide it is, for others I decide it isn't.

So ... if I'm flying around the local area I might have a map on my lap, but I don't necessarily look at it. And that's about it for nav. NDB when it's time to go home, if the visibility is bad.

Further afield I might draw lines on the map, and then navigate using VORs and NDBs, which are vastly easier to programme than any GPS I've ever seen. I may or may not bother to switch the GPS on.

If I'm going somewhere I've never been before and the nav looks "interesting" then I will draw the lines on the map, navigate using VORs and NDBs, and turn on the GPS and programme the route into it and use it to check that I'm going where I intended.

But I don't do the whole hairy chested thing. I have to admit that if I've got both a DME and GPS counting down to the next turning point I don't bother to update ETAs and such on the paper plan.

[IO540]

There are still people who like the old map+compass+stopwatch method - same as there are people who like to fly WW1 biplanes while wearing leather caps and goggles. They are a part of the aviation scene as much as anybody else.

For the remainder, the GPS boat left the harbour best part of 10 years ago and is a done deal. You use the best tools available for the job.

[ShyTorque]

But one thing I really, really, really would like an answer to is how I've managed to get back to the airfield every time....with no hairs whatsoever on my chest!!!!

Whirly, You bin dialled in to 327, ain't cher?

Regarding the authorities "violating" folk for having an out of date chart;

What happens when you rely on the latest CAA VFR chart and they omitted the extensive new EGCN airspace replacing an ATZ (which they did put on the earlier, adjoining one)? Or flew into the Stokenchurch mast (1184' amsl) which they reckoned had been pulled down not long back?

Thank goodness it hasn't got to the point where someone has had an incident and been taken to court over it, or worse.

[Nipper2]

My contention is that if 'steam powered' navigation were dropped from the PPL syllabus tomorrow and everyone received proper instruction on how to use a moving map GPS (including how to update the data base etc.) navigation errors, airspace intrusions etc. would drop by a factor of 10.

Yes, I know about the unreliability of the signal, all those jamming trials, the need to rely on Uncle Sam and all the rest of it, but it's not as if string and stopwatch navigation is exactly 100% reliable is it?

It's a no-brainer.

[will5023]

Just to throw the cat amongst the pigeons then, if using a GPS is 100% legal along with other navigation data(maps or whatever), then would using one would be deemed as "cheating" for the CPL skills check, similar to using a calculator in a maths exam!! I think the answer is use whatever is available at your disosal for the skills check, and if the aircraft being used has a GPS fitted...use it, but check with your examiner first.
Don't get me wrong,I'm not against GPS's, I use both maps and a GPS,when available, if it helps with navigation then that's a good thing. However remember to look outside at the weather etc, failing to divert if the weather conditions are below minima is a fail.

[ShyTorque]

Yes, the best reason for always having a chart available is the bad weather / diversion plan.

How many "local/local" flyers would cope without a chart if their home airfield was suddenly closed?

[IO540]

Regarding the authorities "violating" folk for having an out of date chart;I am sure some people would be quite glad to be "violated" ;)

I can't answer the JAA CPL but the GPS is certainly allowed to a large degree in the FAA PPL and CPL. In fact it is effectively mandatory - because the examiner will expect the candidate to demonstrate operation of all equipment installed in the aircraft. When I did the FAA PPL in a rented plane with a Garmin 430, I had to get the Garmin 430 sim and learn how to load a route into it.

From a report from someone I know who did the JAA CPL recently, GPS was not used for most or all of it; instead the checkride was a very precise dead reckoning demonstration. Seems totally pointless to me, in any likely CPL usage context.

As regards paper backups, sure, I and most others print out a plog, and have printouts of enroute sections (if not the entire route chart section) and the approach plates for dep, dest and diversions.

I would not rely on totally electronics means for stuff like plates - although I have done flights like that when I got shafted by some Italian airport which would not sell me avgas, etc, and I had to hurriedly replan an IFR route elsewhere, and in that case I didn't have much choice. On long trips I carry a portable printer but having a printing capability in the aircraft gets a bit silly.

This kind of debate always gets a bit meaningless once one gets away from base. For example I always buy the 1:500k CAA chart and it lives in the plane, to hand. But if flying VFR further away, the chart situation quickly gets quite messy and one ends up carrying only what is likely to be actually required for the route. If IFR, the airways charts (Jepp or Aerad) are practically unusable in the cockpit so different methods are used anyway.

[Whirlygig]

With regard to JAA CPL, use of GPS is not allowed for the main navigation part but is allowed for the diversion exercise (as is radio nav, looking out of the window and I Follow Roads - anything goes!).

Cheers

Whirls

[Fuji Abound]

With regard to JAA CPL, use of GPS is not allowed for the main navigation part

Whirlygig

Well we knew that, or if we didnt, we would have guessed.

Absolutely no reason at all why a CPL should demonstrate any mastery of "modern" avionics, as I said earlier new fangled technology, waste of space.

Mode S, thats what we want, now there you have a properly demonstrated safety case, unlike GPS where you can perfectly well avoid CAT infringements by keeping a good look out.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

How many "local/local" flyers would cope without a chart if their home airfield was suddenly closed?
Depends what your "home airfield" is ... given that mine is Cambridge I do rather feel that I could find any of Bourn, Duxford or Stansted without anything other than looking out of the window and following roads. I appreciate that there are parts of the world where it isn't quite that easy.

(And if anyone is reading this who really doesn't know the answer ... bottom line, scream for help on 121.5 and they will point you at a runway.)

[ShyTorque]

scream for help on 121.5 and they will point you at a runway.

Then come on here and get screamed at yourself.... :E

(Like the unfortunate other Wombat).

[411A]

Lets face facts here, folks.

The idea is to make general aviation safer.

GPS does this, by increasing pilots situational awareness.

Now, some old fuddy-duddy pilots say phooey...GPS is no good.

Well, this is one old (26K flying hours) pilot who who says....phooey, to these non-GPS believers.

IE:
Use the equipment you have in your airplane to your absolute best advantage, and IF that equipmet is a good GPS receiver/navigator....you are one smart GA pilot.:ok:

[A and C]

Quote ! Gertrude the wombat

Basically because the user interfaces on all these devices are complete pants, so it's a question of "is it worth my while fiddling with all the knobs and buttons"? For some flights I decide it is, for others I decide it isn't.

You realy spout some rubbish, you know what they say about a bad workman blaming the tools.

I agree that in some cases the GPS is not the approprate tool for navigation but blaming the interface is just an excuse for lack if "book time" with the unit that you have fitted

[BEagle]

If the applicant says that he knows how to use the installed GPS, I let him use it during the diversion on the second leg of the PPL Skill Test. Also the VOR/DME and ADF. But only after first working out track/dist and hdg/eta by conventional MDR.

After 5-10 min flying the diversion planned by 'conventional' MDR techniques, the confidence the student gets in seeing that his MDR agrees with the GPS is well worth the effort!

No reason not to move with the times, but I do think that there is some need for the student to understand the basic principles. Navigation is the worst taught part of PPL training; most new FIs confuse the student with pointlessly excessive RT work and encourage too much map reading.

In any case, navigation can't be difficult if navigators can do it!

[Squeegee Longtail]

Having stopped flying in the mid 90's, and started again this year, the single biggest change I see is the introduction of GPS (together with a wheelie bin full of extra regulation).
Nav to me was always common sense, but now I don't even need that!!

[IO540]

You are only allowed to use it in "raw data mode" i.e. showing either Lat and Long or a range and bearing from a waypoint. Moving map displays and GoTo features are not allowed.

Oh well, it's so reassuring to know the JAA training is bang up to date. An IFR pilot, single pilot IFR, is really going to love the lat/long coordinate option. Wonderful stuff - and a great safety enhancement, plugging in lat/long coordinates.

A £50 camping-shop GPS will give you lat/long and a waypoint relative bearing - almost totally useless for aviation.

[Jumbo Driver]

....with no hairs whatsoever on my chest!!!! :)

Evidence ... ? Photo ... ? Calendar ..... ?

JD
;)

[Gertrude the Wombat]

You realy spout some rubbish
And you have how many decades experience, exactly, in being paid to design user interfaces?

[S-Works]

Not accusing you off spouting rubbish Gertrude but I have certainly never had a problem with any of the aviation GPS units that I have come across. I have a panel mount Garmin and I find the interface simple enough to operate as do I find the 496 and the 696 that I have.

Perhaps the problem more lies in your lack of experience with this kit rather than it not being fit for purpose?

[IO540]

User interfaces in GPSs are poorly designed.

Like a really horrid VCR, they are OK once you have them sussed.

The basics e.g. simple route entry, tend to be fairly easy to work out, but anything beyond that (e.g. waypoint handling on the missed approach) vary a lot, with some potentially fatal gotchas. But then anybody using an IFR GPS must fully understand it if they use it for the said features.

[LH2]

From a report from someone I know who did the JAA CPL recently, GPS was not used for most or all of it;

Well, I did not use it during my CPL skills test or at any point during my CPL training in the UK (not officially anyway, the instructor had it on to keep an eye on our position respect to controlled airspace--which means a quick glance at the screen and I knew exactly where I was).

On the other hand, when I did my instrument rating in Spain I was trained and examined by pilots who actually fly in commercial operations (from PC12s to B777), and they taught me exactly how to use the GPS (entering FPLs, diversions, fuel metering, etc.) which besides we actually used during our practise sorties. Considering that whenever flying IFR in Europe ATC will consider you LNAV capable and clear you accordingly, it is totally stupid not to ensure students are proficient with the kit.

There were also other invaluable bits of wisdom such as pointing out how you would go on autopilot if you had to deal with an emergency or were otherwise mentally overloaded, etc. All very practical stuff which even those of us with little hair on our chests can do.

Having said that, I do not generally use GPS on VFR pleasure flights, purely because it's more fun doing it the traditional way. Hell, on my last long flight I crossed half of Europe and back on partial panel thanks to a duff suction pump and had a great time doing so. But of course, if I just wanted to get from A to B, or was flying commercially, then no doubt I would make full use of whatever I have. Same if I think there is a good chance of getting in trouble (e.g., flying over lots of water).

use of GPS is not allowed for the main navigation part but is allowed for the diversion exercise (as is radio nav, looking out of the window and I Follow Roads - anything goes!)

Even calling a friend? :E

[Lister Noble]

I have a £99 Garmin E-trex,it gives me bearing,distance and time to a waypoint,speed over ground and track,probably more stuff if I wanted to find out.
I have several local waypoints programmed in and for my purposes it is all I need as a back up.

The other point,flying locally I could find at least 5 other airfields not counting Norwich within 20 miles without a chart or GPS.
Plus several private strips.
If you were really lost I think you could always ask for a QDM into an ATC airfield.

Last point,I was going flying today but it really is too bl**dy cold here,the L4 has so many draughts that one soon becomes quite perished,it happens quite quickly from being comfortable for say 40 mins and then rapidly having "near hypothermia" when you start to feel cold from the inside and it takes quite a while to warm up when landed.

Never mind,days getting longer and it'll soon be Springtime!

Lister

[Chuck Ellsworth]

As Whirligig mentioned, you are allowed to use the GPS on the diversion leg. You are only allowed to use it in "raw data mode" i.e. showing either Lat and Long or a range and bearing from a waypoint. Moving map displays and GoTo features are not allowed.

Dear God give me the strength to have it in my heart to forgive the idiots who sodomize the minds of the general pilot population with such darwinism thinking as the above.

How any mouth breathing morons ever got to be in a position to teach such rubbish is beyond my comprehension, to restrict pilots from using the most modern navigation aids such as GPS with not only three dimensional extremely accurate situational information but also a pictorial moving map presentation is mind boggling!!!.

I think that as a new years resolution I shall quit reading these aviation discussion forums so as not to become so depressed that I put my head in a gas oven and end it all.:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Perhaps the problem more lies in your lack of experience with this kit rather than it not being fit for purpose?
A very substantial part of designing a system to be "fit for purpose" is to ensure that it is usable by its target customer base.

A system which is perfectly fine for someone who uses it for hours every week is not necessarily fine for someone who rents a club aircraft once a month and only wants to programme a route into the GPS once a year. These are two different "purposes" and a piece of kit which is fit for one of them is not de facto fit for the other - that's a separate judgement.

When designing user interfaces the professional makes sure he is very clear whether he is aiming at an all-day-every-day user or an occasional user, and will come up with different designs. Or, perhaps, a device with an optional hand-holding mode.

(Of course, back in the real world, if his management won't listen to him, he might have little choice but to end up with something that's not really best designed for either.)

I suppose it could be that there are GPS units which are well designed for the occasional user, and the club I rent from has simply bought and installed the wrong kit. But I've never read any reviews of anything that claims to be designed for the occasional user - I have however read reports of people who, because the UI is so awful, have only ever managed to learn the "go to" button, and blundered through someone else's airspace in consequence.

[gpn01]

No you don't. No such requirement. You are 100% legal with sufficient navigation data (whatever that means) and with a GPS as the only navigation device.

Presume you mean you can use a GPS instead of a map providing the GPS shows all current airspace on it ?

[IO540]

I think that as a new years resolution I shall quit reading these aviation discussion forums so as not to become so depressed that I put my head in a gas oven and end it allIt isn't quite so bad, Chuck. Here in Europe, you pass the checkride, collect the piece of paper, and after that you do things the sensible way :) Otherwise, I completely agree with you; it's nuts.

Presume you mean you can use a GPS instead of a map providing the GPS shows all current airspace on it ? Yes, that would meet the regs. Unfortunately, the representation on a GPS moving map (Jeppesen basemap, generally) is insufficient so a printed VFR chart is also required for VFR flight (at least for the planning stage) - unless your moving map is one of the rare types which runs the actual VFR chart.

There is zero history of UK prosecutions in this area, so one can only guess. I suppose that a pilot flying without any nav data could not be prosecuted for it at all (in the UK; the USA would be different, and there are countries where a chart must be carried though none I know about in Europe) because he could claim he had the information in his head. But if he busted airspace, be would look a total d*ck before the Court and would surely get a bigger fine. As regards insurance, he would be covered because insurance does cover negligence.

[steveking]

I've used a 296 since passing nearly 3 years ago and clocked up over 500hrs with it now. Had 2 failures with it both being the antenna coming unstuck. So all in all seems pretty reliable to me.

I think they are fantasic bits of kit. I must admit I can use the 296 to it's full potential, well almost. But even if I couldn't and had never used it before then just leave it on the map page, plenty of info on there to show what's around you and where you are.

[scooter boy]

2000+ hrs on GPS (supplemented by VOR/ILSs/charts/eyeball).
No failures.
No zone infringements.

Nothing comes close in terms of practical aviation through unfamiliar airspace.

SB

[A and C]

Well Gurtrude we now see the heart of the problem , No training and little use of the equipment.

When I first fitted the IFR GPS I built a rig to run the unit at home and then took the time to find out how the thing works. Now you can get computor programs to teach you how the unit works.

GPS provides IFR navigation that thirty years ago was only avalble from airliner size INS units costing the other side of $90,000, professional crews would be trained to use these things on a type rating. With kit like this now avalable to GA you would expect to have to do a little trainning to use such a tool.

It would seem to me that Gurtrude should spend a few hours finding out how to use the kit (on a computor trainer provided in the flying club that rents him the aircraft ?) rather than complaning on about how poor it is. I thing we are now back to the "poor workman" bit!

[ShyTorque]

I've found that the supposedly "tried and tested" VOR/DME and ADF sometimes fail on me (I fly a SPIFR aircraft). Sometimes they are under known maintenance or for unknown reasons fail to ident. Some parts of the UK are very poorly served with appropriate beacons. The CAA have announced that their support for NDBs will soon cease. In some cases, if one beacon fails, that's it, no "conventional" cover and (in the absence of GPS) a DR fallback is the only option.

On the other hand, I've flown aircraft equipped with GPS in one form or another since 1991. I think I've only ever had a complete GPS failure once, probably caused by NOTAM'd jamming trials that were taking place in Wales at that time.

My concern is that the "multifunctional" radio/nav equipment switchery in some modern aircraft is so complicated that it can be counterintuitive; to the extent that a self induced failure is by no means out of the question. However, when I changed aircraft types with unfamiliar nav. kit, in the absence of someone to teach me first hand, I downloaded the manuals and read them, then sat in the aircraft with an external power supply plugged in. I didn't give up until I was happy with the equipment. Surely this is what we should all be prepared to do, or stay on the ground until competent?

Having said all this, obviously a sound knowledge of basic nav techniques is essential or there could be no DR fallback plan.

[IO540]

My concern is that the "multifunctional" radio/nav equipment switchery in some modern aircraft is so complicated that it can be counterintuitive; to the extent that a self indinduced failure is by no means out of the question. However, when I changed aircraft types with unfamiliar nav. kit, in the absence of someone to teach me first hand, I downloaded the manuals and read them, then sat in the aircraft with an external power supply plugged in. I didn't give up until I was happy with the equipment. Surely this is what we should all be prepared to do, or stay on the ground until competent?Couldn't agree more.

OTOH it is a bit hard to legislate for a "complex avionics type rating" and IMHO there should not be one, because ultimately the regulator has no business legislating to cover every possible kind of stupidity. There will always be people happy to go up in a plane whose equipment they don't understand, and since one can fly it on a PPL, yet the only way to deal with this would be a mandatory ground school, yet there is no mandatory ground school for anything in the PPL, it just has to be left to the pilot to realise he needs to clue himself up.

When I did the IR in the USA, I deliberately chose a school which did not have GPS equipped planes, because the stuff I have (KLN94/KMD550) is very different from the Garmin x30 kit which most schools had, and I didn't want to spend 2-3 days learning how to operate the kit to fly GPS approaches, with the missed approach nooks and crannies, only to come back to Europe where this stuff is practically irrelevant.

[172driver]

I somewhat find it hard to believe we are even having this discussion. NOT using a GPS does, IMHO, border on madness. That the use is apparently not even taught in the JAR CPL syllabus simply beggars belief :ugh:
For crying out loud - use everything at your disposal for a safe flight!

Re the 'club plane' scenario, there is a simple and effective way around this: buy your own portable unit, get really familiar with it and use the installed one as backup.

The above of course only works if the installed one is not one of the fancy 'all functions in one box' models, a la GNS 430. In which case there are free CDs to use at home for training. I sometimes (very rarely) fly a GNS430 equipped a/c and always do half an hour or so with the sim before the flight until I get back into the swing, so to speak.

[Islander2]

I think the point is that is doesn't say "map", is just says "sufficient nav data" which most have interpreted as "map". Since most aviation law seems to be acquired from clubhouse gossip instead of reading the actual rules this kind of thing becomes common beliefShunter, should you read the actual rules rather than rely on clubhouse gossip, you'll find that the UK ANO does indeed say "map", not "sufficient nav data"! From Schedule 4, Scale A(2), which is a legal requirement for flight by all aircraft registered in the UK:

"Maps, charts, codes and other documents and navigational equipment necessary ............... for the intended flight of the aircraft including any diversion which may reasonably be expected."

However, these items of equipment do not need to be of a type approved by EASA or the CAA; and nowhere does the ANO specify that they have to be in paper form.

[IO540]

Maps, charts, codes...

When is a map a map and not a chart?

Is "codes" a one-time pad and a codebook, for decoding notams?

This bollox was written in the 16th century, when navigators were real men who either used their sextant correctly, or they got to walk the plank, and the rest of the crew then starved to death, and their ghost ships foundered on the rocks on some distant continent.

Nobody could get prosecuted in the UK under this kind of wording, IMHO, for simply not carrying any nav data with them.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

"Maps, charts, codes and other documents and navigational equipment necessary ............... for the intended flight of the aircraft including any diversion which may reasonably be expected."
In other words ... if you know your local area, and know the way to a couple of diversion airfields, no map or chart need be carried, because none is "necessary ... for the intented flight of the aircraft including any diversion which may reasonably be expected".

[Sciolistes]

NOT using a GPS does, IMHO, border on madness.
Disagree, there is absolutely no need for a GPS during a VFR flight if you are comfortable with flying a speed & heading, a chart, watch and pencil. There is nothing wrong with GPS either. If you are proficient you are proficient.
For crying out loud - use everything at your disposal for a safe flight!
Kind of agree. But I think that is too simplistic an argument. The phrase "safe flight" is a platitude and doesn't help me understand what one's considerations and priorities are. Taken literally (probably not what you intended) I would need to follow my DR plan as well as monitor the GPS as well as VOR and ADF...too much. Make a decision what your primary means of navigation is and what specifically you will do to verify the position and crucially, what you will do if the position is sufficiently in disagreement. GPS as primary nav? Why not, so long as you can fix an accurate position at regular pre-determined intervals using either radio nav or pilotage. If the latter, one needs to very very careful of confirmation bias!
That the use is apparently not even taught in the JAR CPL syllabus simply beggars belief
Actually it is! The ATPL/CPL theory teaches and examines GPS systems in reasonable detail. I would disagree in allowing somebody to use a GPS for the enroute nav detail of the CPL, if somebody can't predict their future position within reasonable tolerances 100% of the time by flying a heading and speed then they can't possibly qualify as a professional pilot (IMHO). Once a pilot flies commercially, their type rating and/or line training will teach them what they need to know about the kit relevant to their operations.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Actually it is! The ATPL/CPL theory teaches and examines GPS systems in reasonable detail. I would disagree in allowing somebody to use a GPS for the enroute nav detail of the CPL, if somebody can't predict their future position within reasonable tolerances 100% of the time by flying a heading and speed then they can't possibly qualify as a professional pilot (IMHO). Once a pilot flies commercially, their type rating and/or line training will teach them what they need to know about the kit relevant to their operations.

Well if your opinion is correct I can not possibly be considered a professional pilot because there have been many times in the past I was not anywhere near 100% sure of exactly where I was.

However since the navigation aids have improved from the Radio Range when I first started to fly to what is available today my averages have improved considerably.

The GPS is beyond doubt the most accurate aid to navigation we have ever had not to mention it is a VOR, ADF,DME and map all in one easy to understand and use unit.

IMHO that is.:E


The difference in long over ocean navigating today using GS compared to D.R. and ADF is like having progressed from the horse and buggy to the jet age. Map reading on trans oceanic flight is not an option.

Mind you the ADF was nice to have sometimes when we couldn't get a star or sun shot with the astro compass. :ok:

[Sciolistes]

Well if your opinion is correct I can not possibly be considered a professional pilot because there have been many times in the past I was not anywhere near 100% sure of exactly where I was.
OK, well perhaps I should make it clear that I haven't gone trans Atlantic nor traversed the Goby in a Cub yet :\

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Sciolistes my post was meant to point out that using DR navigation and map reading is a basic skill that will get you from point A to point B in areas where map reading is possible, however to not use modern aids such as GPS is rather foolish considering all the work it saves allowing you to concentrate on looking outside more.

Ocean flying is not the only place that map reading is not a reliable option, there are vast areas of the earth that are desert and have nothing but light brown sand from horizon to horizon with nothing to use as a point of reference for your location. When flying in the Sarah desert we pinpointed our progress every 25 miles by marking X's on the map using the GPS as our method to determine same......I have been using GPS ever since it replaced Loran and it has been so reliable that I would say it was as close to 100% accurate as I could ever want. :ok:

I am building a Cub as a play toy and it will not have any mechanical instruments in it, nor will it have a VOR or ADF or any of those ancient devices in it.

It will have a Dynon EFIS with the engine monitoring system and for navigation it will have my new ATC portable GPS from Anywheremap.

For communication it will have a Garmin radio, intercom and transponder.

[Sciolistes]

Chuck,

My comments are not one method versus another. GPS is great. But for people to suggest that one would be mad not to use it is way off the mark. There is no reason why one can't maintain a traffic watch regardless of which properly implemented nav technique you use :ok:

[IO540]

I don't know where you are living Sciolistes but your comment would be fine if there was no penalty for making a mistake. Unfortunately most of the civilised world is covered in controlled/restricted airspace and the UK alone has several hundred serious busts a year, so "something" needs to be done and dead reckoning is clearly not going to get any better because that horse has been flogged since about 1910 and anybody who thinks that major progress is just around the corner a century later is kidding themselves.

And once outside the civilised world, one might just get shot.

Sure, DR works if you do it right, but there are so many ways to make a mistake, and there is plenty of terrain even in the UK where there are few features.

[BEagle]

When is a map a map and not a chart?

Webster’s Dictionary defines a map as a ‘representation usually on a flat surface of the whole or part of an area.’ They define a chart as a ‘map for the use of navigators.’ Basically, maps portray the land regions of the world in all their vast shapes and forms. Charts portray the shorelines and the oceans of the world. They show water depths, shoals, rocks and other dangers, and they provide mariners crossing the oceans with the means of determining their positions by the use of Latitude & Longitude with a compass rose for direction. However, some early maps doubled as charts showing land areas, as well as the sea coast, giving both topographical and hydrographic information.

[ShyTorque]

To say that GPS is absolutely unnecessary when flying VFR is an over generalisation, probably borne out of a narrow pool of experience.

After nearly 20 years of military flying using DR techniques, at up to 330kts at 250 feet in one role, or 140 kts at 50 feet in another, these days I fly a single pilot corporate helicopter, VFR where possible (but with an IFR transit in case of low cloud).

The aircraft cruises at 155kts, most often from private landing site to private landing site. These landing sites are often a hotel car park or someone's back garden. In poor weather I still have to fly VFR in order to make the destination (or even the pickup) but the job would be far more difficult if we had to go back to the old methods, i.e. non-GPS navigation. I do the job by night, too, btw.

Not too long ago we flew helicopters with a manual throttle. Fuel computers made the pilot input redundant but more modern aircraft can still be flown in manual. The same "hairy chested" mentality perhaps says we should not use the automatic engine controls? Or the autopilot? Switch off TCAS too?

Modern equipment is designed to offload the pilot and to increase his capability. By not using what's provided in the aircraft, we aren't proper pilots.

[LH2]

Actually it is! The ATPL/CPL theory teaches and examines GPS systems in reasonable detail

:confused:??? Are we talking about the JAA ATPLs? Perhaps for very general values of "reasonable details" that could be true, as in: "There is something called GPS which stands for Global Positioning System. It has to do with satellites". But the ATPLs go in more detail about EFIS and FMCs for example, than they do about GPS. Go to your favourite question bank and do a search for the relevant terms to get an idea.

Chuck,
there have been many times in the past I was not anywhere near 100% sure of exactly where I was

That's never happened to me. I've always had an accurate idea of where I was--perhaps not an overly precise idea, but I can honestly say I never found myself flying in the wrong hemisphere by mistake, and only ever once in the wrong continent. Lots of times in the wrong country, mind you :E

[shortstripper]

Well I was a die hard traditionalist not long ago, but have sine changed my tune! I still believe it is perfectly possible and very desireable to be able to accurately navigate by dead reckoning, using a map, compass, and watch. However, GPS really does take the pressure off you. I bought a simple and cheap bluetooth gps, which I use along with the CAA digital chart and memory map in a pocket pc. In my old open cockpit aircraft it made cross country flying so much more enjoyable than before! In such aicraft map reading when the map is flapping around and the joystick is right where you want to rest the thing is a nightmare! There are tricks you soon learn, but they are nothing compared to a moving map display right where you can see it! Brilliant! I like the digital CAA memory map chart, as you can carry the paper version and instantly switch to it if the signal is lost, reverting back to map reading. The other great feature is the arrow that points out where you will be in 10 minutes at your present speed and direction. Great for radio calls and to work out drift on the go!

SS

PS. One point though ... I'm pretty sure airspace busts have actually increased since GPS came along. Why? Well, I really don't thinks it's just because some "foolhardy" pilots don't use it, do you? :=

[Whirlygig]

Actually it is! The ATPL/CPL theory teaches and examines GPS systems in reasonable detail.
Agreed! Reasonable but totally useless detail!! The USE of GPS is not taught at JAA CPL level; in either theory or the flying course.

Cheers

Whirls

[172driver]

Sciolistes, your screen name does give it away, no ? :E

Anyway, re this:

Taken literally (probably not what you intended) I would need to follow my DR plan as well as monitor the GPS as well as VOR and ADF...too much.

You might be surprised, but this is the way I tend to do it. Not necessarily in your order of importance, but I certainly have my VORs and ADF tuned and monitored. Too much? Not if you're well trained and used to it. Necessary? Probably not, but I look at it as a means of staying proficient with all the kit in the a/c. As an aside, a lot of my flying is done in CAS in a country where position reports are expected to have the format XXX, YY miles on the ZZZ radial of the XYZ VOR.

[Crash one]

I agree with Shortstripper, I have the same system. I also don't believe anyone with a brain would suggest that steam driven DR should be allowed to die, any more than basic stick & rudder skills should be replaced with "goto" & "autoland" With a power failure the other day resulting in "No Signal" (position 56deg 18 N--4deg 15 W heading 290M) the line on the map becomes a necessary back up. An object lesson in not relying on it. Nice lunch at Oban by the way & the weather was perfect.

[Sciolistes]

the UK alone has several hundred serious busts a year, so "something" needs to be done and dead reckoning is clearly not going to get any better because that horse has been flogged since about 1910
What have these busts got to do with GPS or DR? What it is that places a well executed flight in the wrong place with such regularity? There were regular busts in the Southampton CTA which I doubt has anything to do with what kit was aboard, more how the flight was managed. I wonder if distractions exacerbated by marginal weather (particularly poor vis) and/or insufficient planning are at the root cause.
To say that GPS is absolutely unnecessary when flying VFR is an over generalisation.
Agreed. Permit me to rephrase your paraphrase to "GPS is unnecessary when flying VFR".
Agreed! Reasonable but totally useless detail!! The USE of GPS is not taught at JAA CPL level; in either theory or the flying course.
I regard the architecture of NAVSTAR as well as the operation, function, performance and limitations of GPS as pertinent to the use of GPS. I suspect you are referring more to what buttons to push. However, perhaps the CPL/ATPL theory could describe the Garmin GNS in the same way that it teaches the Boeing FMS. I'd go with that.

With regard to the flight phase of CPL training, what additional training would you like to see?
Sciolistes, your screen name does give it away, no ?
If there was a prize, it would be yours :}
Too much? Not if you're well trained and used to it.
Don't knock the Haili Salaisse Aviation Academy.
Necessary? Probably not, but I look at it as a means of staying proficient with all the kit in the a/c. Proficiency in addition to necessity, nothing wrong with that.

[White Bear]

I prefer to fly with a GPS, but I would not leave the ground without one at night!

There have been several times when flying to airports in the Mid West on perfectly clear nights when it took many long minutes before I could pick out the GA airport where I had planned to land from all the city and road lights that surround them. Even when my GPS unit told me I was right over it! :hmm:

Now I can just hear the smart comments brewing about how hard can it be to look for the dark areas. Minneapolis for example, has over 50 lakes in and around the city, any one of which would dampen the sprites of an aviator foolish enough to make that assumption. :=

Personally I think GPS is a fine tool, one I use all the time, and I believe new pilots should be encouraged to use them.

Regards,
White Bear

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Sciolistes, I am trying to figure out if you are just trying to troll or if you are serious about your comments regarding the use of a GPS for safety and additional situational awareness........so I read all of your posts and copied this one....


Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Betwixt and between
Posts: 33

Occasionally, with the Capt's agreement, I sometimes choose to disconnect at FL100ish and perhaps get the Captain to take the FD off on final. Keeping on top of raw data handling is important as flying is a multi-faceted skill and all areas need regular exercise. However, the most important thing is managing the flight as a whole which really requires automation to keep work load down for both pilots in anything less than excellent VMC and a low traffic environment (as previously mentioned).

Yes, the 737 is very easy to pole around the sky, but if it does get unstable the situation can deteriorate incredibly rapidly!

Somehow I think you are trolling because even with only 300 hours as a pilot I find it difficult to believe you are trying to convince people that the DR and a pencil and time piece means of navigation is preferable to using the GPS.

Then again I have had a few low time FO's who truly didn't have a clue about flying.

Maybe it is the training they get these days?

[skydriller]

If you have a moving map GPS of any type, there is no way you will ever not know where you are while it is working. Period.

PS. One point though ... I'm pretty sure airspace busts have actually increased since GPS came along. Why? Well, I really don't thinks it's just because some "foolhardy" pilots don't use it, do you?

Dunno, but I do know that pretty much ALL airspace busts in the UK are now reported, where as in the past this was not the case, and this might just have something to do with it....:suspect:

Regards, SD..

[Sciolistes]

Chuck,

How disappointing.
Somehow I think you are trolling because even with only 300 hours as a pilot I find it difficult to believe you are trying to convince people that the DR and a pencil and time piece means of navigation is preferable to using the GPS.
I didn't say preferable. In the spirit of harmony and cooperation I have gone back over my posts to try and identify what motivates reaching for the the straw man argument.

It must only come down to this line:
there is absolutely no need for a GPS during a VFR flight
Which you may notice has been toned down a bit in response to Shy Torque's post.
I'll rephrase it to:
there is no specific necessity for the carriage of GPS for the modal average VFR sortie as undertaken in relation to private flying operations/fun/hooliganry. However, I accept that there are going to higher risk mission profiles for which additional tools (such as GPS) should be carefully considered, taking into account workload, proficiency and maintenance.
Happy yet?

Skydriller,
If you have a moving map GPS of any type, there is no way you will ever not know where you are while it is working. Period.
I would tacitly agree for a relatively recent GPS that is designed for VFR flight (with the usual provisos). However, I didn't find the GNS 420 particularly ideal in that regard.

[ShyTorque]

You have to love it when a 300 hour copilot comes here to tell everyone that they have been doing it wrong for thirty five years or more. :ok:

[Genghis the Engineer]

Hmm, probably.

Last night I flew a little under 2 hours from Swansea to Booker in a 1947 built aeroplane. Note night: I was not flying in daylight.

Could I have done safely this without any electronic navaids? Probably - but probably isn't good enough and without them I'd not have tried.

The aircraft has a VOR and a GPS. I'd have accepted either, but as it happens the VOR is U/S so I used the GPS. Plus ded-reckoning, plus IFR (I Follow Roads - the M4 mostly).

Why GPS is regarded in a different light to other radio navaids escapes me. VOR works, as do VOR/VOR and VOR/DME, ADF works but is horrible and just about everything is more user friendly; and, of course, GPS works. The point, to me is that sometimes you don't need extra navaids (such as a pleasant flight around the coast in day VFR) and sometimes you do (such as my flight yesterday) you do. The experienced pilot should be capable of working out their personal dividing line as to when he or she does, or does not require them.

Electronic navaids give no cop-out from basic navigation planning and airmanship. But integrated into them it makes it easier and us safer. Doesn't matter which system.


So, on that basis I think that non-use of systems such as GPS in PPL and CPL skills tests is daft, since pilots will certainly use them after they've qualified so surely the authorities and their delegated examiners should be assessing pilots' competence in their use. Complete reliance upon them in those tests however, should certainly be a cause for a candidate to be failed.

What perhaps we do need in between is more teaching and discussion about how to integrate these various navigational tools and methods with each other, taking us beyond the repetitive yes/no arguments about GPS.

G

[proctor]

There are still people who like the old map+compass+stopwatch method

Splendid point. As a low hours PPL who can't usually afford to travel long distances, a good deal of the satisfaction I get from flying is in planning the route, and then flying it using the compass, map and stopwatch. While I would never dream of denigrating the reliability and practicality of using GPS, I would venture to suggest that perhaps too many new PPLs forget the fun involved in dr etc once they're let loose with their shiny new Garmins.

Just a thought.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Quote ShyTorque:

You have to love it when a 300 hour copilot comes here to tell everyone that they have been doing it wrong for thirty five years or more.

Actually I have been doing aviation for 55 years and credit a lot of my being here to evolving with technology as it became available.

My reason for posting on the private pilot forum is to hopefully encourage private pilots to evolve past their PPL training and embrace modern technology that may one day save your life.

As to your being disappointed by my comments Sciolistes I apologize for having copied your own post here, however there is a reality in aviation that when you take a position on something that does not fit well with some of the other posters here your position will be measured by your background and exposure to the world of flying.

Here is a make believe situation whereby you may measure your real level of knowledge and experience level as a pilot and thus the value of your advice regarding the art of flying.

I used to be in the business of ferrying aircraft all over the world, now lets assume I need a pilot to move an airplane from say Miami to Berlin, would your credentials be sufficient for me to hire you as PIC to ferry said aircraft?

[Sciolistes]

The experienced pilot should be capable of working out their personal dividing line as to when he or she does, or does not require them.
Well, I suppose that is the nub of the argument.
Electronic navaids give no cop-out from basic navigation planning and airmanship. But integrated into them it makes it easier and us safer. Doesn't matter which system.

So, on that basis I think that non-use of systems such as GPS in PPL and CPL skills tests is daft
Specifically, how do you see GPS being examined? As part of the enroute/diversion? Any specific techniques? Would the examiner just switch it off mid flight? Crucially I would want to see somebody handle an unexpected enroute diversion. The problem I perceive with skills tests is that mine was rather benign in that the diversion was usually clear of CAS as the crow flies, I would think the examiner would be looking for the student to show they are aware of the proximity of CAS and how they use the unit to establish that information.

Naturally, I would interested in what the examiner would do if the student called off the test because the database was out of date or the unit was faulty!

Chuck,

Fine, but it seems to me that you deliberately misconstrue my opinions into some ridiculous anti GPS tirade. Ridicule isn't my thing. Fortunately I'm not all that bothered. I may have less than 1,000hrs and only 300 of those in GA, but my comments relate to my personal experience and opinion formed thereof.

[411A]

Mind you the ADF was nice to have sometimes when we couldn't get a star or sun shot with the astro compass.

Especially with the biggie NDB's that were fitted to Ocean Station vessels...:ok::ok:
Ahhh, the good 'ole days...:}

Loran A anyone...:E

[IO540]

Specifically, how do you see GPS being examined?

Same as any other navaid receiver.

But there is a different take on all this: do you want to examine competency in the abstract, or do you want to examine competency for the actual job as it is done in reality and as it would be done in a realistic emergency procedure?

The present system does the former. If your vac pump packs up and you go partial panel, you don't tell ATC you have a problem (because you are a proper JAA licensed hero and this character-forming event will only help to grow the proper JAA certified hairs on your chest) and you bust your gut trying to make the best of a bad job.

In the latter case, you tell ATC, tell them you are partial panel, that your responses will be less timely, that you need either vectors, or time to set up your handheld GPS, etc. They are paid to assist you and only a fool would do less than take full advantage of this. And if you have a total loss of electrics then you better have a handheld GPS all set up already because the ICAO procedure is to fly the filed route (after 7 minutes on current heading if in UK airspace and on vectors, or whatever) all the way to the end, and turn up at the IAF at the filed time, and land.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Well, I suppose that is the nub of the argument.

Specifically, how do you see GPS being examined? As part of the enroute/diversion? Any specific techniques? Would the examiner just switch it off mid flight? Crucially I would want to see somebody handle an unexpected enroute diversion. The problem I perceive with skills tests is that mine was rather benign in that the diversion was usually clear of CAS as the crow flies, I would think the examiner would be looking for the student to show they are aware of the proximity of CAS and how they use the unit to establish that information.

Naturally, I would interested in what the examiner would do if the student called off the test because the database was out of date or the unit was faulty!



When I navigate an aeroplane under normal conditions, as I'm sure is true for you, I integrate DR, radio/GPS nav, and good old fashioned looking out of the window.

When something goes wrong - I lose sight of the surface, the GPS reception goes, the VOR goes US.... I will work with what's left.

I'd venture that an appropriate skills test would probably include normal navigation with (nominally) all of what's on board the aircraft. But, let's say a possible test scenario would be a simulated electrical failure forcing a diversion without any navaids.

No doubt if you put a group of examiners together they'd come up with something much better (or at-least much more detailed) than that, but it's a starting point.

W.R.T. an up to date database - we all carry up to date charts, so have access to known up to date data - if the GPS database is out of date, so what, chart takes precendence. I'd expect any pilot, especially a test subject, to know the validity of whatever's on board.

G

[IO540]

I'd venture that an appropriate skills test would probably include normal navigation with (nominally) all of what's on board the aircraft

That's what the FAA does in its checkrides. It obviously works.

Testing competence on "everything installed" also interestingly sidesteps what would be vigorous objections from the flight training industry to making GPS mandatory. If the school does not install GPS then it won't be tested and they don't need to teach it. But if they want modern minded customers they will have to install GPS.... I don't know if the FAA thought it through this way or it was just an accident but it is a pretty clever trick.

[mm_flynn]

The present system does the former. If your vac pump packs up and you go partial panel, you don't tell ATC you have a problem (because you are a proper JAA licensed hero and this character-forming event will only help to grow the proper JAA certified hairs on your chest) and you bust your gut trying to make the best of a bad job.

Interestingly in my last checkride, with an FAA/JAA instructor and line training captain, after the vacuum pump failed I got a series of 'now what are you going to do?' questions until eventually I confessed that in real life I would declare a PAN. He then promptly had me call ATC and with a practice pan no gyro approach (I think he felt it would be good practice for ATC just as much as for me to suddenly have this bit of reality).

He later followed up with 'discovering', right as I was missing the approach, the failed pump had started a fire! Trying to get to the extinguisher while going around at minimums on partial panel got me my moneys worth - I had asked for a challenging review !!! more fool me.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Interesting isn't it, how many of us will do something different in a test situation to "real life" !

That however is probably quite a different thread.

G

[ExSp33db1rd]

Loran A anyone


Yes. And not even that Kollsman thing with knobs and counter wheels on it, having aligned the Ground Waves, or First Hop Sky Waves, had to count the blips on an oscilloscope to get the reading.

Consol anyone ? Nantucket 194 Kc - or was it Mb ? getting confused by Bill Gates.

Recently flying a microlight with a fitted GPS, couldn't be bothered to re-programme it to GoTo another airfield to get a cross bearing, so pulled a handheld out of my pocket - had to laugh, used to navigate a 707 with a sextant, now using 2 GPS's - in a microlight !!

Flying with the open cockpit and leather helmet, I confuse the approaching commuter airline guys by telling them I'm bearing XXX at XX nm from our airfield, which is equipped with only an NDB. Couldn't do it accurately enough without GPS.

Won't let my students use GPS until they can prove that they can read a map. Once had a co-pilot tell me to fly a hdg. of 310 leaving Singapore for Australia. That's what the INS told him, he said.

No harm using the new toys, but it's a bit like using a computer before you can use a pen, or do sums ! Learn the basics first.

[ShyTorque]

No harm using the new toys, but it's a bit like using a computer before you can use a pen, or do sums ! Learn the basics first.

Just about sums it up :ok:

[ex jump pilot]

I fly a Cub (did fly Tiger Moths, Austers etc.). So it's daytime good VFR for me. Following line features (roads esp) seems to work. I keep a note on the 1:250,000 chart as to where I am.
Seems to work and I've clocked up about 500 hours (just think what else I might have done with the money...).
As to a GPS, I now and again use my car one. Managed to buy an aviation program plus charts for it and find that it's a useful aid to let me know where I'm at.
I like being able to set up a route with waypoints and match that against my chart though I'm getting to know SE England well enough to recognise where I am.

In conclusion, use a GPS as a secondary aid in VFR? Yes. Why not?
Roger

[michaelthewannabe]

When designing user interfaces the professional makes sure he is very clear whether he is aiming at an all-day-every-day user or an occasional user, and will come up with different designs. Or, perhaps, a device with an optional hand-holding mode.
...
I suppose it could be that there are GPS units which are well designed for the occasional user, and the club I rent from has simply bought and installed the wrong kit. But I've never read any reviews of anything that claims to be designed for the occasional user...

My new AV8OR seems to fit the bill nicely for an occasional-use GPS. Got it out of the box, browsed the maps, altered some global settings, entered waypoints, programmed a couple of flight plans, reviewed airfield information, entered demo mode (simulates flight), entered diversion, altered data displays...

Then opened the user manual.

Its touch-screen user interface idioms are vastly more intuitive that Garmin's rotary cursor thingy. Pictures here... Michael’s Flight Training Diary Blog Archive Bendix-King AV8OR (http://mp-technical.com/ftd/?p=123)

m

[Chuck Ellsworth]

That kind of magic must be the work of the devil, therefore a real pilot wouldn't want anything to do with it.:)

[LH2]

Once had a co-pilot tell me to fly a hdg. of 310 leaving Singapore for Australia. That's what the INS told him, he said.

You would have got there all right, provided you had enough fuel :E

[ExSp33db1rd]

You would have got there all right, provided you had enough fuel

Crew FlightTime Limitations could have been a problem tho' !

Actually, we probably wouldn't have, he'd cocked it up totally, wasn't giving the reciprocal ( which would have worked ) but I agree that we would eventually have got back to Singapore.

Moral ? Don't rely on gadgets !

[IO540]

Once had a co-pilot tell me to fly a hdg. of 310 leaving Singapore for Australia. That's what the INS told him, he said. Moral ? Don't rely on gadgets !Not really; the moral is to learn to not be a d*ckhead, especially under IFR (as your flight must have been).

In reality, one obviously should not depart until one has dug out and studied the SID and worked out how it will join to the filed route, etc, so your co-pilot's reciprocal heading error would have ended in a disaster pretty fast (in a mountain perhaps?) and is nothing whatsoever to do with gadgets :ugh:

With a bit of luck though, your life might have been saved by another useless gadget: GPWS :)

[Droopystop]

IO540

GPWS is useless now that there is EGPWS :E

I think Exspeedbird illustrates a valid point though - preoccupation with the gadgets without thinking outside the (black) box. Your D***head point is also valid. But sadly the world is full of them, even in aviation.

GPS is great. It's pilots that are the problem.

[ExSp33db1rd]

IO540 - leaving Singapore ......... I agree with all your points, I guess I owe you a better explanation, just trying to illustrate a point.

New co-pilot, under training, new gadget even to me ( INS/PMS pre. GPS but similar logic for the user ) SID cancelled by ATC, 'go to' somewhere unfamiliar - just a Lat. and Long. in fact, black night, I started turning towards the Antipodes and asked him to enter the new waypoint - manually, none of this computer pre-programmed stuff, still getting safely airborne, climb power, flaps 20 etc. and he made a complete horlicks of it.

At top of climb I explained that I wasn't upset at his INS cock-up, learning curve etc. but asking for a heading of 310 was inexcusable. Get the big picture first.

Old navigator instructor once told me to stop trying to do a maths exam in a rattling steel cabinet, to pretend I was sitting on the tail driving the thing over a map - big picture.

Not many GPWS triggers around Singapore - until you hit the water !

Cheers. :ok:

[IO540]

ATC gave you a lat/long as a DCT, when airborne??

[172driver]

but asking for a heading of 310 was inexcusable.

Actually - why ? OK, from SIN it should be pretty obvious which way to go, even 'just' with coordinates, but if ATC ask you to fly to an unfamiliar waypoint w/o giving you a heading, I guess this could indeed happen, as the WP may be to the North. I've had things like that happen (and no, I don't fly any heavy metal), when ATC in unfamiliar airspace asked me to fly to some WP I couldn't immediately locate on the chart.

Actually another pro-GPS argument as it vastly improves your situational awareness, if you know how to use it. To me, this is the crux: know the equipment in your a/c.

[ExSp33db1rd]

ATC gave you a lat/long as a DCT, when airborne??


No, they cancelled the SID and sent us to a waypoint in the middle of the sea - by name - no computer programmmed INS at that stage, no option but to laboriously enter every digit, we identified the point on the chart, clearly in the right direction though not actually on the original route -actually saving us distance - and clearly not to the N.W. either. The guy fumbled the insert and the INS heading came up as around 310, to the N.W. when I'd already started the left turn to the S.E - having taken off on rwy. 20. He just blurted out the number, and also started to turn my flt. director, so that the A/H was showing a turn to the left, and the flt. director bars a turn to the right - all in a black velvet night. Not nice. Of course I totally ignored him and just kept turning towards Jakarta, which was on track, until we got it sorted out.

This is all getting too nit-picky, my original comment was that one should have a mental picture of which way to turn - the big picture - not blindly obey commands from an electronic navigation 'aid' - however sophisticated, which after all is only as intelligent as the person who programmes it ! G.I.G.O.

Remember, I'm talking nearly 25 yrs ago, GPS wasn't even a gleam in Michaelangelos' eye then - but Michaelangelos' World hasn't changed, we have, and slavish adherence to the commands of electronic gadgets is the way to trouble. This thread started with a question about whether one uses GPS or the Mark 1 eyeball and a chart. Both have their uses, but both need to be understood.

[IO540]

I think we are coming back to the same old chestnut in all these pro/anti GPS threads: have you got a decent moving map unit?

If no, then GPS gives you no more than an accurate KNS80 or similarly functional INS box.

If yes, then you get excellent situational awareness handed to you on a plate and it is pretty hard to get lost.

At night or in IMC, one's SA is dependent wholly on instrument interpretation and there are loads of ways to get it wrong with the old VOR methodology. INS delivers RNAV (area navigation) capability to any point (which I suppose in the old days would not have been in the database but would have had to be entered as lat/long) but unless this is combined with a moving map, you can still make a gross error. When GPS first came in, it made this process super accurate but there are still heavy jets flying which have a GPS but no moving map...

There are also lots of private pilots flying with cheap GPSs which have no moving map; you can pick them up in camping shops for peanuts. These people often turn out to be in the "anti" camp. I have never known anybody using a decent unit being anything other than delighted with the benefits.

Unfortunately the interfaces are not standardised and one needs to do some serious ground work to get familiar before using the thing for real. I have a Garmin 496 yoke-mounted (mainly for its "EGPWS" feature which is wired to the intercom for audio warnings) and while I have programmed routes into it, it is too clumsy and in an emergency I would use it only as a DCT XXXXX box where XXXXX is an airways intersection or a navaid.

One needs to keep a mental picture but when there are no visual cues even the best people can make a mistake and turn the wrong way etc.

A good moving map display is the key.

[Droopystop]

IO540,

I agree that a moving map GPS when used properly is a great tool for VFR flying. It's not the only way to do it and "hiking" GPS can be used very effectively, again when used properly. As can good old fashioned visual nav. Like I said, it's the pilots that are the weak link in the GPS chain.

I am not sure how useful moving map is with full IFR flight. I am not sure how much heavy metal uses full moving map. FMS provides more than adequate "magenta line" nav, threshold to threshold, with terrain clearance being provided by planning, IFR, ATC and of course EGPWS. But that is not really relevant for virtually all private flying.

[IO540]

I agree that a moving map GPS when used properly

I think that is a contradiction. It is hard to not use a moving map "properly". You just need to look at it! The plane is in the middle, and the map is around it....

I am not sure how useful moving map is with full IFR flight. I am not sure how much heavy metal uses full moving map. FMS provides more than adequate "magenta line" nav, threshold to threshold, with terrain clearance being provided by planning, IFR, ATC and of course EGPWS. But that is not really relevant for virtually all private flying.

I see two problems in the above.

Firstly, the "old airliner" school of IFR flying, where you depart on an non-RNAV SID (a runway heading to X DME followed by some VOR intercept, etc) or a radar departure. The enroute is just waypoint to waypoint, with vectors in busy low level areas perhaps , then a radar arrival (again non-RNAV) and an ILS. 100% in CAS and 100% under ATC direction, with airspace classes being totally irrelevant. That is how airliners have been flying for decades. A moving map doesn't add a great deal to this, so long as you do it a couple of times a day :) If you are less than good then you might get e.g. this (http://www.pprune.org/safety-crm-qa-emergency-response-planning/265001-pia-airbus-a300-crash-kathmandu-1992-a.html) which would have never happened with a moving map. But it rarely happens nowadays because of high crew currency and - in the civilised world anyway - close ATC radar control. And EGPWS ;)

The other is the "virtually all private flying" comment. About 30% of my TT (1k hrs) is IFR and about 10% of my TT is in actual IMC. That is pretty significant, and I don't fly the same route daily, and neither do the huge majority of private IFR pilots. We need all the situational awareness we can get.

We also often fly OCAS and a moving map is priceless because it shows you where you are relative to the CAS boundaries. Even in CAS (as is typically the case flying low level airways around Europe) the moving map is great because one can see a nice chunk of the route ahead, with waypoints, etc. A map is far better than a CDI showing the deviation from the track to the current waypoint which can be misinterpreted in umpteen ways.

With a decent moving map, either displaying the actual VFR chart (as with the Memory Map product for example) or supplemented by the VFR chart, makes it virtually impossible to bust airspace.

Those that do use a GPS but still do a bust have obviously still found a way to get it wrong, and it can be done (e.g. flying at FL054 under a FL055 base CAS on 1013 and then continuing to underneath another piece, this time base 5500ft, forgetting to reset the altimeter to the local QNH - nasty!) but there is very little excuse because the information is right there under your nose.

[Genghis the Engineer]

IO540 - the relationship between geopotential altitude (as measured by GPS) and pressure altitude (as measured by an altimeter and use to define airspace) can often be rather greater than 100 feet. I would not rely upon a GPS database to avoid level busts unless you set the tolerances quite large (I have mine set to warn me if within 500ft of CAS).

G

[IO540]

Sure; I was merely using that as an example of how one can screw up and bust CAS despite having the best possible moving map presentation.

No suggestion of using GPS derived altitude was implied. One needs to fly either on 1013 (under an airspace base defined as FL) or on the local airspace owner's QNH (under an airspace defined in feet).