Where to fit use of the GPS in PPL nav training

[Big Pistons Forever]

I am interested in thoughts from other instructors on where/how to fit GPS into PPL training.

My approach is to concentrate on the traditional nav planning, map reading, and course correction methods untill the very end of the training and then introduce a short ground briefing which adresses the basics of practical uses of GPS and outlines the pitfalls and traps in GPS navigation. I then follow it up with a 5 min NAVEX on the way to the parctice area. I emphasize the absolute importance of maintaining situational awareness and to always be able to point to the map and say "this is where I am". I also highly recommend that after they finish their PPL they come back and do some more dedicated GPS navigation training.

[BEagle]

Agree with all you say, Big Pistons. My recommendation would be that, once the student has achieved a standard of 'traditional' navigation skill such that you can start to him/her teach diversion managment, he/she is probably ready to be taught the in-flight use of GPS.

The UK CAA still has rather a luddite attitude towards GPS; with the increasing availability of systems such as Garmin's new 'aera', a review of attitudes towards GPS is essential. People will want to buy and use such systems, much as they do in their cars, so we should acknowledge that and ensure that they are taught how to use them correctly.

[DFC]

Agreed.

Unfortunately, a requirement to teach DR and for the student to demonstrate DR on the skill test has caused many training providers to give the impression that DR is the only method which is simply wrong.

Of course Map reading is a very important requirement regardless of what is being used to navigate the aircraft.

I always include GPS as part of the PPL course. Not just because it is part of the syalbus but because I expect to provide the training that permits the PPL to navigate via all the available tools wothout having to come back for another course.

The great thing about GPS training and radio nav etc is that most of the training can be done on the ground with the various equipment simulators provided by the manufacturers and computer trainers for the basics.

Unfortunately, since most instructors are paid nothing to train people on the ground, students often have their first practical exposure to say fixing a position using GPS while in the air, radio nav or even many of the DR techniques.

The cockpit is not the place to learn or practice navigation it is simply the place to combine what is well practiced with flying the aircraft.

Rather than fly triangular routes with 3 DR legs I try to do a DR leg, a Radio Nav leg and a leg where the GPS info can be used. Map reading being required on all 3 of course!

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Map reading is real easy in 2008 because you can now have 1 in 500,000 aviation maps displayed on your GPS ( Of course I always have the paper map handy as a backup and a verification that the position showing on the GPS and the paper map are the same.

I have an Anywheremap ATC with the aviation map software in it that is mounted on top of the instrument panel so I have a head up display for navigating.

Gotta love technology. :ok:

[Big Pistons Forever]

Unfortunately GPS is another example where the regulators have failed to keep up with the technology so instructors are feeling the tension of teaching to the flight test versus teaching the use of what for any sensible person has become the primary VFR navigation aid.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Can anyone here explain why those in charge of regulating flying training are so determined to remain stuck in the past and refuse to embrace modern technology?

This subject is just one of many areas of flight training that " must " be changed so as to turn out a product that can function in the modern world of aviation.

Having owned a flight school and also having been an instructor for over half a century I can not understand how these people can claim to have safety as their main objective and at the same time keep the training industry firmly stuck in the horse and buggy era.

[Dan Winterland]

There is a very close parallel in the sailing world. Students are required to learn the basics, plotting a course on a chart. taking 3 line position fixes and manually plotting leeway and tides. To complete the Ocean Yachtmaster qualification, you also have to be able to do astro navigation.

When they get out on the water on their own, the only system they use is the GPS plotter! Except for Mrs Winterland that is. There's nothing more she enjoys when sailing than getting to grips with pencils, dividers, Portland plotters and sighting compasses - and producing a manual plot. Strange girl - but she did marry me!

[Chuck Ellsworth]

There is nothing wrong with learning all the basic methods of navigating because it gives one a foundation on which to understand the subject.

However in an environment where the vehicle is moving at the speed an airplane moves I'll take a GPS which can compute in fractions of seconds my position and velocity far more accurately than manual navigation can.

Of course there is the added safety factor of leaving me free to observe and solve other issues as I fly.

In fact I often wonder how I ever managed to find my destinations back in a time when we had few if any aids to use especially in remote areas such as the high Arctic and flying over oceans.

How many here can remember the radio ranges and a time when you had to be able to read morse code to get an instrument rating? :)

[BroomstickPilot]

Can anyone here explain why those in charge of regulating flying training are so determined to remain stuck in the past and refuse to embrace modern technology?

Simple Chuck; they're Brit civil servants. Members of the species 'homo administrens'. This is a faulty mutation of 'homo sapiens' that gets itself into government service. They are usually to be seen in large groups, wearing blinkers and covering their arses with both hands.

In their society, one must not at any cost make a mistake. And the surest way to avoid making a mistake is, of course, to change nothing. Hence, in their world, preventing change of any sort is considered a thoroughly creditable object of endeavour.

Broomstick.

[Whirlybird]

I don't know any details, but I've gathered that changes are afoot at the CAA with respect to GPS and the PPL training course. :ok:

[DFC]

Can anyone here explain why those in charge of regulating flying training are so determined to remain stuck in the past and refuse to embrace modern technology?



Are they?

GPS has been part of the PPL sylabus since the 1990's. Just because it's use is not tested on the skill test and this unfortunately leads to some schools not teaching it during the course does not directly make it an "Authority" issue.

Would you prefer that the skill test incuded DR techniques, basic radio nav and GPS use as required elements?

How would you work the GPS element. Would you only allow approved panel mounted units to be used in accordance with their limitations or would you permit any hand-held unit to be used but of course require that such an item be secured correctly in accordance with the airworthiness procedures and of course not just sitting on top of the pannel.

I hope you see that one "simple step" can create a minefield of related (but mostly ignored or unexpected) issues!!


Map reading is real easy in 2008 because you can now have 1 in 500,000 aviation maps displayed on your GPS


That is not map reading in the true sense. You are not looking at the features displayed on the map and the features you see out the window and using both to estimate / fix your position. The GPS is fixing your position and you are using that indicated position to decide where you are.


Of course I always have the paper map handy as a backup and a verification that the position showing on the GPS and the paper map are the same


Now that back-up which you are using is map reading!!

Unfortunately, too many PPLs do not trust in their ability to navigate or mapread and therefore hand over command to the GPS in flight i.e. they will always believe that GPS above what they can see out the window.

Lucky that 99% of the time the GPS is correct. However, this lack of confidence in their ability to navigate without GPS is surprising when one considers how much money they have spent on navigatin training.

There is no excuse these days. I can teach anyone to for example fully utilise the Garmin 430 without ever leaving the classroom. The available simulator is very good. Once they have mastered it, they can get into the aircraft and not need any prompting or explanation as to how to operate the unit.

Most handheld units have a simulator mode which means that the exercises can be completed on the very unit the pilot will use.

If you worry about the student using their handheld GPS to crawl round the navigation route solo then simply note the internal GPS time since manufacture / time since midnight before and after and ask the student to explain why they used the handheld if they did. Often, they will have a genuine reason for turning on the GPS at some stage and this should be commended.

Far better to have the student become unsure of position / miss a turn point, turn on the GPS to assist them in fixing their position and then get back to the exercise than blunder round for 5 minutes not knowing where they are but come back and tell you everything when fine. With the GPS, they can't easily cover-up (ignore!!!!) such a situation.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Interesting comments DFC, I especially like your delving deep to find issues that are completely irrevelant to the issue such as how one mounts or places a hand held GPS. Unless of course we are discussing someone so dense they should not be flying an airplane in the first place.

So you think that when I am looking at the aviation chart presented on the screen of my GPS in color an exact replica of the paper map I am not map reading?

What exactly do you think I am doing watching the 6 P.M. news?

May I suggest that teaching someone to fly is a skill that requires one to use common sense sometimes rather than slavish adherence to doctrine that the training system so dearly loves?

I have no idea who you are DFC nor is it really of any great importance , however it has been my experience that flying is an endeavor that can not be set down in black and white rules and procedures especially when it comes to driving the things from A to B for the simple reason that there are many circumstances that some navigation practices just don't work where you are flying.

For decades I ferried aircraft all over the world and have come to understand the importance of having GPS as an aid to situational awareness in fact GPS is the most reliable and accurate means of navigation that we have available....especially the hand held GPS.

Map reading is difficult over the open ocean or in the middle of the Sahara Desert.

P.S.:

I am also very familiar with all the IFR approved navigation systems up to and including RNS and all the magic stuff in Airbus and Boeing and have formed my opinion of the reliability of hand held GPS units based on my experience navigating with all of the above.

[Whopity]

AS DFC said GPS has been in the PPL Syllabus for a considerable number of years but in my experience, very few instructors teach it, that's assuming there is one in the aircraft. If you mandate its use, you then start to require more sophisticated aeroplanes. The Tiger Moth guys were quite put out at the suggestion of having to use a VOR or an ADF when the JAA Syllabus came along.

The PPL Syllabus was designed by the now nonexistent JAA with the help of Ron Campbell; the regulator had virtually nothing to do with it, and now has no remit to change it whether they want to or not.

Before you teach GPS, the candidate must have a sound knowledge of basic navigation and the triangle of velocities; it is here that the GPS can be quite useful as it provides Track and Groundspeed,the two parts normally missing in the navigation equation. I have seen candidates on an IMC test guessing both of these when its displayed on the panel in front of them! So why not use it?

You can teach students to treat the GPS as a GPI and plot the Lat and Long on the chart, that way they use the GPS whilst developing Chart Skills and Situational Awareness. Teaching of the entire PPL radio nav syllabus falls well below par from the results I see. But then when you see the hours allocated on the course it would be very difficult to do any more.

[Big Pistons Forever]

The reality of PPL training is if it is not on the test than it will likely not be taught. I also feel that when GPS training is offered it often seems to alternate between two extremes. It is either a course in astro physics mostly unrelated to actually using the GPS in a practical way, or it is entirely about the knobology of a particular unit and treats the most obscure functions with the same time and importance as the core navigation data. I am exagerating a little for effect of course, but there seems little consessus on the what/how aspects of teaching GPS particularly during PPL training.

My approach to date is to try and make the information equipment neutral and instead discuss the what kind s of information a GPS can provide and how/when they can be usefully integrated into both flight planning and during the flight itself. I also emphasize what IMO is the number one danger of GPS use, that is how easy it is to get focused on the magic screen and forget about flying the aircraft or looking outside.

[DFC]

I especially like your delving deep to find issues that are completely irrevelant to the issue such as how one mounts or places a hand held GPS. Unless of course we are discussing someone so dense they should not be flying an airplane in the first place.



Chuck,

I have flown with many many people who use a handheld GPS. A few use a yoke mount (unapproved modification of the control system) a few use the top of the pannel / window ledge and a few have them attached to a kneeboard.

However, not one of them was even aware of the regulatory rquirements for such objects to be restrained in the cabin to specific requirements.

See CS-23 or FAR-23 if you are not yourself aware of the requirements.

Start getting the Authority involved in testing GPS use during the skill test and you will end up lifting a stone from which all sorts of horrible things will come out.

That is the point I was making.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Yes DFC I am very aware of the regulatory requirements surrounding the mounting of a hand held GPS.

I am also very aware of the fact that when people allow the fear of being in contravention of the regulations to over ride common sense they are allowing that fear to control their lives to such an extent that they will deprive themselves of the ability to have something as useful as a hand held GPS sitting in a position where it is easy to see thus improving safety.

I defy anyone here to claim they know and or understand all the regulations governing the aviation community because the regulations are almost impossible to clearly understand as there are far to many cretins thinking up new ones every minute of the day.

That is the point I am making.

P.S. :

Don't forget to wear your high vis vest at the airport because once inside the airport boundaries you leave the normal world and are entering the paranoid zone.

[IO540]

I doubt anybody would seriously stand up and say that a pilot flying in today's airspace, within his license privileges (VFR worldwide), would be wise doing it using map reading / dead reckoning etc.

However, this is not the RAF and the PPL flight training business has no commercial incentive to deliver the above mentioned pilot capability. Their commercial incentive actually works against anybody even passing the skills test; there's nothing better for business than a load of "perpetual students" - like the fair number of 100+ hr people I have bumped into :) Instructors love these types. One instructor I had boasted to me how he got £25,000 out of one woman student (and I knew her too).

Another thing is that GPS does need some ground training, but the PPL has no formal ground school element. Schools knock up ad hoc methods of getting people to learn enough stuff to pass the exams, and nobody wants to be pushed into doing any more, which is understandable.

Most people also need more than the 45 hours, and with a good number of hours being taken up by the slide rule / dead reckoning teaching (which is mandatory), no training recipient wants to swell up the cost any more.

Obviously, mandatory GPS training would require schools to install GPS in at least some planes, which they don't want to do, understandably because there are no cheap panel mount (TSOd) options. And the CAA does not want to be seen encouraging schools to fly with handhelds screwed to the yoke tube with some crappy Garmin-type (Russian combine harvester) yoke mount. As a result of the certification situation, the only "VFR" panel mount candidate is the old (but very good) KMD150 but even that will come to maybe £3000 installed.

Things will probably become more favourable over the coming decades, as the old wreckage is retired, but the CAA could speed things up with the simple trick the FAA did: in the checkride, the examiner is entitled to require a demonstration of competence on all installed equipment. This would force schools who have anything reasonably modern to teach GPS usage. I once put this to the head of FCL at the CAA and he thought it was quite cunning (and definitely within his remit) but then he promptly retired from the CAA :)

[Tmbstory]

I used to teach VAR work for the instrument ratings in Single and Multi engine aircraft and in those days a morse code rating was necessary.

Also used to teach a procedure for DME orientation and homing with no other aids.

They were good days.

Tmb

[DFC]

I doubt anybody would seriously stand up and say that a pilot PPL has no formal ground school elementwould be wise doing it using map reading / dead reckoning etc.



I stand up and say that no problem.

Furthermore, I believe that a pilot not capable of doing such should not have a licence or authorisation to fly away from the aerodrome of departure.

GPS makes life easy. So too does all the other bells and whistles avaiable in many aircraft. However, the pilot must be capable of safely operating the aircraft without all the extras.

I teach GPS. However, it is only one element of the training and no one is going to finish the PPL course / pass the skill test until they safely demonstrate that they can navigate safely visually within defined criteria and either know or know the location of all the information they require to fly worldwide.

Anyone who needed a GPS to fly anywhere VFR does not meet the requirements for obtaining (and keeping) a PPL.

It is untrue to say that

PPL has no formal ground school element

The RTF/FTO is required to provide the groundschool training as per the sylabus. Unfortunately this is largely ignored in the UK. (JAR-FCL 1.125)

Hopefully EASA will change that ASAP.