VOR & PPL Training

[DennisK]

Thought I'd seek out the industry's and in particular fellow FIs and FEs views on what has become mandatory VOR training in the PPL(H) syllabus.

For Starters.

GPS superior to VOR ?
NATS plan to phase out VOR in 2014.
Value of VOR info at low height in deteriorating wx.
Safety implications.

Please lads ... but on the basis you could be quoted in an upcoming article.

Thanks in advance. Dennis Kenyon.

[tony 1969]

I always thought it fairly ludicrous that the old fashioned VOR and not GPS is in the syllabus.:ugh:
Some examiners are not happy with using a GPS as a display for VOR tracking :ugh::ugh:
Still once it is phased out it wont be a problem

[Aucky]

I am certainly inclined to agree - I was recently teaching VOR tracking as part of a nav ex and had my iPhone tracking our position over the ground, I had a pre-determined radial for them to track which they did quite nicely (range approx 25miles from vor at approx 1500-2000', cavok) our track over the ground seemed off, and also appeared to follow an arc despite keeping the needle in the middle. Feeling something was amiss I checked the GPS track verses the radial and it was no less than 10degrees out and curved (around 3 miles at that range). This may have been a unit error in the aircraft but either way there was no indication of a problem to the user. Also I can't think of a helicopter that i fly that doesn't have a GPS in it, but there are a few, especially newer ones, with no VOR...

I think it's no bad thing to teach VOR tracking - it's another tool to help potentially if one is lost etc and it doesn't take long, but I certainly like to go beyond the syllabus and teach the basics of GPS too, because i know which will provide better situational awareness if my student gets lost on a solo nav ex, only difference being they can't use it in the test, but they won't need it if their nav is good :ok:

There is also the argument, and i've fallen into this trap before, that GPS can lead to some dubious calls in marginal weather - times when if you only had a map you would be saying 'not today thanks' but the confidence the GPS gives you in poor vis encourages you to go ahead with the flight.... Since then I always still ask myself - would I still fly in this if I didn't have a GPS. Also I was told by someone at NATS that unbelieveably the number of airspace infringements has gone UP with GPS usage possibly because where people would traditionally leave a wide birth around controlled airspace to allow for some margin of error they now cut the corners a lot closer to the 'line' and occasionally get it wrong - I actually think that these problems are perhaps partly due to the fact that GPS isn't officially taught, and that usually it's a case of working it out without much guidance once your a fresh ppl - a few standardised procedures (and decision making tips) from those with a little more GPS experience could no doubt help with improving safety and reducing infringements...

[misterbonkers]

Please can I point out that it is VOR or ADF. A lot more small airfields do have ADF so it can be quite a handy tool.

That said - most R22/R44s, the more common machines for training/testing, do not come with this equipment as owners would rather pay for a GPS than a VOR. Why do they make this choice? Because the GPS under most conditions gets them accurately to where they need to be. The VOR does not. YES GPS unit can lose it's signal as it can be blocked/altered or might be locked out in hilly/mountainous terrain but then traditional Navaids don't work particularly well low level either.

In poor weather, VFR, low level, staying legal, the GPS offers me far better situational awareness; it can even tell me which valley is the best choice; I've seldom lost signal in these situations (if at all) but I can guarantee I couldn't pick up a VOR or ADF!

The plus side of teaching such use of VOR equipment is that it promotes awareness of other equipment in the aircraft and the importance of learning it's use prior to getting airborne and needing it - this is something I explain to my students as it equally applies to knowing how to use and make appropriate use of GPS. Equally, as instructors/examiners, getting your student/pilot to use a VOR whilst under the hood can build up their workload which is a good thing - you can see how they handle the extra pressure and what level of capacity they have left.

I totally agree that instruction on GPS, along with it's pitfalls, would be far more appropriate but I can understand why VOR/ADFs are currently in the syllabus. Perhaps our Chief Examiner will recognise this and make changes in due course when appropriate. Perhaps this is already underway...

On another note Dennis - I firmly believe that we should be able to take our students into genuine off airfield sites/confined areas such as hotels/pubs/gardens because the moment they get their licence back from the CAA that's the first thing they do and yet we can't do these things on the course. I know it's thread creep but hey; I would suggest that once a student has done their solo QXC and as long as sites have been risk assessed we should be able to go into the dual, land, shut down, have a cup of tea and continue to the next one...

[puntosaurus]

If only it were a matter for the chief examiner. This would need to involve EASA and ICAO (for compliance purposes), and hence no-one has had the stomach for the fight.

However the demise of the VORs ought to throw up something interesting, but knowing the CAA they'd probably ask us to retrofit ADFs and use AM radio stations!

Incidentally, examiners in the UK have NO discretion to substitute a GPS VOR display, unless for genuinely unforeseen operational difficulties arising on the day of the test.

[Aucky]

I firmly believe that we should be able to take our students into genuine off airfield sites/confined areas such as hotels/pubs/gardens because the moment they get their licence back from the CAA that's the first thing they do and yet we can't do these things on the course

This is not something I have looked into but it makes sense (we usually suggest to students that they build a little experience post ppl first, and then offer to recce sights with them to begin with before they go themselves until they have made a number of off airfield landings - most see this as sensible even though their license qualifies them to go without any further training). Doesn't it depend on the suitability of the site now that we don't technically need to use licensed aerodromes, but 'suitable aerodromes' (or whatever wording is now used). It seems to me that the qualification of a 'Suitable Aerodrome' is purposefully grey, and not qualified in any way, suggesting you will not have any problems until you mess up and they tell you it was not suitable. Admittedly most pubs and hotels are probably not deemed suitable, but some perhaps are - the Pheasant at Keystone for example has a nicely maintained grass strip, a parking area, and a nice clear approach... (no fire-cover however...?)

[Torquetalk]

I know of one FE who conducts a very detailed VOR tracking exercise as part of the PPL(H) test. It involves identifying the current radial, intercepting another using a method which calculates the angular difference between the reciprocals, intercepting at an optimum angle according to a pre-determined method; tracking that radial, intercepting another and tracking that one in the opposite direction. It is more involved than what an IR(H) student would normally content with!

A terribly impressive and utterly perishable skill set with about zilch applicabiility if someone is unsure of position and stressed. But I'm sure the time involved in training and testing for it help the school's bank account. :suspect:

Btw. KN, should you read this: adding any nominal intercept angle to the target radial (assuming the result is less than 90 and you know if you want to go towards or away from the station) is something students can grasp quickly and actually remember.

[Helinut]

What is in the syllabus and test (whether initial or recurrent LPC) should primarily teach/check a PPL pilot to be able to do what he will need to do when he has his PPL licence and flies a helicopter. [I hope that is not too controversial].

There is no doubt that GPS is used massively more than VOR or ADF. Both of these systems seem to be on borrowed time, even in IFR ops. For VFR helicopter flying the default aid is GPS. This is despite the resolute and Canute-like attempts of the UK CAA (and some other national authorities) to keep back the GPS tide.

GPS is the default navaid in small helicopters. There are very good reasons for that, but the point is, IT IS THE DEFAULT.

There are a number of ways in which GPS can get a pilot into problems, and some simple things he can do to avoid the hazards. We had to wait for the RIN to produce something sensible as a basis for that training. Unfortunately, even with that we will struggle to persuade students/pilots to receive such training when it is not required by the regulator.

By any rational and logical assessment, GPS training should be part of the PPL(H) syllabus. That it is not is a condemnation of the the authorities that regulate PPL helicopter training.

However, the same is also true of:

off airfield landings;
dealing with deteriorating visual references in VFR flight

[We do need to make sure that basic nab and DR is still taught and tested. X/C in training should be non-GPS, except for the specific GPS-training element].

I really don't think that our regulators' policy departments are doing a decent job with respect to these matters. This is likely to get worse now that EASA have taken over, because everything gets more difficult as the regulatory beast gets more unwieldy and the decision makers more remote. It is also almost inevitable when the same aviation authority is responsible for "proper" aviation (i.e. airlines) as our little pimple on the carbuncle of aviation.

Most flying schools and instructors in the PPL market offer various bits of post-licence issue continuation training. However, it is pretty ad-hoc and lacks the stamp of any body. Should we see if we cannot find a place to develop some more formal post-licence continuation training? I am not sure which organisation would host such an initiative. In the UK it could be BHA or AOPA, possibly. Does anyone have any suggestions?

If a home could be found for such a thing, I would be sufficiently interested to help to prep some draft syllabuses.

Continuation training is an important part of developing professional pilots. The same should be true of the PPL IMHO.

[Pandalet]

Speaking as someone who has been taught to use VORs at various stages rather than someone who has had to teach it, but...

I did my PPL in an R22 that had a VOR but no GPS. I therefore spent a lot of my early formative hours using that VOR a lot (I trained in the Luton-Stanstead area, so plenty of beacons). Being forced to rely on VORs and a map rather than having a GPS-driven moving map constantly available meant I was forced to develop situational awareness, and it gave me an excellent start in managing cockpit resources and mental calculation while flying.

When I came to do an IR (in an unstabalised twin with no GPS, natch) roughly 150 hours later, that early experience paid off in spades. I already knew how to use a VOR, but more than that, I had the understanding that comes from actually doing rather than just exploring the theory. Picking up ADF usage was easy, and translating over to an HSI/RMI (instead of just an analogue VOR) wasn't a problem either. I passed my IR without a problem, and had fantastic fun doing it, too.

I don't know whether my experience is typical, but I suspect it's not. Regardless, I would be a far less proficient pilot today had I not been forced to learn how to use a VOR during my PPL. Having said that, I agree that some GPS training should be included in the PPL, as just about every small helicopter has one, but almost none have VOR/ADF.

[Hughes500]

Its not going to be changed as already mentioned. had this argument 3 years ago with Fred.
Best summed up by one of my students when tracking Berry Head Vor who turned around and said, well if I m tracking this because I am lost i would be completly fooked seeing as every direction you can fly to it while over the land will take you out to sea !! Same with Lands End my other closest vor's !!! About as useful as a chocolate fire guard:ugh:
To make matters more intresting if you take a poll of all private helicopters I reckeon 95% will not have a vor or adf but will have sat nav, so what does that tell you !!!!

[pilotmike]

TITS!





Tune

Ident

To / From

Start using it.

[DennisK]

Thanks for the posts to date guys ... an intriguing and interesting cross section of views for sure. Can I throw another penny in the pot. How do we expect our qualifying cross-country pilot to react should he be forced to fly low to stay VMC and then become uncertain of his position. At 500 feet, he won't get much help from a distant VOR and on a personal basis, and in those circumstances, I don't want my pilots to have their heads down while attempting to identify a signal. (Yes I know about the Irishman and the bog syndrome) Oh and I forgot to mention the scallops that are usually present on a VOR radial.

If we all shout loud enough, will the authority look again at bringing GPS nav training into the PPL syllabus. And on a second tack, can we have some views on the present 5 hour instrument requirement?

Thanks for all the posts ... more welcomed please. Dennis Kenyon.

[krypton_john]

Ummm... there's nothing to stop instructors from teaching their students GPS usage, is there?

[spinwing]

Mmmmm ....


....... Eminently sensible .....

In the land of the FREE .... quite likely ....

HOWEVER in the land of the FEE not likely! :=


:E

[Hughes500]

My thoughts
When i had this disscussion with Fred Cross I was told in no uncertain terms that it was a JAA issue not a CAA issue and The CAA was not prepared to take it to Europe

Basically
1. 5 hours of instrument appreciation: Should really be 5 hours of flying in deteoriating weather and what to do if caught ( Land !!!)Should include flying over water in low cloud base and not being able to see a coast infront ( thus limited horizon )
2. VOR /ADF should be changed to GPS but then again there are so many GPS systems in differing machines how is one supposed to tech them all ?
3. Restricted site operations should allow instructors to take students to any off site field without prior notification to CAA.
4. EOL's should be taught to the ground
5. More emphsis on tail rotor problems
6. Navigating in poor weather without GPS !

Could go on but these are the things i would change.

[puntosaurus]

And dump downwind quickstops.

[Pandalet]

If you have a PPL student on a QXC having to fly at 500 feet to maintain VMC, doesn't that imply the instructor should be a little more careful about the weather conditions he or she sends solo students out in? I may be misunderstanding the question!

[RMK]

In general, I’m for training for the task, not training to pass an exam. In the same manner that medical training should focus on producing good physicians not just passing a medical board exam, so too should helicopter training focus on producing good pilots – not just passing an exam flight.

I hold both JAA and FAA PPL(H) licenses and found both programmes to have holes, but I find the JAA/CAA variant to be much farther “behind the curve” in regards to preparing a pilot. I’d note, if both programmes are undertaken they do complement each other (article: Blades Magazine Dec09)

VOR? The last time I used a VOR was for my JAA exam flight 6 years ago, which was also the last time I think I saw one installed in a helicopter that I was flying. I personally found it a waste of time and wish to see it removed from the syllabus as a requirement. We could maybe teach the basics of VOR, but concentrate and include training on GPS (how-to info/limitations) – which is far more prevalent.

5hr Instrument Awareness Training? Include one full hour to give the student general the idea/process. The real lesson you want the student pilot to receive is to understand how dangerous it is to fly into IMC and avoid it in the first instance (not give them an unwarranted confidence in entering IMC)

Some other CAA silliness:

· Prohibited use of simple calculators in the exam? Why – I’ve used hand-held electronic calculators since the 1970s and have never had one fail
· Required use of circular slide rules (CRP-1 etc)? The last time I used one was also 6 six years ago for my JAA exam. I also think using a CRP-1 hanging from a string around your neck, with one hand, while commanding a helicopter is stupid & dangerous
· No training for off-airport landings? After receiving your license, it’s exactly what most PPL helicopter do on every flight – why not train for them?

[ec155mech]

I know Im not among the group asked, but from someone who's just finished his PPL. I still feel I can contribute.

things I would like to be included.

more foogle time.
more practical confined area drills
EOL ( which I did )
a lot more stuck controls and TR failures
VOR is nice. but in a time with increased focus on GPS usage it wouldnt make sense not to include it. I had a little bit of it.

IMO the min hours is a bit low. and most dont finish in less than 50 hours anyways . so why not put those 5 hours towards something useful like GPS usage, EOL's and more practical confined areas.

and I agree that students under instructor supervision should be able to do confined area practice anywhere. or as a compromise have a few sites available in the area, that has been approved by the individual school. and of course has the written consent of the owner of the land.

[Flying Pencil]

RMK- When were you required to fly with a CRP? Only ever used it for pre-flight planning.

EC155mech- Out of interest, why do you want more foggle time? 5hrs not enough for you?

H500- Your over water point is a bit unfair on the guys training out of Coventry isn't it! :) Fancy opening the can of worms by asking who's not doing EOL's to the ground and why? :E

FP

[ec155mech]

simple FP

something like recovering from unusual attitudes and steep turns deserves more time as they are so easy to encounter if panic sets in and you are lost in a big F...ing cloud. and I find it a bit strange there is no IMC rating for rotary ??

[flyingscotty]

TorqueTalk, Would this FE happen to be the cfi at Fast??

[Helinut]

Dennis,

Responding specifically to your question about simulated IMC, I have ranted on previously about this. I believe that the inclusion of this in the basic PPL(H) syllabus is counterproductive. I believe that it encourages inexperienced pilots to continue flying in marginal conditions for too long, instead of aborting the flight earlier. My view is that it does this because they are able to fly under the hood and maintain control during the training. They think this is the same as entering inadvertent IMC, so they are much less wary of getting into that situation in the future.[Someone could argue that the instructor should warn them about this, but we all know that some people are more affected by direct experience (misinterpreted) than by what they are told by an authority figure].

I understand what the authorities are trying to do with the 5 hours: give the student/future pilot enough IMC skills to maintain attitude in the event of inadvertent IMC, sufficient to do "something simple" like a 180 degree turn to clear the cloud. I am trying to remember when this was introduced into the PPL(H) syllabus. Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but I think it came into the helicopter PPL in the UK, when JAR took over from the UK CAA requirements. When JAR FCL was created a lot of stuff was just carried across from the fixed wing requirements into those for helicopters, without taking proper account of the differences. Basic IMC flying in a FW seems to me to be entirely different to helicopters.

Particularly in places like NW Europe, you can get caught out in a FW and have to fly IMC in a FW - helicopters are different

It is possible for an inexperienced but trained pilot to fly a FW IMC because of the basic stability of the aircraft - helicopters are different


However, assuming they fly an unstabilised small helicopter, I believe that the 5 hrs simulated IMC in a helicopter does not give the student that capability. It falsely gives a student confidence that they could manage in IIMC; this changes their perception of the risk of IIMC so they do not spend enough effort avoiding it. This is particularly true when you consider how perishable the skill of instrument flying is. Those of us who have IRs know that we have to develop our own personal currency rules to avoid going IFR in an IR equipped helicopter, unless our skills our really current. Unless you do something like offshore/North Sea, it is easy to get out of practice. This is even more important for the 5hr IMC PPL, who did his very limited IMC training several years ago.

I am sure that those of us who go on to acquire commercial licences, even IRs, find the simulated IMC flying a useful basis upon which to start the serious business of learning IMC proper. However, given the limited time available on the PPL course, I don't think it is a reason to keep it on the PPL course. Remember, it is not a requirement to have an AH or DG fitted to a helicopter for private flying VFR. [The same applies to VOR tracking, in my view. Nice to do, but of little or no relevance for the average PPL, and very few helicopters have them fitted].

There is one weakness (at least) for the argument of getting rid of simulated IMC in the PPL(H). When a pilot comes to do the night rating, simulated IMC becomes important. This is because it is possible to go properly inadvertent IMC at night. During the day IMC cannot sneak up on you unawares - if you go inadvertent IMC during the day it is because you have pushed too hard. During the day you cannot fly into a cloud without realising it was there. The same is not true at night. So, it makes sense to retain simulated IMC as part of the night rating: I guess the answer is to transfer the 5 hours into the night rating.

Commenting on a couple of things raised by others:

I love the practical approach of the FAA: be competent to use what is on the aircraft you fly - brilliant!

I would be absolutely opposed to the idea of an IMC rating for PPLs: it would be dangerous. The basic helicopter is not fit for the purpose of going IMC. Non-IR commercial pilots doing CAT at night do something similar to an IMC rating every 6 months to remain "current" for CAT night flying. However, that is in a stabilised twin fitted with an autopilot, AH/DG and radionav equipment and they are commercial pilots with significant experience.[Unless I misread the views of the regulators completely, it would not stand a chance of being permitted. Just look at how EASA are kicking about the current FW IMC rating in the UK].

[Incidentally, I think that the views expressed by a recent PPL(H) ECmech155 above that he would like to do an IMC rating on helicopters shows how our current training leaves a recent PPL(H) with the wrong view of the risks involved in going IMC. I normally avoid making critical references to the posts of others that might be taken personally, but that comment struck me as so eloquent of his misguided views.]

[rotarywise]

The use of Global Navigation Systems is included in Exercise 22c of the EASA Part-FCL PPL(H) syllabus although, regrettably, so is VOR and ADF.

[ec155mech]

@Helinut see thats exactly why I would like more practice in flying in IIMC. because I dont think the 5 hours is enough. I know there are risks.

my understanding of the FW IMC rating that it is something that can be used to get you out of a tight squeeze and down to the nearest aerodome.

I know some use it as an excuse to do other things but I dont think that was the intention of it. correct me please if I am wrong.

I know damn well not to go flying in marginal weather. and my FI has been extremely good at pointing this out.

[Helinut]

@EC155mech Thanks for not taking my thought too personally.

It is just so different flying a FW in IMC than an unstabilised helicopter. Set up properly the FW will hold its attitude all by itself.

As I understand the background to the FW IMC Rating it was created to get a FW pilot out of trouble if he was forced to go IMC (which can happen on X/C flights in a FW when the Met forecast is c??p). However, the rating privileges allow you to do far more than that. Firstly, they permit you to elect to go IFR (and plan to fly deliberately IMC). You can fly IFR approach and departure procedures (although to much higher minima than those who hold an IR). [All of that is only in UK airspace, and it does not extend to flying IFR in Class A airspace]. It would only be sensible to make full use of the privileges if you were in IMC flying practice.

I would encourage you to do some more simulated IMC, if you want to. However, if you were looking to do post-licence continuation training, I would also recommend being taken out in poor weather by your FI and being shown how to tell when the vis is getting too bad and how to make a timely flight abort. It is not very difficult, but like most things in flying better to be shown it first and fly it once with an instructor or similarly experienced pilot. As has been discussed elsewhere on PPRUNE recently (See the Bude Cornwall accident thread for example), a major part of this is making correct and timely decisions to avoid going inadvertent IMC in a hele.

[muffin]

Many years before I started rotary flying, I did an IMC rating. Training was fine under the hood and I passed the course with no problem. A few weeks later and full of confidence, I set out from Shoreham to the Channel Islands with wife and young son. Within 30 minutes from a blue sky start, I ran into solid cloud and a total whiteout for the rest of the trip - something I had never experienced. Thanks to the stability of an old C172 and an autopilot I lived to tell the tale but I sure learnt from that experience.

Then years later I did my PPL(H) in 1999 just before JAA. I therefore did not have to do any instrument flying, but decided to do a few hours later just to try it (dual of course) in a dynamically unstable platform. As a consequence I would never ever go anywhere near IMC in my R22!