When things go wrong

[PompeyPaul]

Yesterday I flew down to the south coast with a decent weather forecast. When I got there it was horrible: hazy, misty just awful. I must admit I thought it was a little bit of "yuck" and I'd fly through it, I didn't.

Whilst still legal (in sight of sound, 4km visibility) it was way outside what I was confident in.

I was very happy to abandon my plog, tune the VOR to home as well as switch the GPS to "get me home". I followed both of these and was home safe and sound 15mins later.

However it dawned on me that whilst VFR flight is possible in those situations, VFR navigation is NOT.

Therefore, isn't flying on GPS basically flying on "instruments" ?

Yes I expect to be lectured on how I shouldn't have pressed on thnking it would be better etc. I think I should've turned back earlier but the forecast was ringing in my ears. I'd be more interested in discussing if GPS is flying on instruments and maybe we should avoid it all together if VFR ?

I still don't know what I'd do if GPS did not cross reference with what the VOR was saying.

[IO540]

To fly to the limits of PPL privileges (3k vis, night, etc) you do need instrument nav capability.

[Pilot DAR]

I have flown legal VFR in a helicopter with no radio navigation aids at all, in one and a half forward visibility. It's not easy, and you'd better be prepared, with a route you are familiar with, and a current chart, but it can be done. The helicopter gets the lower limit, because, as I learned first hand. When it gets really bad, you stop into a hover, turn around on the spot, and go back!

I agree that VFR flight with reference to the ground is difficult in very low vis, which is why, for my experience, weather briefings for those conditions will generally include a reference to VFR not recommended. Under certain circumstances, I will do it down to limits, if I know the route and the plane very well.

As for GPS in these situations, unless it is an IFR certified GPS, it probably has a placard somewhere which says that it is not intended as a primary reference for navigation - for this very reason. It can get you into situations you'll have trouble getting out of.

As VFR requires navigation with visual reference to the ground, there is a point at which the ground is moving too quickly for safe "watching where you're going", and it doesn't work well any more. (Cell phone towers com at you too quickly!:eek:)

Knowing when to turn around is a personally developed "limitation", often learned by leaving it too late once!

[RedsBluesGreens]

It's an interesting one.

I know so many PPLs who fly VFR solely with reference to the GPS. No sign of a plog or a chart! I always wonder what they would do if everything packed up on them or the GPS is inaccurate (as has been the case with a few documented zone infringements).

Now, I'll stop being an old fart for 5 minutes. The GPS is an incredibly useful tool to use, as it does improve situational awareness (providing it's working!) It can also reduce our workload as many GPSs can do all sorts of other clever things without us having to think about it. No wonder that so many pilots use them. It strikes me that perhaps it is the legislation that should be changing to meet the technological changes of today.

I am not saying we should all go out and fly IFR just on a GPS, but the situation you found yourself in does raise some interesting issues. The problems seem to arise when people use their GPS as if they're flying on instruments without looking outside the aircraft to make sure things add up.

[jollyrog]

Returning from Headcorn to Biggin last night at about 1700 local, Biggin ATIS was giving 10k & NSC. Forward visibility was rubbish, maybe only 1-2k, made worse by the sun. This is not uncommon heading back to Biggin in the evenings, the london smog can make it quite difficult.

I'm glad there's a VOR on the field.

[BackPacker]

As VFR requires navigation with visual reference to the ground,

Is that really the case, legally speaking? I know "VFR on top" is a contentious topic, and not legal in the UK unless you have an IMC or IR, but it definitely does exist in some countries. Also, not every type of airspace requires the VFR pilot to stay in sight of the surface. And the PPL syllabus does require some radio navigation so technically speaking a plain PPL pilot should be able to navigate that way. (Whether the PPL pilot is comfortable with tracking an NDB or VOR is a different matter.)

Obviously if you planned your VFR flight to be flown using ground references/VRPs, then you have to be able to see these, or change the plan. But if your flight was planned to make use of radio navigation of some sort (NDB, VOR, GPS), and planned above the MSA, you would not need to be in sight of the surface, would you?

I'm not questioning the practicality of this, just the legal aspect. Of course, practically speaking you've got to have a plan to deal with engine failures or the eventual arrival at your destination. But I can well imagine (and in fact, will admit to) flying over a layer of ground mist, temporarily obscuring all ground features, when you know that that mist layer will end in a few miles.

[RTN11]

You do not need to see the ground fetures, just fly headings and times until a decent feature is available, bearing in mind any high ground in the area.

A useful thing if you're up against what you hope is only a small patch of poor vis is tuning an ATIS for an airfield you hope is on the otherside, or failing that asking whoever you're talking to (london info etc) for the latest weather at a specific airfield. Note, this is only where the vis is 3-5k where you can legally still fly but not perhaps navigate by feature crawling. If you're up against very low cloud or a snowstorm, always best to turn back.

[maxred]

I think that may be a slightly different thing than groping around in the crap, at low level. VFR on top, can be delightful:oh:

It is an interesting situation, when you hit the wall of haze/mist/cloud/fog, call it what you will, press on possibly relying on a GPS:\

A scenario can be crossing the Channel, Special VFR, in haze. Basically it can be full IFR, and flying on instruments. I certainly find that I have to do one or other - fly on instruments ensuring scan remains there, with a nominal check on the magenta line, or partial visual, looking at GPS, and perhaps other aids tuned in. I do find it difficult to instrument fly, and attempt to follow a GPS. That may well be me however and my cockpits config, also hand flying as a pose to auto.

The poster did the correct thing in RTB, and again recently I hit the same scenario flying off Lands End. Clear VFR at Newquay, past St Ives, then a wall at Lands End. Heavy IFR if I had ploughed on. Turned back. Scilly Isles another day, and they were giving reasonable VFR.

[IO540]

The requirement to see some piece of the surface when flying under VFR applies to UK issued PPLs (post-JAA only, I think) unless accompanied by an IMCR or an IR.

The requirement applies worldwide.

[gasax]

I have a somewhat used navigation manual dated 194

Yep put together by those navigation types that ended up running the CAA!

But it has a really useful little set of cardboard templates -with circles of 3 to 10 miles which fit a half million chart. Great fun to use and quite eye opening.

I have found them,or rather the knowledge of them really useful in smoggy conditions - they make you look for simple landmarks, things which cannot be confused, simple line features, features which do not rely upon prolonged DR headings but which give you a definite confirmation every couple of minutes.

With this sort of approach - no you do not need instruments, just a bit of planning. But if you want to fly 100 or 250 miles on a DR heading and then find the 'right landmark' then you are heading into the terriority of the Kingsford Smith's, Francis Chichesters etc.

[madlandrover]

The requirement to see some piece of the surface when flying under VFR applies to UK issued PPLs (post-JAA only, I think) unless accompanied by an IMCR or an IR.

We know what you mean. But it's worth emphasising (having met this with people hour building!) that merely having someone appropriately qualified on board doesn't give the PIC anything extra. Either the PIC has to be appropriately qualified or someone else has to be PIC. All the more reason to bring in a simplified IR asap, we could even call it an IMC Rating!

[IO540]

Instead of "accompanied by" I should have said "the license includes" :)

[Jumbo Driver]

I have a somewhat used navigation manual dated 194

Yep put together by those navigation types that ended up running the CAA!


Gosh !! By my reckoning, that was when Clodius Albinus was Governor of Roman Britain ... that must be really worth something ... :D

JD
;)

[madlandrover]

Instead of "accompanied by" I should have said "the license includes"

Ah yes, becomes clearer when I read it the other way round. Note to self: Pinot Noir improves comprehension...

[gasax]

Its actually dated 1943 - whoops. But fascinating nonetheless. The scary thing is how little things have changed - in terms of methods.

But then visual navigation is visual navigation - but the methods for establishing where you are, when 'uncertain' of your position did not get any attention during my PPL training......

[Ellemeet]

i believe it is only a uk requirement!

although i seem to remember that vfr on top is considered an ifr flight by the faa for example.

in france i have reguarly experienced a milk soup kind of haze where technically you are oke for vfr .. but really ... it is dangerous.

it is THE main reason why i am installing tas in my ac.

i have to add to this that if you are on the ground it seems like a supernice day!!

[172_driver]

VFR on-top is acceptable in US for PPL holders.

As far as I know, no legal requirement to navigate using visual references VFR. Just need to fulfill visibility and cloud clearance limits. There are times, e.g. transitioning over large pools of water, when you simply can't do anything but using VOR/GPS or just dead reckoning until landfall. Personally I wouldn't base my navigation on VOR/GPS when a chart can be used. I see it as an art making my way forward with just a chart & compass. GPS and NAVAIDs are a great back-up, last resort, tools. But for my own pleasure if I get lost I would try to find myself on the chart first. That's me, other's opinions are respected.

[IO540]

It is like I wrote i.e. you need to see the surface when flying VFR if

1) Your license is UK issued, and
2) You have neither an IMCR or an IR

The airspace or the country are irrelevant.

So e.g. an FAA PPL holder can fly VFR out of sight of surface in the UK. Currently he can do it in a G-reg too, due to the automatic validation of ICAO licenses (due to end April 2012, AIUI).

[maehhh]

I don't really see the navigation issue... why wouldn't you want to use RNAV as
primary navigation as lang as you maintain VMC?

Since apparently things always work a litte different in CAA-Land (VFR on-top, IMC-Rating,...) I can not talk for the UK
but at least in Germany RNAv is part of the PPL syllabus and after a couple of hours almost everbody should be
confident in flying/intercepting a radial?



maehhh

[Intercepted]

I can not talk for the UK
but at least in Germany RNAv is part of the PPL syllabus and after a couple of hours almost everbody should be
confident in flying/intercepting a radial?


In UK, students are sent on their solo cross-country qualifier without knowing how to switch on the VOR and/or ADF.

[Exascot]

Descended through cloud in a small twin on one occasion on a VOR fix. I was below MSA (very naughty I know) which was high just because of a very tall communication mast in the area. I was pretty confident of my fix but burst out of cloud with the thing 1 mile ahead in my 12! Did I learn from this? Probably not.

[bravobravo74]

Although a nice idea it's completely unrealistic to expect pilots flying VFR to use GPS as a backup to visual navigation the way that publications tell us that we should.

My interpretation of the 'proper' technique is that if you fly with a GPS it should only be used to confirm the integrity of any dead-reckoned position. With the airspace system the way it is in the UK and the ambiguity of compass and stopwatch navigation I can't imagine anyone actually doing this.

My opinion is that if you want to navigate primarily using headings and times it's best not to activate the route function in your GPS. All that will happen by having a line displayed on the screen is that you'll see that you're off-course and then turn towards the line, thus undermining all of your calculations and surrendering to the more instantaneous source of information.

If you want to navigate VFR using GPS as your primary method then that's fine. Have a line on a chart and record your fixes periodically in case the unit stops working and you have to revert to DR or feature tracking. Under normal circumstances however there should be no taboo in turning right if the GPS indicates that you're left of track and vice versa.

[Pilot DAR]

Pre GPS, was LORAN C, which some of us thought was a navigational miracle, (until we tastes GPS!). Before LORAN C, and for flights in the north where VOR's and ADF's were not available, there was dead reckoning. You go good, or you got lost. Plan to fly into a lake you've never before seen, to get out the wreck of the guy who had not seen it before last week. That's where it is, go get it. That's when you draw a line on a chart, and the 10 mile marks, and follow it like a hawk. If you get off course, all the lakes look the same, and there are no other features which distinguish your location. As you fly over small and large lakes, whose appearance resembles the blue spot on the chart, you track your progress, and forecast your arrival time to the destination lake. You arrive on time to a shoreline, and then wonder if it the right lake. You circle, and find what you're looking for, and set up your approach. You're going to have to do it all again backward in a day or so.

GPS seems to have made that a thing of the past - of course I'll follow the magenta line!

I brought a 182 back nearly all the way across Canada last year. Across central Saskatchewan (which is effectively featureless) in less than ideal, though still VFR weather, the panel GPS, then both of my hand held Garmins could not receive enough satellites to create a fix - for over an hour! There were no VOR's to receive at my low altitude. I saw a road, and turned south (toward more civilization) and followed it. I continued south to an intersection, and continued east. (forgot to signal turn).

I've had four or five events over the years, when the satellite geometry prevented a useable fix for many minutes at a time. Be ready, just in case, but it's rare...

Some technology just makes things better forever - GPS is one of those....

[maxred]

There is absolutely no question that GPS has made navigation clearer, simpler and is a fabulous benefit. However, as with everything it is how it is used. If an individual builds his experience, ratings and navigation skills, then with that knowledge GPS can be utilised in so many ways. The workload being removed.

Now, an individual, flying VFR, with limited skill level in navigation, utilising the GPS as sole reference, and not even a map in the cockpit, yes I have witnessed them, and gets into muck, well the ducks start to mount.

I was lucky, I learned all my navigation in a Chipmunk, with a map and stop watch, and no aids, not even a hand held GPS.

Now, on most of my flights, I have most aids ''on'', with my passenger following the map, and keeping an understanding of where we are.

Some 18 months ago I had an electrical failure, 6500', all went including the GPS, however, the map was being followed, and we descended on track into an airfiled that was some 20 miles on the nose. Now, if I had been reliant solely on the GPS, things may have gotten trickier.

I also asaked some fellow pilots, fairly recently, to map read and plog, on a trip of some 225 miles. They did not have a clue, and one had 300 hours:\

[maehhh]

In UK, students are sent on their solo cross-country qualifier without knowing how to switch on the VOR and/or ADF.

Are you serious? :confused:

[Pace]

That used to be the case 20 plus years ago. Instructors wanted pure VFR and no cheating using aids of any sort.
Questions like "can youi show me how to use the ADF" were met with comments like "you need to learn them properly before using them" etc.
In some ways it wasnt a bad thing as you concentrated on pure map and eyeball flying.

Pace

[IO540]

When I did my solo XC in 2000/2001 (?) I was not supposed to use any radio nav.

I actually knew VOR/DME stuff (it's hardly rocket science) but it was wiser to not tell anybody...

The total ban on non-visual nav is pretty recent. The skills test in 2001 included just a VOR/VOR position fix.

You got to remember that the bulk of the PPL community is very static. Look around at your local airfield. The average age of the regulars is probably 60+. So most regulars are flying on stuff taught 20-30 years ago.

[Pace]

You got to remember that the bulk of the PPL community is very static. Look around at your local airfield. The average age of the regulars is probably 60+. So most regulars are flying on stuff taught 20-30 years ago.

10540

At 93 does that mean you started flying 70 yrs ago? As one who is not in the 60 plus age group I would think it depends on the age you started flying? Some 60 plus may have started flying a couple of years back some 40 years back!!
It is sad if the average age of regulars is 60 plus as that means that GA is dying

Pace

[Pull what]

In UK, students are sent on their solo cross-country qualifier without knowing how to switch on the VOR and/or ADF.

Just wondering how long you have been the chief inspector of flying schools, I dont think we have met.

[IO540]

It is sad if the average age of regulars is 60 plus as that means that GA is dying

I think that's been the case for a very long time, for mainstream GA.

One sees the same comments in the USA - the average visitor age at OSH goes up a year every year...

[liam548]

A lot of GA is stuck in the past imo, the whole whizz wheel brigade make things less attractive to younger generations who use technology.

Similar to Ham radio, although this has improved in recent years with the removal of the morse test and now there are many of the younger end getting back into it.

[Lyman]

PP

If you were at all times legal, and that apprehensive, you have a problem.

Challenge should inspire confidence and focus.

[Intercepted]

Quote:
In UK, students are sent on their solo cross-country qualifier without knowing how to switch on the VOR and/or ADF.
Just wondering how long you have been the chief inspector of flying schools, I dont think we have met.

We have not, and I don't think your flying school will need a visit from an inspector. By the sound of it, it's already close to perfect.

[maxred]

A lot of GA is stuck in the past imo, the whole whizz wheel brigade make things less attractive to younger generations who use technology.

Here we go again, the fuddy duddy's have killed GA, and spoiled it all for the youthful generation x.

My buttocks.

If you look further through this Rumour Network, you will read thousands of threads and comments about how LESS SAFE aviation is with technology. Reams of discussion on ''lack of hand flying skills'', drilling perfectly good aeroplanes into the ground due to some half wit not being able to detect an onset stall.


With technology comes differing challenges, the recent SR22 into the drink off Jersey, go read the report:\

Sorry, basic flying, with basic knowledge and training is a must, otherwise yes GA will be dead.

What was that a spin, what do you mea...........

[IO540]

It's not that clear cut, and one cannot dispose of complex topics with simple comments.

Sure one needs basic skills, and the schools are paid to teach you those. Many schools fail in that, but there are no easy solutions to that. The CAA does very little to help.

Spin training? The only phase of flight where one's speed should be anywhere near low enough to stall, let alone spin, is on the final approach, or especially the base to final turn, and then you are too low to recover. Speed control is essential in all phases of flight, for all the standard reasons, but spin recovery is unlikely to add to safety in normal GA operations.

I don't think anybody thinks light GA over over-reliant on technology. Airbuses, yes, probably the automation is overdone, some of it has been implemented in a debatable way (AF447 etc) and it is a fact that almost no Airbus pilot fully understands the various systems and their various modes, and evidently it has bitten a few of them... But light GA? No. Cockpit automation is absolutely wonderful. It drives cockpit workload right down, it enables us to navigate more accurately than even ATC can make out on their radar, it has transformed the ability to go places with confidence and safety. And it has transformed flight in IMC from a once haphazard exercise where a pilot knew his position to within a few miles at best (airliners got away with it largely because they were high enough until within ATC radar range) to a precise method where you can pop out of cloud on a GPS approach and the runway centreline is right in front of you. Sure some people don't know how to work it, but what is one to do about that? Well, there are some solutions, like a Type Rating for a GPS :ugh: but do you really want regs like that?

I agree with the comment

A lot of GA is stuck in the past imo, the whole whizz wheel brigade make things less attractive to younger generations who use technology.but that is another broad topic... how to make GA more attractive to today's younger people who have the money but are very strategic as to where they spend it, and where they spend their time. GA needs a lot more women, for a start ;) But that won't happen all the time it is dominated by knackered 30 year old rusting wreckage which you have to climb into like some playground contraption...

[Pace]

10540

Cannot agree with you on modern technology eliminating basic skills and experience.
Anyone who relies on technology is playing a dangerous game.

One of the Citations I fly is so advanced we are graced with a King 90B GPS and no FMC :ugh:
Yes the aircraft is RVSM and hence the old girl struggles up to FL390 to mix it with the EasyJets of this world passing 1000 feet above or below but even the autopilot has its funny ways and workarounds.

The Senecas I fly are more advanced with one! wait for it sporting a Garmin 530!!! but they are less than half the speed"

The problem with any of this singing dancing technology is it has a habit of letting you down!

Then you are left with your basic skills good for the soul! I am for pilots not aeroplane drivers! That is handling pilots who can smell the ice in the clouds!
That doesnt come from technology!

As for a 30 yr old beat up and smelly C150 no the hirer might not like spending his hard earned cash on such a machine but it wont do him any harm flying basic.

The Cirrus SR22 I flew was so singing and dancing I felt I was sitting in front of a computer game not an aircraft. " You have crashed game reset".

Pace

[mary meagher]

Pompey Paul, you did the right thing! Return to base is sound thinking; too many press on regardless, and people get hurt.

As for that singing and dancing Cirrus you flew, Pace, have you read the accident report about the guy that got unsure of his position near Banbury not long ago? While trying to push the buttons to get himself headed on a reciprocal, found himself pointing nose down at an all green picture, and pulled the parachute handle.

What's it doing now?

[maxred]

I flew a friends 32 Saratoga, full Avidyne, full glass cockpit. I flew it because he does not know how to work it, technology overload, and yes, he had been trained. He was basically afraid of it, and gues what, the 500k or whatever asset sits on the ground, 5 years old with a 100 hours on it.:sad:

Now, I agree IO that this a seperate debate, and is a very large and complex issue, and has been discussed at length, for years now. However, your assertion that the technology is wonderful, and gets everyone in the place, where the want, at the touch of a button, is NOT backed up statistically - vis a vis incursions, crashes, CFIT - the accident rate appears level, therefore this technology has not increased safety. Of course you now get into the whole debate about traing/spin avoidance/GPS etc etc.

I have over a 1000 hrs in many differing types, and I was not comfortable with the full glass - ok I was not trained on it, but, we still managed with all that technology to go into a Danger Area - and got bollocked:mad:

[Fuji Abound]

I am very much a glass devotee and have many hundreds of hours on Avidyne and Garmin.

I think the basic system is pretty intuitive and should be well within the grasp of any pilot as long as they are prepard to invest a little time. Using ground based training software is a very good way of going about this and there are some excellent packages for both the G1000 and Avidyne.

It is without doubt a step up to use the sytem confidently for IFR ops - there are a few gotchas and when the pace hots up during a procedure perhaps because the procedure does not progress according to plan it is not the time to be pressing the wrong buttons.

However I think with any system of this sort, their are those who are going to be a lot more comfortable than others. If you use computers all day I suspect you will be in the first group, and if you have a natural fear of technology and have always lived with a conventional six pack I suspect you will find the transition much more difficult.

In my experience the problem is not so much with the displays; I think nearly everyone with a little time gets quickly accustom to the different ways in which the data is presented but the problems arise with understanding how to transition between the various functions.

[Pace]

Fuji

I must admit to not liking full glass displays but prefer a mixture of the two.
The one Citation is graced with a King 90b which is a pain.
I also fly with the Garmin 530 and that plus conventional is my ideal.
The only down side with the Garmin is its inability to load airways points automatically. I would like the entry point, airway and exit point and everything inbetween loads.
The Cirrus which had all the bells and whistles was overkill in my mind and there was something unreal and detached about the whole thing.
My main concern is becoming to hooked into these systems, relying on them to fill in gaps in basic flying experience.
I can remember flying a beat up old wreck of a Citation from India to the UK.
You didnt need a simulator with that aircraft as it gave you problems real world!
When I collected it the Indians assured me it had a global database which I soon found out was untrue.
After Saudi there was no more data meaning we had to load every point enroute with Lat Longs.
Stuff I call thinking out of the box and good for the soul flying.
It worries me somewhat with pilots who rely too much on displays and ignore their basic flying skills because one day they may need them.

Pace

[maxred]

I also think it is horses for courses stuff. Certain types, and how you operate them, will work well with advanced systems. Obviously the development and technological advances available at an ever increasing pace, is welcomed. However, aviation is still about the basics, regardless of size, lift/drag/thrust etc. Also knowing where you are and at what attitude relevent to everything else.

I agree, the glass stuff makes me feel somewhat detached - I do not have enough experience, nor training, to tell if I would warm to it.

That said, this thread examined VFR at low level in crap, and aware of visual clues. It drifted into GPS, possibly as sole reference, and as the units themselves say - NOT TO BE USED AS PRIMARY NAVIGATION AID.

I think there are those that do use them, do not see the need to carry a map, nor stopwatch, and have limited knowledge of VOR/NDB/DME etc. Good luck to them, it is not intended as any criticism, just it would not be my choice, particularly when carrying pax.

IMHO this can lead to trouble. I am also concerned when certain people see the old stuff as precisely that, stating technology forever. Again, I think this is somewhat silly.

[Fuji Abound]

Pace

I dont think I really mind any combination, but it seems to me if the cockpit is glass the more elements that are combined the better. The earlier G1000s and Avidynes had seperate autopilots and the Avidyne, 430s and a conventional transponder. It made sense to combine these if only because you are dealing with a single piece of kit. Of course from a redundancy view point it may make less sense - with a pair of 430s at least you know that is enough to get you home if both screens fail.

I am not sure how reliant or not you become. It is true that it becomes more difficult to go back to a conventional cockpit because the information at your finger tips is unsurpassed. Gone will be the moving map, the plates, GPS (although not many will fly without GPS of some sort these days), traffic, etc. There is no doubt in my mind flying an IAP with a six pack is a much more difficult task.

In that respect some basic skills will be quickly lost but I am inclinded to say - so what, if that is what you fly so be it.

Of course I agree when the whole lot packs up it is a different matter but in the event that the whole system fails, you are not left with very much anyway - it is a real emergency.

At the light GA end in VMC even with the most integrated glass you are left with a AI, compass and with luck a radio and hand held GPS from your flight bag. That should be more than enough, and if it is, some sole searching of basic skills is warranted. A complete failure in IMC is a different matter; clearly it is well worth rehearsing what you would do, but at the least almost certainly it will involve getting as much help as you can from ATC and landing as soon as possible.

[IO540]

Pace - I think you are disagreeing with something I didn't say :)

Also

It worries me somewhat with pilots who rely too much on displays and ignore their basic flying skills because one day they may need them.I don't see a connection between modern nav systems (which basically give you accurate LNAV, and possibly VNAV) and "basic flying skills". of course you need the latter, otherwise you will plummet as soon as you slow down the Citation to 30kt on long final :)

maxred -

I flew it because he does not know how to work it, technology overload, and yes, he had been trained. He was basically afraid of it, and gues what, the 500k or whatever asset sits on the ground, 5 years old with a 100 hours on itWhat does this tell us?

It tells us that a particular pilot could not get his head around his systems. How many people are shocked?

When I got my TB20 in 2002, I never found an instructor who knew how to drive the KLN94, or the HSI. I just flew around Kent at 4700ft while I sussed it all out ;)

This sounds elitist, but it is a fact that loads of pilots who can get a PPL will have problems understanding complex avionics.

I know a chap, who owned a rather pricey plane (7 figures; I am not identifying him more than that) who never got his head around the avionics in that plane. Eventually he bought a rather slower and simpler 7 figure plane :) He had hundreds of hours, with a "live-in" instructor.

And getting one's head around advanced avionics assumes the pilot can dig out an instructor who knows this stuff, which on the UK GA scene is a huge uphill struggle. The expertise in this department is awfully low. When I did my JAA IR ground school, very recently, I had three teachers there. 2 were long-retired ex RAF navigators. One did not have any apparent current knowledge. The other thought that a KNS80 was state of the art. How many years ago was a KNS80 discontinued??? The 3rd was an ex airliner flight engineer, retired maybe 20 years. All lovely chaps, but decades behind. As was the outrageously irrelevant IR syllabus. This is the face of the establishment training FUTURE AIRLINE PILOTS. Plus any GA pilots who need an FTO process (IR, or a CPL). Go figure....

In the USA, they have proper courses on this stuff. Over here, ther eis almost nothing. I gather TAA run some, for their Cirrus sales, and obviously they need to.

However, your assertion that the technology is wonderful, and gets everyone in the place, where the want, at the touch of a button, is NOT backed up statistically - vis a vis incursions, crashes, CFIT - the accident rate appears level, therefore this technology has not increased safetyTechnology makes it far easier to execute technically challenging flights. That's a fact.

That a similar # of people fly into hills tells us very little, because we have no data on total hours flown, etc.

Also, most CFITs seems to be done by people doing "silly stuff" even though they have IRs. We have done some recent ones (N2195B, N403HP, the recent G-reg one in S. France) as far as we could have. Very few people (none I recall off hand) have recently done a CFIT where they flew proper IFR procedures.

Once you depart from proper IFR procedures (and it is those that modern avionics assist with so much) then all bets are off, and about the only modern thing which will help you is synthetic vision ;) And that will stop working soon enough if you fly in the bottom of some canyon ;)

and I was not comfortable with the full glass - ok I was not trained on it, but, we still managed with all that technology to go into a Danger AreaWell there you are. You were not trained on it. Why did you get airborne? You should have stayed on the ground until you spent some hours going through the systems. I know some people will drive off a rental car without first finding out where the indicators, lights, wipers etc are, but I wouldn't. So why do it in a plane, which is much less forgiving, unless you can engage the autopilot, which you probably can't either :)

Modern avionics are not complex in the sense of needing a maths degree or anything like that, but they are on the level of a full-featured piece of PC software; for example Photoshop. Somebody who can use Photoshop (fairly fully I mean) and understands principles of IFR flight (MEAs, routings, aircraft performance, etc) will be fine. But it is obvious that this rules out a fair chunk of the PPL community.

The "problem" is that anybody can buy a new G1000 aircraft and fly off in it... Like you did. There is no solution to that.

[maxred]

IO - I think we are getting way off track here:oh:

The debate, if one is to be had, is VFR with ref to the ground. In muck.

The secondary debate that emerged is technology/glass cockpit. This is a current preference, not a dig at GPS wandering or glass vs steam:uhoh:

You relish the technology, others either do not, nor wish to.

As you state the vast majority of GA either cannot, through poor, inadequate training, grasp the advanced designs, or alternatively do not wish to use it. But this was the issue at hand. The dangers of either using the equipment with poor understanding, or utilising it as a primary nav technique, which is also foolish.

[IO540]

You relish the technology

Do I ? I fly a plane with 1990s avionics and would not fit 'glass' if you did it for free.

The dangers of either using the equipment with poor understanding, or utilising it as a primary nav technique, which is also foolish.

The bit in my bold is surely nonsense. Times have moved on.