Pilot Nav

[CoffmanStarter]

I was surprised to hear from our good friend Mach2 (on another thread) that Computers Dead Reckoning are no longer issued to EFT studes, nor are they taught how to use one. IMHO the CDR is the most visual/practical way to demonstrate the Triangle of Velocities ... so I'd be genuinely interested to learn how the "art" of Pilot Nav is now taught by the RAF and how studes are encouraged to develop the all important skill of keeping a 3D mental picture going during flight.

In asking this question ... I happened across the free NATS tool for civvy VFR Nav ... great fun to play with ... but does this technology "take away" more than it "gives" ?

NATS Sky Demon Light (http://www.skydemonlight.com)

I appreciate that once you have mastered the art of Pilot Nav then more sophisticated kit for Op Nav/Targeting is essential/invaluable ...

Best ...

Coff.

[Oceanic815]

I think you'll find that these days it is all MDR (mental dead reckoning).

At least that's what we taught on the UAS EFT Syllabus.

[Pontius Navigator]

MDR can be surprisingly accurate generally over short distances of, say, less than an hour. For long flights the traditional whizz wheel may be better but really these only occur after training when more sophisticated planning tools can be quicker and more accurate.

I was given a program at Finningley which could resolve the navigational computations very quickly. I modified it to include all the standard routes. Selecting a given route, inputting wind, and bingo a flt pln that took only as long as it took to copy the numbers including fuel.

I then modified it again so that I could enter a student's data, including errors, to confirm that subsequent calculations were correct even if based on incorrect data. I could analyse a sortie in short order and give a same-day debrief.

[just another jocky]

You may have noticed that the RAF no longer employ new navigators. Navigation is now done, on the front line, by computers. As has been mentioned, EFT Pilot Nav is MDR.

[Courtney Mil]

Navigation is now done, on the front line, by computers.

Well, that's true, but it's not new. However, it could also be argued that it is also done by pilots. We had great nav kit in the F3, but when I was leading a flypast (or something equally operationaly vital), I would still use an IP-tgt map, the compass and a stopwatch. Admittedly not my Dalton Computer, but then I never really had spare pocket space or time for that.:cool:

[Just This Once...]

Ah Courtney, but what if you had an extra decimal place on the F3 nav kit and anyway, I thought all air defence timings ended with 'ish?

Seem to remember a certain fighter shop that had clocks with no minute hands.

:ok:

[Courtney Mil]

Yeah, can't argue with that, much as I'd like too. That's why I mentioned flypasts - the one time I was expected to be on time. Otherwise, as you suggest, take it as it comes. :ok:

[CoffmanStarter]

Chaps ...

I was taught Mental DR ... the point I'm making is that to work through a full Nav Flight Planing exercise, when beginning ones flying traing, provides skills that are "foundational" for the future ... giving you the confidence to challenge instrumentation ... clearly if the ground/on-board kit goes AWOL you have at least the ability to do it from scratch ?

I'm not suggesting one whips out the Dalton while doing 480Kts at 500' ... not even those dinky little Daltons issued the the Harrier boys :ok:

[Lima Juliet]

Coff

I agree. They use whizz-wheels on the UK and EASA PPL syllabus and it allows students to get a 'feel' of the triangle of velocities and makes for better MDR.

The fact that whizz-wheels do not feature on the EFT syllabus maybe just another reason why the CAA and EASA will not offer accreditation of our skill sets towards civil licences - what an own goal! :ugh:

LJ

[Onceapilot]

Basic Nav is important for the Military. New "all singing" planning systems are great but, when things go wrong, the Captain must know how to use formation burn rate, distance and average groundspeed etc to lead a team in difficult circumstances. Good luck to those in the future who can enter the variables into the computer fast enough (unless it goes "tits" then you are screwed).


OAP

[BEagle]

Having had an ex-Valley pilot attempt to take a PPL Skill Test with no idea about flight planning beyond 'MDR', I've viewed the idea of MDR for pre-flight planning with much concern. Although as means of gross error checking proper pre-flight planning, it has some merit.

MDR is great for in-flight use, for example, when working out heading and time to a diversion. But it is completely inadequate for pre-flight planning in low speed light aircraft, which are far more affected by the W/V than are fast jets aircraft.

It's the whole dumbing down of flying instruction yet again. When I went through CFS, visual navigation was very poorly taught indeed - and that was almost 25 years ago. I was taught to a much higher standard when I was a UAS student back in the early 1970s than I was as a student instructor at CFS in the early 1990s. When I reached my UAS as a QFI, it was obvious that most other QFIs hated teaching navigation, basically because it required far too much effort on their behalf. Much easier just to bog off and do yet another GH/circuits trip in the local area play pen....:rolleyes:

Pre-flight MDR is insufficiently accurate for the PPL Skill Test. For which an applicant may use any planning system he/she wishes, whether that be the whizz-wheel, an electronic computer, Internet-sourced software or whatever. All of which will reduce the likelihood of pre-flight planning errors. Faffing about trying to apply MDR before flight in an EFTS Plastic Pig is completely nugatory, when proper planning is often quicker.....

For the time being, I've agreed to maintain existing NPPL accreditation for QMPs and EFTGs, but I'm keeping a close eye on NST failure rates....:hmm:

[Lima Juliet]

Wise words BEagle. I too am shocked at the graduates of EFT and UAS types - sometimes I wonder what they have been taught at all...

[CoffmanStarter]

Thanks chaps ...

Sad to hear that such "basics" aren't considered of sufficient value to be taught anymore :(

I guess I was lucky to be taught by a QFI (John Shelton RIP) who placed great importance in such basic skills ... and who enjoyed teaching these skills :)

Best ...

Coff.

[VinRouge]

Onceapilot, if it goes wrong, most of us have iPhones. With built in GPS.

Not to mention most aircraft having one, two or even 4 independent ring laser gyros, updatable with GPS, radar or nav aid fixing.

[finestkind]

Mannnny mannny years ago whilst doing a DR Nav the co, way before GPS etc pulled out a calculator with what he had set up to calculate PNR, SFC etc ( now is probably known as an app). When the initial query of what he was doing was explained about his wiz bang calculator and therefore why he was not using the whizz wheel my next question of what would happen when his battery ran out was met with a slightly contemptuous look. He then pulled out of his bag a fist full of batteries. Not to be put in my place I than asked what would happen if the almighty calculator blew a tube. After receiving a further contemptuous look to put me back in place he pulled out another calculator. The basic art of DR mental or NAV was being replaced by technology and no longer required the back up of the operator learning/knowing the art of manual calculation.

[Brian Abraham]

One solution to nav issues.

The pilot was sitting in his seat and pulled out a .38 revolver. The navigator eyed him suspiciously as he placed it on top of the instrument panel.

After an uncomfortable pause, the pilot asks him, “Do you know what I use this for?”

“No, sir. What’s it for?” the navigator asked, even though he was pretty sure what was up.

“I use this on navigators who get me lost!” the pilot said.

The pilot smirked, and turned back to his flying.

A few minutes later, the navigator proceeded to pull out a .45 and place it on his chart table, in full view of the pilot, but he didn’t say anything.

The pilot finally had to ask: “What’s that for?”

“To be honest, sir,” the navigator replied, “I’ll know we’re lost long before you will.”

[BEagle]

Onceapilot, if it goes wrong, most of us have iPhones. With built in GPS.

Not to mention most aircraft having one, two or even 4 independent ring l@ser gyros, updatable with GPS, radar or nav aid fixing.

In flight, perhaps. The discussion is actually about pre-flight planning! I contend that, for speeds of less than about 210 KIAS, MDR is insufficiently accurate when either a whizz-wheel, nav calculator or software can provide an accurate answer in next to no time.

[Wensleydale]

I'll wager that the MDR syllabus does not include the discipline of three position line fixing manual air plot! Things have changed somewhat!:sad:

[CoffmanStarter]

Is AP3456 Vol 7 still in issue or is everything now "on-line" ?

[just another jocky]

BEagle...for EFT, MDR is absolutely accurate enough, as long as it is calculated and applied correctly. For legs of <10mins in lengths, at speeds of 120kts, as long as you choose a decent waypoint, you can be considerably off heading and still not get lost. So it suffices for EFT. There are only just enough hours in the syllabus for the students to become adept enough at it to go solo. And I'd argue that it is much quicker than the method you propose in pre-flight planning. Takes 30 secs to MDR pre-flight plan - mean the winds off MOMIDS & write it on yr map. Calculations are done in the air.

All (?) front line ac now use integrated GPS/INS computer controlled nav solutions and as such, understanding the intricacies of those systems is surely far more important.

I'm afraid this all sounds a little "old fuddy-duddy, this is the way we used to do it and it was good enough for us." Not aimed specifically at you BEags, but it does get a little irritating when a lot of ex-RAF start 2nd-guessing those currently in-service thinking they know better.

I guess this forum must irritate me a lot then. :rolleyes: :E

[just another jocky]

Is AP3456 Vol 7 still in issue or is everything now "on-line" ?

Everything is online these days. As soon as anything is printed it is 'uncontrolled'. They do CD's of 3456 still I think.

[CoffmanStarter]

Thanks JAJ ... Sorry for being an irritant ... this was not my intention ... neither was I attempting to criticise current training methods. My original post was prompted by a genuine interest :ok:

I'll go and walk the dog now :(

Coff.

[BEagle]

For legs of <10mins in lengths, at speeds of 120kts, as long as you choose a decent waypoint, you can be considerably off heading and still not get lost. So it suffices for EFT.

Perhaps. But when applied to a 50 nm PPL Skill Test navigation leg at 90 KIAS, it simply isn't sufficiently accurate to achieve the required limits.

MDR drift calculation is a very necessary skill. But not for accurate ground speed calculation.

When we are in the business of minimising airspace busts, it is essential that all potential sources of pre-flight planning error are minimised, so that the only corrections needed in flight are for actual W/V change.

Leon Jabachjabicz, I concur!

[just another jocky]

@CS - no worries m8, not intended to insult anyone.

@BEags - and I agree that for a PPL, and a 50nm leg at 90KIAS, MDR would not be suitable. But for EFT, MDR is suitable. :ok:

[Lima Juliet]

JAJ

I have witnessed both ex-EFT and ex-UAS students struggling with UK/EASA PPL syllabi - they have also become better aviators from the experience. These guys/gals have 50-80 odd mil hours whereas the average civvy PPL stude achieves there UK PPL at ~45hrs (min 32hr course) and EASA at ~60hrs (min 45hr course) - what the hell are they teaching the mil studes!?

Your quote, to me, is quite revealing:
BEagle...for EFT, MDR is absolutely accurate enough, as long as it is calculated and applied correctly. For legs of <10mins in lengths, at speeds of 120kts, as long as you choose a decent waypoint, you can be considerably off heading and still not get lost. So it suffices for EFT. There are only just enough hours in the syllabus for the students to become adept enough at it to go solo. And I'd argue that it is much quicker than the method you propose in pre-flight planning. Takes 30 secs to MDR pre-flight plan - mean the winds off MOMIDS & write it on yr map. Calculations are done in the air.

All (?) front line ac now use integrated GPS/INS computer controlled nav solutions and as such, understanding the intricacies of those systems is surely far more important.


I cannot fathom, as a FJ mate with 1700-odd hours on LINS/GPS systems, how you are going to teach anything of use on Typhoon/Tornado with a Grob's 'system'. Surely, we don't want to build a cadre of HUD/LINS/GPS junkies and want to inculcate the basic skills that have lived with us throughout our flying careers - that has been the best thing about the T1 in recent years in that it has built capacity into our current cadre of jet jocks.

I used to find teaching the vagaries of the Tornado Main Computer and its systems a doddle to today's generation - computers are second nature, whereas whizz-wheels/maps/compass and 'feel' is not (IMHO).

Finally, I heard a horror story of a stude getting lost around Lincolnshire recently - leaving CWZ, only to bong off of CGY and then end up orbiting Humberside asking for help and delaying a commercial departure. Is this really the reputation that the RAF wants to have? No, Sir...

LJ

[Tiger16]

'Twas a decade ago when the powers-that-be told us, the few remaining SH navs, that our skills wouldn't be required in the new world order...

'Twas with some dismay, then, that last year I watched a formation of SH - scheduled for a day VFR trip in CAVOK conditions over familiar UK terrain - cancel their sortie because the No.2's GPS was u/s! To all those who've expressed concerns regarding the over-reliance of new aircrew on technology: you are, without a shadow of a doubt, 100% correct...

[just another jocky]

Leon...I don't have time now to make a point about yr post, except to say I disagree (and I have 3500hrs on the same ac :)).

Sorry. :)