Pittsextra

Hi a friend of mine is looking to do his PPL and I was going to let him use my AFE book set that I had when I was learning. Then it occured to me that was a few years ago; does anyone know if things have changed that much?

BackPacker

You mean, anything apart from the introduction of EASA FCL, the LPE, 30-hour TAFs, SkyDemon, new engine tech such as the Thielert/Centurion and the Rotax 912 iS, a whole new breed of aircraft since the introduction of the VLA class, changed medical requirements for the NPPL, the almost-demise of the IMC rating (but VFR-on-top is now allowed), imminent changes to the ICAO flight plan format and the introduction of new ATSOCAS services?

Nah, barely a thing.

Gertrude the Wombat

The usual answer is to buy a new Air Law book, but the laws of nature and the training fleet haven't changed so for all the rest it's fine to use the old ones. Oh, and I've heard that there's a new Human Factors exam these days, for which you won't have a book if you did it long enough ago.

Pittsextra

Thanks - appreciate it.

riverrock83

I believe I've got the current set. The communications section is out of date in the books - instead go straight to CAP 413.
Don't think there is anything EASA related in them - so the current ones are out of date that way too.

The exams are likely to be soon changed with the introduction of EASA FCL (with the rumours of an extra one, given the extra row in the licence application form) so the series is probably due a refresh.

So I'd say though that other than the airlaw / operational procedures / communications book, I'd be surprised if much has changed. Air still moves over wings in pretty much the same way that it did before EASA...

BackPacker

Probably not if EASA has its way...

Anyway, what I was trying to say (with just a light touch of sarcasm intended) is that the era we live in now is probably one of the three or four eras that sees the biggest change in GA in its past 100 years.

First era, just after the Wright Brothers first flew a powered aircraft.
Second and third era, WWI and WWII, plus the decade just after WWII.

Between about 1960 and about 1995, nothing much happened to GA, except in some unregulated domains such as gliding and experimentals: By about 1995-ish most of GA was still flying spamcans designed in the 1960, behind engines designed in the 1950s. And then a whole load of stuff happened, and is still happening, in a very short period of time.

- New airframes, made possible because of better computers (CFD) and the advent of composite materials. Lead by Diamond and Cirrus, but now a whole generation of new VLAs as well.
- New engine tech. The Rotax 912 and its successors, Thielert/Centurion, SMA and god knows what else is on the drawing boards. No more leaning, for starters. In its wake, new fuels used in GA: Jet-A, mogas, UL91. And in the future perhaps electric engines or hydrogen. Who knows?
- GPS!!! Starting with waypoint-only GPSs around the turn of the century we now have full moving map GPSs with full flight planning capabilities for a price equal to maybe three hours flying. SkyDemon being the ultimate example of this, but let's also mention the Garmin range, the Aware tool, PocketFMS and Air Nav Pro. Pretty soon (in the US: today) you can fly precision instrument approaches with GPS alone. (Side effect: Retirement of old navaids. NDBs today, maybe VOR and DME tomorrow?)
- Glass cockpits. Due to advances in chip technology, screen technology and some other things, glass cockpits have now become within reach of GA. Both in CofA aircraft (Garmin, Avidyne) and experimentals (Dynon). A lot of new GA aircraft are now flying with better equipped panels than all but the latest airliners.
- JAR-FCL and EASA (and the EU in general, and the Schengen agreement) making major changes to all legislative aspects of aviation. Most obvious for pilots is part-FCL and part-MED, but we've only recently finished the whole part-M thing, and EASA is working on part-OPS as well (although that's less relevant to us).
- Internet! Making a lot of flight planning tasks (submitting flight plans, accessing pre-flight information) incredibly easy. NOTAMs is no longer a big stack of papers pinned to the wall in the briefing room which everybody ignores, but convenient circles drawn on a moving map. Instead of trusting the Met Office 414/415 forms we now use multiple sources to second-guess them. Submitting a flight plan is a few mouse clicks instead of faxing a form to somewhere and hoping for the best. Heck, more and more discussions pop up about the best way to get in-flight internet. Not for entertainment, but for actual flight planning/execution purposes.

Those are just the major changes I can think of. Then there's the usual minor stuff like I mentioned. Changes to weather reporting, ATSOCAS services and so forth.

Now I agree that not all of this is necessarily going to have an impact on PPL training, but it definitely has had, and will have, an effect on PPL flying. (And that, in itself, is probably an indication that the PPL syllabus needs to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century instead of staying stuck in the 1970s. But that's another discussion.)

So if somebody asks:

forgive me for a little light-hearted sarcasm. There have never been more changes to GA and PPL flying than in the last 10 years or so.

Now about your PPL books. I don't know exactly how old these books are, but I'm pretty sure your friend has no clue whatsoever what has changed since the release of your set of books. He is, after all, a student. So are you going to vet your books beforehand, pointing out all the things that have changed so that he can go somewhere else to find the up to date information? Or are you going to recommend that, for a price which is a mere fraction of what he's going to spend on his PPL, he gets an up to date set of books?

In other words: "Penny wise, pound foolish", or accepting that a PPL is going to cost money?

Pittsextra

Yes fair enough, over sensitive; and I think maybe have a point re; the penny wise pound foolish comment. Thanks for the advices all.

On the subject of changes and away from my original question obviously a large element of the PPL concerns itself with navigation. Obviously the tools we use in that process have moved on and as you say things like Skydemon (which I use with an iPad and find very good) have moved the game on.

Do you think these will become the accepted "norm" in future?

BackPacker

I think you'll find that 90%+ of the PPLs who fly any significant distance will do so with the aid of GPS. I think you'll also find that 50%+ of the PPLs that are fresh out of training will not have learned how to use a GPS effectively.

In my opinion (but I'm sure that a lot will not agree), effective use of GPS should be a mandatory element of PPL training, and possibly even a mandatory element on the final skills test. I was very surprised that we recently had a discussion on here whether GPS was *allowed* on the QXC. In my opinion, it should be required. Even if it's only used to warn for CAS busts, which still happen way too often.

In contrast, if you do your regular car driving test in the Netherlands these days, demonstrating competence in the use of an in-car navigation system is now a mandatory element: Part of the route you need to drive on the exam will be GPS-based. Simply because studies have shown that most drivers will use some sort of in-car navigation, and in-car navigation has a significant safety benefit (and environmental too). But it takes a while to learn how to use it effectively. That's why it's now a mandatory element of your training.

phiggsbroadband

Hi Guys, I agree that you need to know how your GPS works, but you should also need to know the basic dead-reckoning and waypoint navigation techniques, as well as radio nav aids.

A group of us were doing our cross country training at the same time, on the same routes. One chap followed the wrong railway line out of Crewe, and was told via ATC that he had entered Manchester airspace, he was still lost even after being given vectors to the river Mersey, which he mistook for the river Dee !!... Quite a good training exercise I think !

Pete

BackPacker

I used to think that too, and I still agree that the basics (dead reckoning, map reading, leg timing, lost procedures and such) should be taught as always. But I'm not too sure about radio navigation aids anymore.

I was taught on a full-IFR, 1970s panel. ADF, two VOR/ILS/DME. One of the VOR/DMEs was actually an RNAV box where you could transpose the VOR/DME to some other location and use it from there, if you know what I mean. I've never seen that box since.

I was taught, and am still able to use, all that equipment. But the times I have used radio nav for real in the last years can be counted on one hand. There are virtually no en-route NDBs anymore, and VOR/DMEs are few and far between, and not always in convenient locations.

I also find that the aircraft I fly tend to have less and less traditional navaids, but all tend to have panel-mounted GPSs now. Mostly Garmin 430s at the moment, but other types are also present. The aircraft I fly most has only got a single VOR, no ADF, no DME. And the VOR is essentially only used to listen to the ATIS (which is on the VOR frequency at my home base), and to set the runway in use on the OBS ring as a reminder.

So I would not cry over radio navigation being moved to the IR syllabus, and the PPL syllabus concentrating on manual, basic navigation techniques, augmented by GPS.

thing

The Lightning used to have a similar piece of kit called offset TACAN that was absolutely brilliant. I've never fathomed why it wasn't widely adopted in GA.

banditb6

Have a look here PPL Training - afeonline.com, Europe's favourite online Pilot Shop, by
It will show you the release dates that you can compare with the books you have already?! The exams are changing from 7 to 9 exams although you can't take the 9 exams yet as EASA haven't released the papers to sit yet I believe? You think they would have sorted this before hand!

As for flying with GPS I don't think it should be mandatory to fly with it to stop infringments, seems stupid, surely better training would be better, although having the technology there and not using it also seems daft.

Does nobody like the feeling of arriving at the destination airfield using just a MAP!?

Pittsextra

Thanks comments re: books.

On GPS there is a body that is quite objectional and reverts to almost mocking tones when they say "hey what's wrong with a map" but that surely misses the point of what the objectives are.

At some point even a bespoke aeronautical chart would have been seen as high tech. Same goes for radio nav.

Surely we use the best tools that are available in terms of accuracy, least work loads and improved safety. If that relates to nav a GPS is by far better than a map.

I have to say actually for most local VFR flights we don't use anything but look out of the window - do we??!!

It seems very foolish to argue the case for old tech as a principle tool.