There seem to be two types of navigation under discussion, yours for teaching the PPL and mine for after the PPL. Yours is based on an accurate flight plan which is modified if necessary by adding bits on or taking them off the computed figures in response to changing conditions and that should be fine for a triangular route lasting 1.5-2hrs, but for a 200-300 ml navex with varied weather?
Mine is less accurate at the planning stage, but only because I deliberately use MDR to get the practice. But that changes in the air with the ability to get an accurate up-to date wind vector. Instead of modifying existing calculations, you do them again using MDR, or the instruments will give you the relevant heading and groundspeed, to get to the next waypoint. Thanks to the new, large clear design (which gives. a visual appreciation as well as a quantitative evaluation of the wind vector) repetition and monitoring of the wind vector is an easy task. Yes you have to fiddle with the instruments, but at least they are easy to fiddle with, unlike the Dalton and they measure distances and bearings on the map.
Point taken about MDR for learners. I suppose they’re near overload at the testing stage but later on?
Just daring to try something new in the conservative area of aeronautical navigation, a last attempt to modernise the traditional methods before they collapse under the onslaught of GPS.
Thanks for the comments and info. It’s given me a few things to think about.
AWL