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.
Last edited by Helinut; 25th August 2011 at 13:46.