X/C navigation training - straight line or follow the road?

[Luke SkyToddler]

Had a conversation with a very high time instructor recently, who told me that it was blasphemy to teach up-and-coming CPL students to follow features to get to their destination, and they must always attempt to fly the shortest distance between 2 points.

Well the more I think about it, the more I reckon that that is a damn foolish doctrine particularly when the weather starts to play up. As I see it, I'd rather see my students minimize the risk of getting lost even if it means they burn more gas ...

I would appreciate any of your comments on this.

[CHICKENTRAINER]

G'day Luke. Have to agree. The quickest way between two points is not always a straight line.

------------------
ChickenTrainer




[This message has been edited by CHICKENTRAINER (edited 16 March 1999).]

[Tinstaafl]

I go the straight line method as a *very* generalised rule. I can't think of any other way for a student to develop his or her DR & chart reading skills. Particularly for our outback regions where there can be very few roads. This also helps stop them developing 'track crawling' habits - as long as the instructor prevents the student from trying to count creeks, roads, tracks as they are passed. It can take quite a bit of practice to learn to trust a *simple* maxim: If you hold the correct heading for long enough, eventually you will get there. All the rest is just confirmation &/or adjustment.

Having said that, I also teach to use all facilities at the persons disposal. This means that there *are* times when follow the road is appropriate eg some types of bad weather, some aspects of low level. But the same applies for radio navaids, deliberate track error methods, running position lines, 1:60 track correction, drift line track correction, ridge & valley following, using funnel features, tracking via distinct elevations/features, most probable position & time/distance limits of likely area, search patterns etc etc.

But I still feel that straight line methods are the only way (perhaps *better* is more correct) to force a student to develop the ability to hold headings for periods of time & then adjust HDG according to reasoning/calculation. This applies to PPL too - just the quality & ease of use of the navigation features & turning points are not as difficult.

Navigation skills & techniques are a bit of a sore point with me. I recall being taught (or NOT taught) to navigate. More like the instructor(s) sat there while I repeatedly knocked my head against the wall, not understanding why I couldn't find places. It took a lot of experience & inquiry after the issue of my licence for me to develop acceptable nav skills that would allow me to fly anywhere & have at least some confidence about finding the destination.

All the above IMHO, of course.

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

The CAA GFT (which i shall be taking very soon) is based around the concept of it being a commercial flight. It explicitly states that track crawling and following line features should not be undertaken by the CPL student. You are supposed to be able to fly from A to B via the 'most expeditious route' I believe it says. I believe this is why commercial instructors teach as they do - to pass the GFT. obviously in poor weather conditions and with an excellent line feature available the sensible fellow might well elect to use it. This is not the case in the GFT. Cheers, WWW

[watford]

I only partly agree with WWW. Commercial instructors do not, or should not, teach students to pass the GFT. They teach students to become competent commercial pilots, any competent commercial pilot can pass the GFT without breaking into a sweat.

So far as navigation is concerned, the only way to get from A to B in a commercial environment is in a straight line. Where hard cash is all that matters the shortest distance between two points is ALWAYS a straight line. No commercial pilot will last long if he thinks any differently, not when I'm paying for the paraffin anyway.

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

The Aus PPL and CPL flight test criteria state that the candidate must have:
"Selected appropriate track"

------------------


[This message has been edited by Charlie Foxtrot India (edited 20 March 1999).]

[Whiskey Hotel Delta]

Interestingly, as always in the GA environment, there are differing viewpoints on the same topic. Notwithstanding same, they all seem to uphold reason and sound judgement. However, one must competently asssess the genre of the comments, and their point(s) of origin. As a 10 year instructor, I firmly subscribe to the view that one must always listen, and not discount ANY perspective, unless evidence strongly suggests otherwise. My legal background may also have some influence, here.

So far as track crawling is concerned, it certainly seems to have its place. There are, indeed, circumstances when a pilot is required to track to and follow a definitive line feature or series of features, to a waypoint or destination. Seemingly, under circumstances of poor weather, low visibility, low level flying or simply fairly featureless terrain, the ability to navigate oneself to an appropriate feature, then follow it (provided the additional track miles are minimal, if any) is a sound skill to develop in the training pilot. This line (or series of) feature(s) may not necessarily be roads, as is the common misgiving. Frequently, the pilot may utilise terrain navigation techniques, following relief or some similar feature (or series of features).

Notwithstanding the necessity for the development of that skill, the more appropriate (commercial) method of navigation is, of course, direct tracking. This relies on the basics of heading, time, groundspeed and an appropriate method of heading and/or track correction. When one considers the methods of navigation used by early aviation pioneers, the track crawling method stands-out clearly. As the commercial viability of the industry took its hold, the methodology altered to the direct track method, augmented by radio navigation of various means. Accordingly, the more direct the track, certainly the less is the operational cost, albeit only minor, when compared to a track crawling flight (over shorter distances). Cumulative track crawling flights result in significant overhead increases, producing the common (and correct) viewpoint that direct tracking is the best way to navigate.

Is it not appropriate, then, to introduce all the techniques of navigation to a student pilot, together with a sound basis for the determination of the correct time(s) for the application of each technique?

It is a constant concern that many instructors appear to subscribe to the "this is the way I was trained, so this is the way you WILL learn" mentality. Of course, having had the (fortunate or unfortunate) opportunity to be in this sector of the industry for such a long period, affords one the chance to broaden one's perspective, somewhat.

Nonetheless, the importance of developing the technique of the CPL aspirant to track directly is the penultimate challenge. Despite same, and the espoused theories of the masses, so many CPL candidates seem grossly unable to use the principles of direct tracking, aside from the preparation of a flight plan. Much less are they able to determine when is the appropriate time to alter the method to that of track crawling. A clear example exists in the various GA lanes, established around various major centres. Try using the direct tracking technique in its pure form there, and one will certainly see its failings as the "always and without exception" navigation principle.

After such a long discourse, my sincere recommendation on the topic of navigation is to cover all the bases, not restricting a student's potential skill learning to a primarily politically motivated and narrow-minded perspective. Correct teaching will see the student adopt correct methods, and the ability for the determination of the correct time and/or place for the application of those methods.

[CHICKENTRAINER]

WHD,

What I think you have so eloquently put, is use a broad brush technique so that the student has the greatest range of options available.

I'd like to see anyone fly SCN - TW for example, at 3500 below overcast in a straight line.

There are times when the quickest route is not a straight line.

------------------
ChickenTrainer

[Whiskey Hotel Delta]

Spot on, ChickenTrainer!

If I may be so bold as to further establish my position on the matter...

Broad-brush is not a term which I would use to describe any method of teaching, besides the artistic method, per se. Rather one must adequately encourage the development and acquisition of all [any] appropriate skills in the training pilot, such that a level of understanding is achieved which will permit timely, safe and correct decisions in all manner of operational situations. This includes a decision on which navigation technique to employ in, for example, the circumstances you suggest, enroute SCO-TW.

I cannot agree more that the most direct route is not always a straight line.

[tubby]

Funny thing folks but my dictionary does not include "following features" as being Navigation! However, getting back to the original question - surely the aim is to provide your student with the best skills to ensure that when they are flying for profit or return they can actually complete the schedule in the most expeditious manner. Generally this will mean going direct NOT practising the other form of IFR (I follow raods, rivers and railways!!!!)

[CHICKENTRAINER]

All this talk of straight lines, and economical operation begs the following questions:

If IFR, should the pilot fly straight line through CB or line of CB or other wx, scare the pax, wreck the aircraft so that the pax won't fly again, nor will the aircraft. Or, should the pilot fly around said CB or line of CB, giving pax a comfortable ride and keeping the aircraft in a fit state to fly again?

If VFR, overcast and minimal visibility, should the pilot set out in a straight line, relying on the GPS over fairly featureless terrain (we have lots of this in Oz) and put him/her self in a position of not being sure of position when GPS falls over? Or, should pilot study maps and select a route that will make use of line features to help navigate and lessen the chance of getting lost in poor visibility?

When conditions permit, sure a straight line is great. But, a straight line is not always the quickest way between two points.

------------------
ChickenTrainer

[Luke SkyToddler]

Well this is interesting. I'm only a VFR instructor, but as far as I'm concerned, safety is paramount in all the flying I teach whether for PPL or CPL. The cost of fuel - or operating economics in general - may be important but they fall a distant second to getting the people from A to B in the safest and most comfortable method available. When flying around inhospitable or featureless terrain I would have thought that having a feature to track on - or a road to land on should the engine stop - would be far more important than saving a few litres of gas. You wouldn't want the safety of your passengers compromised for the sake of economics would you Watford & Tubby? I can't imagine anything much more foolish than having to put an aeroplane full of paying passengers down in the middle of nowhere in the mountains when a deviation of a few miles left or right of track would have allowed me to fly right beside a main road for example.

Of course when the sky is blue and the terrain is nice, easy map reading, then straight line flying is appropriate. But in 'real life' conditions - in New Zealand anyway - it is a rare day when the cloud base / terrain / visibility / airspace all combine to make it impossible or highly unpleasant for the pax. There are other aspects of 'economy' than fuel bills! You wanna see an airline go broke in a hurry, try losing an aeroplane full of passengers, with all the bad press that goes with it ...

[skysurfer]

I believe you all have credible arguments, I think that keeping an open ear to all methods is the best way to go and to pass as many practical applications on to your student as possible,that way if and when the situation arises that your 180hr PiC building student does get into strife or has the oppourtunity to straight line it they have the back ground knowledge to execute it. After all I think it is THEIR decision making that is the key in all these situations, we are all training commercial students to go out in the real world and fly usually a single pilot op as a first job and they no longer have you at their side telling them what you have been told. If you make them aware of all the considerations ie; pax,fuel,height,terrain,water etc etc they can then make an informed decision, remember at the end of the day the engine doesn't know where it is (over water / terrain) so if its going to happen then thats life.

[guvner]

I'm not sure if this will help you LST but my philosophy for VFR nav is HDG & IAS, confirmed by visual features. The workcycle is Clock, Map, Ground. In my experience students who track crawl get lost because they convince themselves that the feature they can see is the one they have just looked at on the map. Usually one can counter this by simply looking at the clock. Track crawling encourages fixation on small instead of large features and in particular reading ground to map. This is fine if you are in a scud dodging chopper, but inefficient between A and B which are 100nm apart. When lost by all means find a prominent 'dogs balls' feature on the ground, find it on the map then fix yourself. Students must accurately fly a heading and airspeed, and calculate accurate 1:60s and fixes first and foremost. Diversions and doglegs should also be based on accurate calcs. Too often students will track crawl and lose the plot wrt to time and fuel. If its a barren featureless desert out there then navs should be planned via obvious features for ease of navving. (connected by straight lines of course)