Flying IFR in Class A with a IMC Rating? [Archive]

Chilli Monster

8th Oct 2004, 18:56

Class C will arrive within the next 18 months or so. As yet, it has not been decided whether an IMC will suffice.

Would it have to? You can fly VFR in Class 'C' subject to an ATC clearance. The rest of the world doesn't ask for any extra rating. What's to stop the IMC holder stating he's VFR and then flying as if he were IFR - as effectively there's no great difference in the two.

Andy I haven't passed my IMC yet so I don't know for sure but I think what you say is correct, except that you can get a crossing clearance (at the base only?) of an airway I think. Close - you can cross the base of an airway at right angles to the airway centreline but only where the base of the airway is defined as a flight level. You don't even need a clearance.

smithgd

8th Oct 2004, 19:07

Keef

Am I missing the point here or what.....

Class A down to the ground is a CTR and a SVFR will get me in there according to Wx conditions.

All other class A is airways? Even the area's down to FL45 and FL55 south of Manchester that arn't labeled like an airway(DAVENTRY CTA).

Ops I think I misread your post, by lesser airspace you mean class D,E,F,G?

smithgd

DFC

8th Oct 2004, 21:24

Chilli,

The introduction of Class C in the UK is part of the plan for common airspace classes across Europe. Most countries have already got the Class C in place.

As far as I am aware, with regard to the introduction of Class C in the UK, this is to be FL195+ in common with the rest of Europe. This means that the airspace class for all flights above FL195 will not change as they fly from country to country.

Of course I can hear everyone saying great - we can FLY VFR in class C..........not so quick cowboy..............ICAO rules say no enroute VFR flight above FL200!!

So why have class C you ask.........the answer is that Gliders, Test flights etc can operate VFR in class C airspace above FL195 provided that they are contained within an airspace reservation.

What will be more interesting for pilots will be the FL115 to FL195 class (will it be D?) and even more interesting, the airway base to FL115 (will it be E?)........perhaps with the new proposed simple JAA PPL-IR and getting rid of the IMC will make class E at the lower levels a realistic option............we already have class D enroute airspace in the UK and havent heard of any problesm with IMC holders or VFR flights in that airspace yet!

Regards,

DFC

Aussie Andy

8th Oct 2004, 23:16

DFC: Sounds like some positive developments may be coming!? I guess it will take time...we already have class D enroute airspace in the UK Where's that then??

Andy

Chilli Monster

8th Oct 2004, 23:45

As far as I am aware, with regard to the introduction of Class C in the UK, this is to be FL195+ in common with the rest of Europe. This means that the airspace class for all flights above FL195 will not change as they fly from country to country.
So what about the Republic of Ireland where it's Class 'C' above FL75 in most places - FL55 in some others ;)

As usual you've got the wrong end of the stick (How can that be - the great DFC knows it all!) There are the possibilities of other, lower level Class 'C' which the likes of WBS are privy to and the likes of you are not :)

What will be more interesting for pilots will be the FL115 to FL195 class (will it be D?) and even more interesting, the airway base to FL115 (will it be E?)........perhaps with the new proposed simple JAA PPL-IR and getting rid of the IMC will make class E at the lower levels a realistic option............
I've seen plans for some forthcoming proposed airspace changes and believe me - you couldn't be further from the truth if you tried. You really need to stop using Euro airspace reasoning with UK airspace and procedures - it just doesn't work (I would have thought your treatment on other threads would have made you realise this by now).

M609

9th Oct 2004, 00:50

You might want to try the blanket class D from FL105 and up, and class C from 195 and up to FL500. Class E for the airways below the CTA. Works a treat. :8

Oh wait, that would mean comforming to somewhat international standards! Cant have that! ;)

Whipping Boy's SATCO

9th Oct 2004, 06:37

Class C above FL195 will not allow en-route VFR flight (both GAT and OAT). VFR within this airspace will be subject to airspace reservations.

It is likely that some Class C will be introduced below FL195 at or around the introduction of the new Divisional Flight Level (probably sometime in 2006).

Class C below 195 will probably replace some class A/D airways and some Class D CTRs. The London CTR may also be looked at as the current Class A is somewhat of a nonesense.

BEagle

9th Oct 2004, 07:12

The creeping cancer of controlled airpsace threatens yet again! The Flying Prevention Branch twATCOs won't be happy until they think that they can control every aircraft from take-off to landing. Under the dubious assertion of 'safety'.....

No Class C below FL100!

Whipping Boy's SATCO

9th Oct 2004, 07:29

Beages, the "creeping cancer" is in reaction to the never-ending bleating from airline operators.

Chilli Monster

9th Oct 2004, 08:23

The Flying Prevention Branch twATCOs won't be happy until they think that they can control every aircraft from take-off to landing. If it's any consolation there's one group of the above that are actually opposing some proposed increases in CAS because it will seriously affect them and their own airfield users.

See - we're not all bad ;)

WorkingHard

9th Oct 2004, 10:21

Chill Monster - no of course your not all bad, 'far from it' is the title for the majority of you dealing with the pilots in your airspace. HOWEVER, it is very sad that just a few seem to give you all a bad press in the world of GA. Essex radar for example has such a deservedly poor reputation that I am surprised some of you have not been able to find a way of addressing the "problem", for problem it surely is. Am I not correct in thinking class D is for ALL users BUT established for safety purposes so that the appropriate controller knows where everyone is and their intentions? (controlling as necessary) IT IS NOT FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF CAT.

PH-UKU

9th Oct 2004, 13:00

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
we already have class D enroute airspace in the UK
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where's that then??

Andy

P600 - Gelki-RINGA-TRN
P6 - BEL-IOM-WAL
P18 - NEW-POL

englishal

9th Oct 2004, 16:07

While we're at it, can we please raise the transition altitude to something reasonable.....say 18,000' (I dunno what the highest mountain in Europe is, but that will do ;) )

DFC

9th Oct 2004, 18:40

Chilli,

Ireland introduced class C airspace when the ICAO categories of airspace first came into being. It was class C up to FL195 and Class A above that.

When I asked an Irish ATCO why class C they replied that it was the class that represented what they did i.e. enroute VFR permitted up to the ICAO maximum and separation between IFR and VFR flights.

When about the same time I asked a UK ATCO why no Class C airspace in the UK they said that it wasn't possible to provide standard radar separation between VFR and IFR in enroute or terminal airspace.......that is why there is A and D.

You in your great wisdom stated - "What's to stop the IMC holder stating he's VFR and then flying as if he were IFR - as effectively there's no great difference in the two.

Leaving the fact that it is illegal aside the bigger fact that it is stupid and dangerous must be obvious to all!

Perhaps we will have the single sky for Europe everywhere in Europe except at the airfield where chilli works........which has what category of controlled airspace?

:ok:

BEagle,

Having Class C in the lower levels is not as bad as you might think. Would you not like the idea of being able to cruise VFR at FL75 or 85 from one end of the country to the other without having to hold an IMC and without having to constantly climb and descend to avoid class A airways.

Regards,

DFC

BEagle

9th Oct 2004, 19:22

Class C routes, perhaps.

But Class C CTRs would merely legitimise the over-control which many ATCOs already attempt to inflict on VFR traffic for commercial expediency whenever there's an IFR inbound in clear VMC.

Chilli Monster

9th Oct 2004, 19:35

Once again you miss the main point that was posted to go on about what you think is the right answer - I was referring to the lower limit of Class 'C', not upper. English language skills not too hot obviously.
You in your great wisdom stated - "What's to stop the IMC holder stating he's VFR and then flying as if he were IFR - as effectively there's no great difference in the two.

Leaving the fact that it is illegal aside the bigger fact that it is stupid and dangerous must be obvious to all!

And since when has that stopped some people!
Perhaps we will have the single sky for Europe everywhere in Europe except at the airfield where chilli works........which has what category of controlled airspace?
Don't actually see what this has to do with what was posted

Don't be a w:mad:r all your life - take a day off ;)

DFC

9th Oct 2004, 22:33

BEagle you make a very important point. From my experience, UK ATCOs try to apply class C requirements i.e. they attempt to separate VFR and IFR in airspaces with lower than class C separation requirements.

Perhaps this is because as Chilli Monster says, many UK pilots claim to be VFR but are in IMC. Or it coule be because these controllers like Chilli, are operating within class G uncontrolled airspace and like to pretend that they have some controlled airspace and can really tell a pilot what to do. ;)

Lets look at the London CTR - Class A - everyone is separated. For the special VFR heli's there are pre-defined routes and heights to operate at and there are geographic/deemed separations from the IFR traffic and the heli routes which lead to quite an efficient system for both ATC and the heli operators in a very busy environment.

In the class D zones, there is no requirement for separation between VFR and IFR flights and thus the only thing in place are VRPs which the CAA say you should try not to fly over but the ATC unit would prefer you got as close to as possible and thus confusion which is further made worse by the fact that VFR flights expect to be simply given a clearance to enter and traffic information fo IFR flights while ATC refuse entry until separation from an IFR flight can be guaranteed.

What a mess!!............but that is not all.......the laid down VFR procedures do not define any routes or entry heights that ensure any from of separation from IFR routes.........thus VFR flights can in theory join from any direction at any height because while the ATCO wants to prevent all colllisions within their control zone, the airspace and the proedures do not give him any help.

If the zone is Class C then by requiring that procedures to separate IFR from VFR, entry and exit lanes are established.............this in itself reduces ATC workload.

Having got a class C zone, it is possible to set up published VFR holds within the zone and closer to the field than the zone boundary..............these can be used to hold aircraft that up until now are endlessly orbited downwind and is something that UK-GASCO are looking closely at.

Don't forget that class C will not remove the ability of the tower ATCO to reduce separation in the vicinity of the aerodrome........but the ICAO definition of the vicinity is the traffic pattern (circuit)....so you need some way to get into the vicinity!

------

Chilli said -

Once again you miss the main point that was posted to go on about what you think is the right answer - I was referring to the lower limit of Class 'C', not upper

Then you will have checked that the lower limit of Class C in Ireland is surface level.........but of course that has nothing to do with the debate.

And since when has that stopped some people!

True but I think that a safety minded aviation professional would never put that forward as an option.........ever.

English language skills not too hot obviously.

Not my first language...........but not being a biggot I don't hold that against you!!! :D

Regards,

DFC

Chilli Monster

9th Oct 2004, 22:44

Then you will have checked that the lower limit of Class C in Ireland is surface level.........

Only CTR's - I think you'll find the main base of Class 'C' is FL75 over the rest of the country (as stated). But don't take my word for it - check a chart ;)

Then after that - why not become an ATCO and an instructor and teach us all how to do the job that we obviously don't know how to do ourselves - you obviously understand the rules we have to work to, as laid down by our licensing authority, so much better than we do. (I quite understand the limitaions of all airspace, and am a devout opponent of over controlling thankyou)

In fact, here's a good idea. Next time I'm in work I'll do nothing, then at the subsequent AIRPROX investigation I'll say "It's uncontrolled airspace, didn't have to do anything". I'm sure that'd go down fine with all concerned.

Much as you like to spout off about the ICAO airspace categories and what type of separation is to be provided between different types of traffic in different airspaces you're missing one, vital word (In the UK anyway). That word is MINIMUM service to be provided by the ATC unit concerned. It's not a fixed level as you insist on suggesting. Check it out for yourself - MATS pt 1, Section 1, Chapter 2 - heading at the top of the table in paragraph 2.

We don't live in a perfect world, far from it. UK ATC is a mish mash of fragmented units and a hotch potch of services. I for one think the whole lot should have been re-designed with a clean piece of paper pre Swanwick, and redesigned on the American system of airspace and airspace management. But it wasn't, we have to work with it day in and day out and we do the best we can. Instead of bitching about UK controllers who you perceive as not doing the job properly because it's not the way you perceive it should be done why not aim your moans at the people higher up who have put us in that position in the first place. I would love to work in this dreamworld you advocate - but I don't, I work in the real one. And if you're frustrated - think how I find it when I swap one headset for another!

Aussie Andy

10th Oct 2004, 07:40

Chilli, DFC: jeez guys, why the big p1ssing match? Why not take yourselves off into a corner like JetBlast and slag each other off there...

PH-UKU:P600 - Gelki-RINGA-TRN
P6 - BEL-IOM-WAL
P18 - NEW-POLCheers! These are on the north of England chart, which I haven\'t used in over a year, so that\'s interesting to me. So I guess that means when I get my IMC rating I would be able to use these sections of Class D enroute airspace.

Still, they are the exception not the norm - and the WAL to IOM section is still class A anyway, so until the airspace is reformed to provide more low-level Class E/D routes IMC holders in this country will still be flying IMC in Class G mainly, with the assistance of "best efforts" services of LARS units for RAS/RIS when available...

Andy

smithgd

10th Oct 2004, 12:24

DFC

You mentioned a proposed simpler JAR PPL/IR...could you explain? (Or tell me where to find such info!)

Cheers
smithgd

BEagle

10th Oct 2004, 12:49

You'll have to wait and see. It is something currently being worked on as a formal proposal by AOPA et al. An ICAO-compliant IR suitable for GA, not the current 'Gold Standard' IR which the CAA uses, quite incorrectly, as a way of assessing whether a pilot is potentially suitability for a Commercial Air Transport career.

Any new 'simpler' JAR GA IR (not 'PPL'IR) is intended for PPL holders, Club FIs etc. But not as a replacement for the current IR required for the so-called 'frozen ATPL'.

360BakTrak

10th Oct 2004, 14:22

I think DFC and Chilli need some anger management and a group hug!:E Come on ........kiss and make up!:)

Keef

10th Oct 2004, 17:13

Back there I saw hostile comments about Essex Radar, "deserved", etc.

That may have been the case some years ago, but I have to say that recently, whenever I've called Essex for transit and they haven't been up to their ears in Ryanair, I've always got it.

In fact, my experience of ATC throughout the UK, France, Belgium and the Netherlands has been consistently positive.

For seriously positive ATC, try SoCal. Those guys treat PA28s the same as they treat B737s. Even more surprising, everyone seems to expect it - even the 737s.

DFC

10th Oct 2004, 21:23

Chilli,

UK ATC is a mish mash of fragmented units and a hotch potch of services

You have indeed hit the nail on the head and the above is why many visiting crews have perceived problems understanding what is going on...atleast for the first few visits.

Instead of bitching about UK controllers who you perceive as not doing the job properly because it's not the way you perceive it should be done

I have never pointed the finger at the people talking to the traffic and have no reason to either because they all do the best they can with what they have........but when asked they also moan themselves about the system and would like changes.

---

Aussie Andy,

You don't have to wait until you have an IMC - you can get a VFR clearance in the class D airspace. That said, I expect that you will have more of a chance actually getting the clearance if you are able to file IFR though.

Regards,

DFC

Aussie Andy

11th Oct 2004, 06:33

DFC:you can get a VFR clearance in the class D airspace.Cheers - I know about VFR in Class D, we do that all the time, but I am looking forward to the ability to fly in IMC along such routes with some degree of radar service and/or procedural separation, which is what isn't guaranteed today along most routes for an IMC holder - but thank God for Farnborough Radar, Brize etc. who make the patch-work work on a best efforts basis today!

Andy

WorkingHard

11th Oct 2004, 18:03

Keef - not exactly "hostile" rather more along the lines of "why?". My experience (which is somewhat frequent) is that the call to Essex firstly produces a "keep clear on controlled airspace and stand by" One listens of course to the frequency BEFORE making the call so it seems (I do stress seems) that the controllers are not overly busy but the response is still as stated. I do think is SOME circustances controllers may need to be reminded that class D is for all and not just CAT. As I said earlier it is clearly very few that cause us to ask why.

DFC

11th Oct 2004, 21:38

I do think is SOME circustances controllers may need to be reminded that class D is for all and not just CAT

Everyone is aware that Stansted Cass D is there for everyone to use............everyone inbound and outbound from Stansted can and does use it!!!

VFR flights seem agreived if they seldom get a direct clearance across busy class D airspace.

But hang on a minute..........if a C172 is flying IFR on the airways there are large detours around all sorts of busy routes/areas.............but do the IFR flights complain endlessly because they didn't get a direct clearance to cut across that piece of class D that is there for all?

So the question I have is.....if IFR light GA flights are given routings that take them round the same if not more airspace that the VFR light GA pilots........why is it only the VFR pilots complain about lack of direct routings?

Regards,

DFC

Aussie Andy

12th Oct 2004, 06:54

WorkingHard:"remain clear of controlled airspace"...... is typically the first thing I hear from most busy ATSU's when I call them around here, e.g. Brize, Luton. It's perfectly reasonable - it does not mean that they are denying you service, it just means that they have something else to do at that instant so the default response is to tell you not to enter CAS until they have had a chance to sort things out.

And just because you cannot hear them on the frequency does not mean they are not busy... they may be on another frequency (e.g. UHF at MIL sites), or may even be servicing another VHF frequency you can't hear. Many units have multi-site receivers (London Info is the best example of this) so they may be listening to another aircarft you are unable to hear for that reason. They might also be on a landline with other ATSU's to coordinate with adjacent sectors, or they may be about to be handed departing traffic from the TWR requency that you are not aware of. They may also be dealing with flight strips, entering or receiving updates to flight plan data. Or sometimes one person has gone for a leak so the other covers two frequencies perhaps (I made this up...)!

The point is, just because you hear a silent frequency does not necessarily mean that there is a nice man / woman sitting there with his / her feet up waiting for you to call! Maybe you would benefit by spending some time at a LARS or perhaps a Radar or non-Radar approach unit - I was once lucky enough to be able to visit Farnborough Radar shortly after getting my PPL - to see what goes on for yourself. Empathy seems to be in short supply (sometimes on both sides of the equation!).

Best,

Andy

IO540

12th Oct 2004, 18:54

DFC

if IFR light GA flights are given routings that take them round the same if not more airspace that the VFR light GA pilots........why is it only the VFR pilots complain about lack of direct routings?

May I suggest the reason is this:

Somebody in the airways a) has more money and a better aircraft to play with and b) is almost certainly just sitting there watching the GPS track and twiddling the HSI course pointer at each GPS waypoint (or, if he has an EHSI, the aircraft will automatically turn at each waypoint). Occassionally, he might have to suffer the stress of entering or deleting a waypoint...

Whereas somebody flying VFR has been taught the crappy WW1-vintage navigation method and unsuprisingly has considerable problems navigating around CAS whose boundaries exist on the chart alone and don't relate to any recognisable ground features.

First, give people a decent way of navigating (GPS in the PPL syllabus). Only after that can you reasonably expect them to know with a high degree of certainty where they are.

But I bet you know I was going to say this :O

DFC

12th Oct 2004, 21:13

When flying IFR or flying VFR unless under radar vectors we are following a planned track over the surface of the earth..........

we can tell our position relative to that planned line by;

Visually looking out the window

Using VOR or NDB

Using an approved RNP equipment - BRNAV etc.

In none of the above am I told what heading to steer to maintain that track and thus just like the VFR PPL student, we calculate the heading and groundspeed and make appropriate corrections in the air.

EHSIs do not fly the aircraft - I do that or the autopilot does that........all the EHSI does is paint some lines showing where the aircraft is and where it thinks it should be. It does not always do it correctly........but I have to be aware of that.

The surface of the Earth does not suffer from map shift, coastal refraction, thunder storm and other interference, waypoint entry errors and duplication, database errors or misselection. When talking about the earth's surface as seen by the average PPL there are no errors other than in the pilot's reading of it.

Yes airspace boundaries do not coincide with easy visual features that the visual navigator can use. However, if 1nm from the boundary has nothing easy, I can bet that there is something easy within say 5 to 8nm.

The IFR pilot on the airways follows a track that keeps him 5nm from the airspace boundary - even when a change of track is required. Why can't the VFR pilots who are not so hot on navigation give themselves where possible a similar buffer?

You must know that if it was decided to ake the boundaries co-inside with prominent ground features they will only expand airspace. They will not make it smaller.

There are people who would love to make the GPS a bigger part of the PPL sylabus and used more widely for navigation by VFR flights. They are the same people who would love to mandate that every aircraft is equipped with a combined GPS/Mode S piece of equipment before it can fly and that the database must be updated in accordance with the 28 day AIRAC cycle for the aircraft to retain a C of A or Permit to Fly.

Regards,

DFC

PS. Remember that I used a C172 in my example - generally the same aircraft as is flying VFR in the class G below on a more direct routing. :)

NorthSouth

12th Oct 2004, 22:26

DFCthe laid down VFR procedures do not define any routes or entry heights that ensure any from of separation from IFR routesNot true of quite a few Class D zones in the UK. Many already have lanes designed to provide some degree of IFR/VFR separation. Heights are, I agree, not formally laid down to ensure vertical separation, but standard practice is for controllers to e.g. give VFR clearances not above 2000 feet in order to descend IFRs to 3000 feet. Gave me quite a shock when I first saw controllers in the US quite happily giving a VFR aircraft traffic info on an IFR inbound in his 12 o'clock, descending through his level - particularly when I realised that the rules in the UK permit exactly that!

NS

Port Strobe

13th Oct 2004, 08:09

crappy WW1-vintage navigation

First, give people a decent way of navigating (GPS in the PPL syllabus). Only after that can you reasonably expect them to know with a high degree of certainty where they are.

So we've all to be taught how to use a GPS then spend the rest of our days following a line on a screen?

We already have a decent way of navigating, so called "crappy WW1-vintage navigation" (I think DR was the name you were after) has worked to a very high degree of accuracy for those pilots that are good enough to use it properly and its something that can probably only be achieved with experience. Its a learned skill, which I personally have a long, long way to go with yet but its fun & keeps you on your toes. By teaching everyone to navigate by GPS from PPL level we can look forward to our pilots of the future being button pushers with no real concept of how they move from A to B. We'll have to start including an option in the navigation exam questions for "The GPS told me to". GPS is a useful tool to increase situational awareness but it is not a requirement for accurate navigation, a map, compass, stopwatch and a bit of thought are. Just my £0.02

englishal

13th Oct 2004, 12:28

GPS from PPL level we can look forward to our pilots of the future being button pushers with no real concept of how they move from A to B

...or get left behind.

Interesting that the FAA have made it compulsory that during an FAA IR check ride, that a GPS approach MUST be completed if an approved GPS is fitted, and it MUST be autopilot coupled if there is a suitable autopilot.

I'm of the view, if you want to DR yourself around the sky, then fine. If you want to GPS yourself around the sky, then fine also. Navigation is not about one or the other, but all forms, including whatever you have at your disposal.

I notice Spaceship One didn't DR their way back to earth, and I sincerely hope that the BA Captain on my flight to LA next week doesn't try and DR his way there either :}

Port Strobe

13th Oct 2004, 21:28

Fair point englishal, I also hope your BA Captain doesn't DR his way to LA, but lets look at things sensibly. Using DR at 500kts GS or whatever leaves a lot of scope for things to go off track very quickly. In a C182 I bet your BA Captain if he was fairly current with SEP(L) could do a bloody marvellous job, just not across the Atlantic albeit!:ok:

The point I was making was lets at least try & teach everyone the fundamentals of navigation & get them to use DR through the PPL, and if they want to make a living from flying then they should be good enough to do it at CPL level to a higher standard.

Taking your example with the FAA they're asking an IR pilot to use a GPS. Fine by me, he/she will be fairly experienced & by the time they sit their IR skills test their handling skills will be pretty sharp so let them use their GPS to improve navigational accuracy and situational awareness in busy airspace when you can't see out the window, and it seems sensible that if they're going to be flying an a/c with that kit in it then let them see you can use it.

I just reckon that if you introduce GPS from the start you'll lose a great skill in flying and it'll just be a case of pressing buttons. I'm not completely against GPS, if you want to DR then fine by me, if you want to use GPS then fine by me also but just ask yourself is it really neccessary at 120kts? Ask anyone who was brought up in their school years without using a calculator to do mental arithmetic & they'll be pretty sharp. Ask someone who's been pressing buttons for the last ten years and, well you get the idea.

IO540

14th Oct 2004, 09:54

Like all these GPS threads, this can run and run. In reality they can't remove DR from the PPL, given the type and condition of the aircraft which 99% of pilots will have to fly.

I wouldn't suggest removing DR but introducing GPS is a good idea, and apparently the FAA reckons so too.

DR is fine for bimbling about one's local area, or for going further if one accepts being limited to a) good VMC conditions and b) a much higher cockpit workload. I would never dream of doing it on foreign trips where the route has to avoid various prohibited airspace.

Also flight in IMC, even for short periods, in a fact of life if one has actually planned to go somewhere. But it's no use telling this to someone with 1000 hours accumulated over 40 years who is retired and lives 5 miles from a farm strip :O

But going foreign is the #1 interest, for me. Spending £100 to get a burger is fun initially but is a waste of time and money, and I bet this is one of the reasons why some 90% of new PPLs give up almost immediately. Flying to get a burger is ALL they have been taught to do.

S-Works

14th Oct 2004, 10:12

As ever I agree with IO540 on this subject, GPS SHOULD be taught to the PPL in addition to the DR.

As for your BA Captain example I would not bet on him being any good at DR. I had a friend over from Canada last week, 17,000hr Captain for Air Canada, ex bush pilot on both fixed wing and Rotary. Did his "time" delivering parts and collecting bodies from the Canadian wilds.

We had a discussion on DR and he admitted that he would struggle to do it full stop and especially on foreign ground. So we tried it.

Drawing the lines and doing the calcs in the kitchen was easy actually flying the plan was a different matter. Apart from my attempt at teaching him the whizz wheel for a laugh (which we gave up on and used the CX2).

He was not familier with the landscape and it was quite a laugh to see how far off course we ended up. To him all the towns looked the same!

GPS is a pwerful tool that aids situational awareness and accompanied with other methods of navigation for VFR flight is very safe.

I have managed to accumulate 1000hrs in the last three years and have managed to avoid hitting anyone else or infringing airspace. When flying under IFR I use my BRNAV certified GPS as a prime sourse of navigation with the radio aids tuned and identified as back ups. I keep getting from A to B without problems.

For other than the £100bacon butty in your typical spoke flying club environment DR is a waste of time. There is no way on earth that I would want to do some of the trips that I have done in the last year under DR. As an example North Holland direct from the Midlands at FL110 does not give much to DR navigate by and that trip was actually a VFR flight.

There is a time and a place for everything, the 1000hr farm styrip flyer in his cub or VP1 or whatever is welcome to bimble around using DR. I and people like IO540 fly to go places.

Horses for courses and all that.........

:p

Whipping Boy's SATCO

14th Oct 2004, 10:46

This reminds me of a VFR crossing clearance I gave at Brize once. An Auster called-up and asked to transit overhead north to south. As always (:p ) his request was granted and I monitored him on radar. Not too many minutes later, it was apparant that he had mistaken Fairford (some 8nms West) for Brize. His error was pointed out and he altered his course. Another voice then piped-up on the freq:

"Don't ask him what his day job is"

Well, too good a line to miss, I posed the question:

"I'm a Concorde captain!"

Another one liner from the old SR71, Blackbird days

You've never been really lost until you've done it in a Blackbird

DFC

14th Oct 2004, 22:16

When talking about pilots who follow the GPS line or the pointer supplied with VOR or NDB information.......

Do you calculate the heading that will follow the chosen track and make an appropriate correction if it does not, or

Do you point the nose along track and complete several oscilations back and forth across the line each time guessing what heading might keep the aircraft close to the line until after a time, a heading that seems to work is found.

---

The first example is DR......the second is track crawling.

The first example permits plenty of eyes out time and gives a low workload.....the second requires much eyes in the cockpit, high concentration on following the line and high workload.

-----

Of course there is the third example of the pilot who simply follows the line without paying any real attention to the required heading.........

-----

I would love to check how many of the infringements over the past 5 years were done in aircraft equipped with a GPS.

GPS has not erradicated the infringements - it has simply added further reasons - database error, waypoint error, going direct to error etc etc.

regards,

DFC

IO540

15th Oct 2004, 07:04

DFC

What you are describing is not poor pilots - it is poor instructors.

As I've said, if you see a radar track of a PPL flying a perfectly straight line into a hill, nothing much gets said about it - happens all the time. But if a GPS is discovered in the wreckage, the crash is blamed on the pilot playing with the GPS.

The reason GPS usage has not eradicated CAS infringements is because most PPLs receive cr@p instruction, and many of those that do hang in there have far too little currency to learn it later.

Also flying the average self fly hire piece of junk, where the DI drifts 10 degrees every 10 minutes, doesn't present the pilot with a reasonably low cockpit workload.

Don't blame any of this on a GPS. It is the most reliable and the most accurate navigation device in existence.

S-Works

15th Oct 2004, 07:55

The accuracy of GPS is the reason the military use it.

Proper training and correct use of a GPS is an aid to situational awareness.

DFC get your head out of the sand and recognise that time have moved on. :p

There is no way on earth that DR is any better at avoiding CAS infringements.

High Wing Drifter

15th Oct 2004, 09:21

There is no way on earth that DR is any better at avoiding CAS infringements.
I would imagine this to be so providing you are peering out of the window every five or so minutes to confirm what the GPS says. Our Skymap IIIc has been around 5 nm out on a couple of occasions!

If you have a RAIM (Receiver Autonomous Integrity Monitoring) system (which the Skymap is not) then I imagine that accuracy is pretty certain unless all the satalites have been scrambled or you haver a RAIM warning displayed.

One benefit of DR in the UK with its plethora of features, is that you know fairly quickly if you are lost or even 'uncertain'.

S-Works

15th Oct 2004, 09:40

I have never been lost or uncertain of my position.

When I fly VFR I draw a line on a map, cross fix from radio aids where available, do my wind calcs, write my frequencies on the map and mark the points to talk to the relevant people.

I programme my GPS, my GNS430 is RAIM my 296 is not but I have never see them differ.

I take off and I fly the planned route. I look out the window and lo and behold what I see out of the window represents what I see on my map and my GPS moving map display.

In fact I have never seen a GPS give an incorrect position in over a thousand hours of using GPS. I have seen them programmed incorrectly, I have seen handheld non aviation units get the wrong coordinates put into them and I have on TWO occassions (over 1000hrs) seen the reception lost for a few moments. But the combination of radio aids, and correct planning kept me on track.

In my mind there is no room in an aircraft for a non aviation GPS or for one that does not have a database that is kept upto date. There is plenty of scope for people needing to be trained on GPS PROPERLY.

"Spoke" flying around most of the southern flying clubs may make DR seem like it is infallible but try moving further afield and you will discover it has serious limitations on longer journeys.

I could fly 100miles in any direction from our strip without drawing a line on a map and still tell you exactly where I am. This is why DR works for so many of the experts who have a thousand hours over 40yrs, basically they are just covering the same old ground time and time again.

GPS is without a doubt the most accurate tool for navigation we have in our toolbox.

High Wing Drifter

15th Oct 2004, 10:25

First, my idea of DR is inline with DFC's.

I have been uncertain of my position on occasion. I don't see it as a big deal or a bad show or anything. It is simply the fact that it takes a minute or so of groud to map work to confirm your position. Most often this is because a feature such as a river isn't as visible as imagined or some or maybe low vis not to mention simply being off-track for whatever reason. In my case basic lousy heading maintenence is often a culprit, but I endeavour to improve. Not actually ever been lost yet - I imagine that flying on assumptions is what gets people lost.

One GPS mis-position occasion I was south of Aldermaston and my GPS placed me north of it. A clear and unequivable problem with the GPS reading on that occasion. It wasn't a problem but I assure you it was wrong!

I have forced myself not to use the GPS for navigation. I have used it for passengers and, I admit, once or twice when knowlingly skirting CAS as I did start to doubt that the town I was looking at was actually the right one.

However, once I get my CPL sorted, the need to do strict DR will subside. I do enjoy DR though, however difficult it is.

owenlars

15th Oct 2004, 10:43

Bose has it spot on for serious long distance travel. Within 100 miles in nice weather you can identify almost any landmark after a year or so's flying. Trying to fly DR from UK to Copenhagen/Nice/Bilbao etc will leave you tired at best and there is no way that it is better than Radio Aids and GPS provided you obey the rules. Also given that anyone flying IFR will be 100% reliant on radio aids why not use them when doing serious travel VFR as well

Radials from VORs are wonderful alarms for avoiding French Nuclear powerstations and other unpleasant areas.

However none of this is intended to suggest that we shouldn't all practice DR to remain at least proficient albeit perhaps not in the forefront of the art. It also, of course, is not intended as a slight on the Cub/Moth/Microlight flyers who without gizmos must rely on DR and rightly take a pride in DR accuracy.

It's horses for courses I guess.

IO540

15th Oct 2004, 16:56

With bose-x and owenlars on this. I always navigate fully IFR and if I get a view out of the window that's a bonus. Never been lost and never been even slightly uncertain of position. For me, it's the only way to navigate. The last thing I am interested in is guessing where I am.

One benefit of DR in the UK with its plethora of features, is that you know fairly quickly if you are lost or even 'uncertain'.

I can believe somebody could write the above, but that pilot must have hundreds or thousands of hours accumulated within 100 miles of his airfield, in very good VFR conditions.

Try doing this in PPL-legal VMC, 3000m, and/or in rain, and see how far you get. Then try it in bongo-bongo-land where the ATCOs can barely speak English and see how they get excited when you look like you might get within a few miles of some RyanAir 737.

I believe that the main way VFR pilots get lost is by "positively" identifying a ground feature (EXACTLY right to say there is a plethora of them - a lot of them look the same!) but it is the wrong one.

Don't we love these GPS / anti-GPS threads :O