The use of GPS...

[BongleBear]

Thanks for all taking time to read this thread, I am compiling research for a presentation on GPS and the private pilot, and I would really appreciate your views. If you have the time I'd be grateful if you could just write down your comments on how GPS has helped a PPL holder, and how it is moving the way we navigate onwards and upwards. Also, if anyone believes that GPS shouldn't be used, I'd like to hear from you.

Thanks alot for your time,
BBear

[-IBLB-]

I have never taught my PPL students to use a GPS when available. That is to say, not untill right before their checkrides. I am of opinion that you should learn to be able fly without a GPS, but also, be able to use a GPS, as you should know to use all systems on the aircraft your are flying, plus it can be a handy thing to use...

I have a handheld GPS, and to be honest, i have never used it since i got my instrument rating, nor have i used panel mounted ones, except for to make GPS approaches. I found that once i really understood how to use VOR and NDB stations, it is much easier and quicker to check your approximate position.

This all said, i do think GPS will "take over" so to speak, also for PPL holders. Look at the Garmin and Avidyne panel mounted systems. But i am also old-fashioned in a way that i say "I hope everyone can still navigate their way around, when the GPS' fails"

[Malcolm G O Payne]

Until a satisfactory civil owned and operated system of satellites is in place GPS will rely on US and Russian military systems that can be shut down at any time. For this reason the FAA will not allow airlines to use GPS as a primary navigational aid. A few years ago there was a satellite jammer sytem on open sale at a Russian trade show. Imagine this in the hands of a terrorist organisation!
GPS can only be an aid, not a substitute for navigation.

[FlyingForFun]

For VFR flights, the primary means of navigation is, and always will be, looking out the window. As long as that primary means of navigation remains, and continues to be taught to an appropriate level, there is nothing wrong with backing it up with whatever other aids happen to be available, and GPS is a great tool for this.

For IFR flights, it is again useful, and probably important, to use as many navigation aids as possible to back each other up. So if you are following a radial from a VOR, there's nothing wrong with following that radial, and having a line on a moving map GPS to confirm that the VOR is working correctly - or vice versa, following a GPS track, and having the VOR tuned and the CDI or OBS centred to enable you to cross-check the VOR.

The problem with both VFR and IFR operations is that modern GPS is so easy to use in its simplest form, and so flexible once you start going into more detail, that it is very tempting to use it as the only means of navigation. For VFR flight, this results in lack of situational awareness, since you are no longer using your primary means of navigation. I got caught out by this just last week. I was P1 on a flight which I intended to make IFR, but on the day we decided to depart VFR from an airfield which I am not familiar with. I had the route programmed into the GPS, and followed the GPS route. ATC asked us to report abeam a certain town, and I realised I had no idea where the town was, and didn't have a chart to hand. Fortunately, there was another pilot sat in the right seat, who located the chart and pointed out where the town was, thus keeping my workload to relatively low levels.

For IFR flight, the danger comes on the rare occassions when the GPS fails and you are left with little awareness of the navigation aids around you, none of them tuned in, and hence no way of fixing your position without a sudden increase in workload. But if pilots are aware of these potential dangers, and ensure they don't fall into the traps, then GPS is one of the best tools modern aviation has.

FFF
----------------

[nouseforaname]

have to agree with IBLB in saying you should learn to navigate without GPS. Very important. However because GPS is now so widely used i think it should be part of a PPL course to be able to put in a route to a GPS, understand what all the different things are i.e. dtk, obs etc. (they are mostly industry standard) and understand how it will go wrong and that it can go wrong. Not that a VOR or NDB wouldn't go wrong.

A perfect example of this would be my Dad. He bought a brand new Cessna 182 about 5 years ago after getting his ppl. It was FAA IFR equipped but that was irrelevant because he had no IR. He had no idea how to use the equipment in the aircraft only the VOR. It was easy for me to pick it up but he grew up without all this stuff so he found it a very slow process. I think that if his PPL course had outlined the GPS use then it would have made it easier for him.

[englishal]

For this reason the FAA will not allow airlines to use GPS as a primary navigational aid.
So how do you explain Airbuses and Boeings carrying out GPS approaches ?;)

[BEagle]

The basics of VFR navigation must be learned before use of GPS is taught. We have non-moving map Garmin GPS150 or GNC250 units in all our aircraft and PPL students should be able to read off their present position before flying their first solo visual navigation exercise. However, they are not taught to use the GPS to navigate at that stage; it is there for them to advise ATC of the lat/long or range/bearing from base if utterly lost.

GPS is an excellent aid if used as a VFR back-up to a line on a current CAA chart, but only if used in accordance with Safety Sense 25.

[IO540]

The real question is ..... how many pages (of mostly uninformed and prejudiced anti-GPS bu11sh1t) to allow this thread to run to before typing up a reply?

[DFC]

I will simply say that I agree with what Flying For Fun has said.

One other small point is that pilots IFR and VFR must remember that even the approved units are only certified to keep the flight within 5nm of the centerline (RNP5) so no point in planning to miss a CTR boundary by 1nm based on GPS.

Also, I have come across plenty of pilots who use GPS in one form or another. Of that large number, less than 1% knew what RAIM checks were and when they are required and even less actually did a RAIM check pre-flight. In this area, Eurocontrol and National Agencies could do more to publicise the tools available.

Regards,

DFC

[slim_slag]

DFC, there really is no point reading from your book and telling people there is 'no point in planning to miss a CTR boundary by 1nm based on GPS', when these same people know exactly how accurate GPS is from practical experience.

VORs are only certified to keep you within a certain distance from the centreline, but you can still shoot VOR approaches and expect to land on the runway when you break out 600ft AGL. The GPS accuracy doesn't change along an airway like a VOR receiver does. I think the 5nm you quote has more to do with VOR physics than GPS physics. In fact there is a strong argument for airlines to fly an 1nm offset because GPS are so accurate they will hold you precisely on the centreline.

GPS's are approved for non precision approaches in the States, they will get you to the airport with an accuracy of far greater than the one mile you are telling us there is no point to rely on.

I'd also ask how you came up with 'less than 1%', you would have to ask several hundred people the question before you get anything statistically quoteble, and I simply don't believe you anyway. Perhaps you should ask light aircraft pilots the question?

Bonglebear, do a search in the private pilot forum. You will find loads of stuff on this site, most of it repeated (as proven by my post above). You will also see the same names pop up :)

[BongleBear]

Thanks alot for the comments, all much appreciated!

[dublinpilot]

When doing a search, make sure to change the period! Since the search function was restored, it seem to only search posts in the last month by default.

Perhaps DFC's 99% of pilots were using portable gps units, where RAIM checks aren't available? The nearest thing would be to understand how your unit shows a 2D fix and a 3D fix, and no fix.

dp

[Confabulous]

My take:

The dark ages of navigation by stopwatch and compass are gone. The dark days of wobbly VORs and lightning detector NDBs are almost gone. GPS knows where you are within +/- 100metres, mostly less.

When the primary means of VFR navigation (mapreading) tells you your location to within one mile (if you're lucky and the wind hasn't shifted), and the secondary means of navigation fixes you within 100metres, which is more reliable?

Yes, the electrics could die, but a spare GPS on batteries following the same route would keep going for at least 3 hours - more then enough time. On the flip side, what if your visibility sudden goes down to 1 mile or less while you're mapreading the old fashioned way in a C152 with knackered avionics? Oh dear, you're in big trouble - especially for a PPL. We all know it happens.

It's a bit like comparing a sextant to an INS - the INS will let you avoid the mountains, but the sextant will give you a closer approach. I'm sure airline pilots whined about the sextant being easier to use - do the use it now? Mapreading is fine for PPL training, and nessescary, but if you're lost in low vis and out of range of 121.5, GPS WILL save the day (as long as you know how to use it).

Mapreading, NDBs and VORs are now secondary navigation - like it or whine about it, GPS is here to stay. The Wright brothers flew 103 years ago - maybe we've found a better method of navigating - and none too soon.

I'm very grateful to Dublinpilot for showing me his incredible GPS setup on a flight last year - it really opened my eyes.

[Fuji Abound]

The key here is to examine the problems with GPS and the alternatives. These are the commonly cited problems:

1. It is possible to jam the signal,
2. It is possible for the set to fail without reporting it has failed,
3. It may be subject to accuracy degradation,
4. The database may be inaccurate.

Whilst there has been much talk of the ability to jam GPS signals and the availability of equipment to do so, there are no unscheduled reports of jamming. Whilst VFR GPS are not RAIM compliant if the signal is jammed they are far more likely to report a loss of signal or degradation of navigation to 2D.

It would be a poor pilot who was not monitoring his predicted en route course against the GPS by some other means. For example, with a moving map GPS you would have a pretty good idea how quickly the aircraft was moving along the map, the heading compared with that of your DI and your position by reference to visual features. In reality only the most subtle of the problems identified might go unnoticed. For example were the signal to be jammed the GPS would indicate a loss of signal and the aircraft would stop moving on the display or perhaps jump around the map in an unpredictable manner. Both are likely to get the pilots attention! A loss of degradation is far more subtle and could mean you are wide of your predicted course but it seems very unlikely that the degradation would be reflected in a continuos and predictable manner so that the aircraft was shown consistently 5 miles wide of track to the north for example.

In short a pilot who was at the very least cross checking his GPS with visual features occasionally and monitoring his progress to ensure it was following his predicted course is very unlikely not to be aware of any of these problems. That does of course mean he still needs to have the ability to fall back on some other form of navigation should the need arise.

The problems are broadly not dissimilar for a pilot en route operating IFR in IMC, other than the obvious issue that visual navigation is not now an option. As they have been for a long time now the tools of trade are the VOR’s and the PLOG. Once again if both are being monitored with even a modicum of diligence it is unlikely the discrepancy between the PLOG, the VORs and the GPS will go unnoticed for very long.

There is of course a significant difference with IMC operations (with broad similarities to flying very close to a zone boundary) and VMC operations in that during the landing and departure phases very accurate navigation is required and even for a pilot with good currency a risk that he may not identify a problem with the GPS of the sort described quickly enough. For this reason it seems vital that either operations of this sort are supported by other navigational aids or in the case of an approach the minimum takes account of the navigational risk. For example at an airport with an NDB DME procedure and a minima of 600 feet there would seem little problem relying on a RAIM GPS approach if the highest obstacle within the sector is 250 feet!

In short I cant help feeling a great deal of rubbish is printed about the use of GPS by people who have little understanding of its problems and its practical use. Of course if you are blindly relying on GPS for navigation and are an inexperienced pilot you may infringe a zone or end of getting hopelessly lost, but this must be weighted against the likelihood of the same pilot getting lost using traditional forms of navigation. In so far as the IFR pilot is concerned if he is going to operate in IMC in a SEP, SP, then he needs all the help he can get. He is hopefully going to have the experience not to rely on any one single means of navigation and that includes VORs. In over 1,000 hours of using a GPS in a SEP I have had the VOR fail twice, and become unstable or out of range on more occasions than I can count and yet the GPS has never (repeat never) failed. For such operations the aircraft is going to be fitted with at least one VOR, probably two, a DME and two moving map GPSs - there is pretty good redundancy and cross checking cover.

[FlyingForFun]

Confabulous, I can not concur that map reading is dead.

When the resolution of the screen is sufficient to show me the same details as my 1/2-million scale map, we may be some way closer to map reading being dead. Indeed, many pilots I know find that the 1/2-million is not detailed enough, and opt for the more detailed 1/4-million scale.

Likewise, when I can read NOTAMs, take a lat/long coordinate of a NOTAM of interest, and plot it on my GPS to ensure that I remain clear of it all day, we might be a little closer. Bear in mind that as an instructor, I do a lot of flying which is not along pre-planned routes, but general handling in and around my local area. In the case of trial lessons, I often don't decide where I'm going until after I get airborne (when the trial lesson happens to mention that they work at XXX, so I suggest that they fly themselves over their place of work, for example), so simply deciding in advance whether my track takes me through the relevant area is not enough.

I can not stick old GPS databases on my wall at home, and use them as a rough guide in the early stages of planning, nor can I open a GPS database out in front of a student to show him how the different layers of airspace are built up on top of each other. And if I take my girlfriend flying and point out where I'm planning on taking her on my GPS, the most I might get would be disinterested "hmm", whereas I can point out somewhere on a map and she will associate it with somewhere nearby that she knows.

I could carry on.....

FFF
----------------

[Fuji Abound]

FFF - I just had to come back on your post because I did not cover the short comings you mention.

1. Lack of detail compared with a traditional map.

The lack of detail is wholly down to the type of moving map you use, and the use you intend to make of it. The moving map I use is every bit as detailed as the 1/2 mil scale at the higher zoom levels and in some respects far more detailed. With the GPS I can position the aircraft over a VRP (within 30 metres probably) should I want to, but I doubt my map reading is that good.

2. Plotting NOTAMS

.. .. .. but you can. It is just as quick to enter a NOTAM on your moving map as a waypoint as on your chart. Granted adding a zone is more complicated but usually the zone is a radius from the point, so not too much of a problem unless you want to get as close to the zone as possible.

3. Girl friends and putting them on the wall

Many GPS packages come with a PC companion. I think the "GPS maps" for the PC that accompany them are far easier to manipulate than paper charts and far more informative for the student because you can show them flight profiles that miss the areas of controlled airspace in the 3D representation and give the student a better appreciation of climb or descend profiles.

As for the girl friend .. .. ..

and without being sexest, unless she is a pilot people usually relate better to road maps than aviation maps anyway so show her one of these, or switch your GPS PC map between the two (removing all that silly aviation clutter :). She will also be impressed how easy it is to move around a PC GPS map rather than having to spread several maps out over the floor for those longer trips.

[IO540]

I agree with Fuji Abound. Time to move to the 20th century.

FlyingForFun:

"When the resolution of the screen is sufficient to show me the same details as my 1/2-million scale map..."

I think you have a deep mis-understanding of how GPS is used for real navigation.

You CAN get what you want. You just need the right sort of GPS. Not the piece of junk from the local camping accessories shop, which no doubt is what the mostly-rubbish content of CAA "safety" sense leaflet #25 is based on, not to mention the views of most of the old guard of the anti-GPS Kremlin.

The reason most GPSs don't display the printed-chart data is nothing to do with GPS. It is to do with the tight grip on copyright (and the desire for royalties) which exists within the Peoples Republic of Europe, ably assisted by the UK CAA and every other CAA in these parts.

If you want a GPS that shows the CAA charts (in fact potentially up to 1 year less out of date than the paper ones, but I am going to be charitable today) then you can buy Memory Map www.memory-map.co.uk and run it on a pocket/pc PDA, or a Tablet PC. You will end up with a fantastic big-screen GPS which blows away every "aviation" GPS on the market for VFR presentation. And if you go for a Tablet PC like this http://www.motioncomputing.com/products/tablet_pc_ls.asp for example then you can also run a decent flight planning program like Navbox and you can chuck away the slide rule too. Not a £100 solution, but good things never are dirt cheap.

I chucked away my slide rule the day I passed the PPL skills test. Good riddance. IFR navigation is the way forward, regardless of the rules one is flying under.

Unfortunately MM doesn't provide charts for outside the UK (I suspect their marketing man is still having counselling after signing the cheques to the CAA for the use of "their" data) but there are ways to do the same trick for the whole area for which the Jepp 1:500k VFR/GPS charts are available, basically all the way down and across Italy. You can get this on the 28-day update cycle, too. But if, like most PPLs, you never fly outside the UK, this isn't relevant.

There are even ways to do it very cheaply, if you are into "sharing" of map data :O

The reason the Garmins etc don't provide decent VFR maps for Europe is because they can't get them. Not in digital vector form, which is what is needed. So they all license the rather bare vector database from Jeppesen which holds the monopoly on all this stuff. That database is uniform for everywhere.

In reality, existing GPS databases are not a problem because (for VFR) one uses the printed chart for planning anyway. The route is then loaded into the GPS, where it is displayed against the map. During the flight, the GPS just presents the primary reference track line. So there is no great need for every last bit of detail.

If the CAA really wanted to get a grip on the apparently rising CAS infringements issue, they would approach this whole subject properly. They could start by making their map data available free of charge.

Girlz always have problems with rotating maps anyway :O

[A and C]

If you fly above FL100 it is mandatory to have a BRNAV unit fitted to the aircraft.
Most of these units us GPS I have flown three types of airliner for UK based companys that have used GPS and only GPS to meet the BRNAV requirement, Yes the aircraft did have a full "airways" avionic fit but if you think that anything other than the GPS was used when cleared to an airway intersection 500 miles away then it is time for you to wake up and smell the coffee.

A GPS approach has recently been published at Lille, thats not very far from office of the luddites of Gatwick. How long is it going to take for these people to wake up to the fact that the rest of aviation is leaving them in the dark ages ?

The fact is that no one uses ONE and ONLY ONE type of nav aid , you always back up one aid with another and these days most of my IFR flight uses GPS with VOR/DME back up.

The only warning I would add to the above post is the GPS unit must conform to a TSO and be installed in accordance with that TSO, also it must have an up to date data base. The hand held GPS units are very clever but not up to IFR flight.

[dublinpilot]

If you fly above FL100 it is mandatory to have a BRNAV unit fitted to the aircraft.

Unless I'm mistaken, and I may very well be, that only applies to IFR flights, not VFR.

dp

[FlyingForFun]

Fuji/IO540,

After reading both your posts, I have to concede that my last post was perhaps a little hasty. As you both point out, it is possible to do some of those things which I said weren't possible - but even though I concede that this may be true, I still think that all the examples I gave are far easier to do with a paper chart.

This is something I have found over many years, not just in aviation. In my previous job as a computer programmer, I often had to study many pages of computer code - a task which I found next to impossible on a computer screen, and far easier on paper, which I could spread around so I could see a large amount of information in one go, and mark it up as I needed. But then when it came to debugging that same code, it would have been impossible to do this on paper, and the extra tools that the computer offered overcame the difficulties of having only a limited amount of screen-space.

In aviation, in the vast majority of situations, the tools the GPS offers overcome the limited screen-space (and even the limited information which the GPS manufacturer has chosen to buy to put on the screen). But there are situations where these tools are not needed, and then the advantages of an old-fashioned map are once again superior. The examples I have given are those which, in my experience, fall into this category, although your experiences may vary from mine.

Please re-read my first post on this thread, and you will see that I am in no way anit-GPS, but I think it is very important to realise that modern GPS is so good that it is very easy to become reliant on it, and to make an effort to ensure that this does not happen. And, as a separate issue, there might be a small number of cases where it is not the best tool.

FFF
---------------

[IO540]

dublinpilot

Quite right, BRNAV capability is mandatory only on BRNAV routes at FL095 and above and this is IFR flight. In the GA context, an IFR GPS is the only meaningful way to meet this requirement.

I am not aware of any nav equipment requirement for day VFR flight. The UK has none. One can look in each country's AIP; I vaguely recall Germany requires the carriage of an ADF (of all things) for night VFR, and France might have something like a VOR receiver given that they permit VMC on top.

A and C

For en-route nav, the case for an TSO'd GPS is a lot thinner than the vendors who charge 5x more money for them would like you to think. The biggest benefit by far comes from a dedicated rooftop aerial. A non-IFR panel mount like a KMD150 (essentially a panel mounted Skymap 3) will be every bit as reliable as a KLN94, GNS430, GNS530. RAIM is not an issue for en-route nav, in reality. And the great benefit of a non-IFR panel mount is that you can load a flight plan into it from a laptop; this feature is not available in any GA IFR unit.

FlyingForFun

As a hardware/software developer I too prefer reading printouts. Paper charts are nicer for large-scale VFR flight planning, because one often needs to work out a bizzarely detailed route to stay outside CAS - only to get a nice DCT through it all on the actual flight.

But nobody is suggesting doing away with paper charts. With a decent flight planning program with the real VFR raster charts (look up Jepp Flitestar and their Raster Chart add-on) you can get the same thing but it's still quite awkward and you need a printer handy.

Really, today, the anti-GPS case ranks alongside leather helmets, goggles, the signals square, keeping the tail wheel in a bucket to stop mice crawling up it and eating the seats, the slide rule, the man in the bar who boasts how he flew some fabric covered biplane all the way to Egypt without ever going above 600ft and without a radio. Nothing wrong with any of these things, so long as one sees them in their correct perspective :O

[Fuji Abound]

IO540

Thats that is not true!

I still find leather helmets are the best thing for holding on DCs when aeroing :)

[slim_slag]

the man in the bar who boasts how he flew some fabric covered biplane all the way to Egypt without ever going above 600ft and without a radio

Bet he buys fewer drinks than the person with a fully kitted out moving map spamcan.

[A and C]

I don't see loading data into a panel mounted GPS an issue after all I can get a 5 hour flight plan into the box before the oil walms up enough to taxi.

Thats in the UK , At LGSA in the summer the oil is walm enough to taxi befor I have left the hotel !

[IO540]

The idea behind loading a flight plan from say Navbox or Flitestar directly into the GPS is that it avoids human error.

This is the big "missing link" for IFR flight. You HAVE to use a GPS for airways flight, you more or less have to use serious flight planning software to work out the route, the route can comprise of 50 waypoints, yet there is no way to transfer them from the laptop to the GPS.

[Rod1]

The big problem with programming the route in the aircraft is you are much more likely to make a mistake. I only have a 196, but programming it before I leave home with Navbox makes it much more usable than my old 150XL. It only takes a few seconds to transfer and I get the plog and the frequency’s on the printer, which match the route, at the same time.

Rod1

[A and C]

I won't say that I don't make mistakes but 50 waypoints ! ! what on earth are you doing ? I can do northern Spain from the UK with not more than about 15 waypoints.

The gross error check at the end of the input is the distance from the plog to the GPS normaly the differance is one or two miles.

Remember that the SID,s & STAR,s are in the box so that part of the set up is easy the STAR on the taxi out and the SID when you get the arrival clearance.

[IO540]

Depends on whether your GPS can accept airway references directly. Very few can. If not, lots and lots of waypoints to go in, lots of knob twiddling.

[A and C]

In real world terms there is about the same amount of work in putting a route plan into a GA GPS as there is in putting a route of the same time duration into an airliner FMC.

The FMC will of course put in all the waypoints on an airway a with just the input of the start fix, airway number and end fix but most of this information is surplus to requiements in practical terms.

The time that most likely to need a "surplus" waypoint is if ATC wants an ETA for that point, the nearest function on most GA GPS units is likely to find that point and get it into the flight plan as least as quickly as it can be done from the fix page of an FMC. As to loading data in lat/long format there is nothing to choose between a GPS & an FMC in terms of time.

There are some navigation functions on the FMC that the GPS lacks but add a heading input from the HSI and a Fuel/Air data computor and you get 98% of the functions of an FMC for 5% of the price.

[IO540]

Yes, one could load a (straight) airway just by putting in the two fixes and a DCT between them; the advantage of having the intermediate points loaded is that ATC are likely to give you a DCT to one of them, and it is very quick to just scroll down to it on the list and press DCT.

Small details, I agree.

You also get keyboard data entry on a FMC :O

[BEagle]

The ability to transfer a route created using a PC and some on-line planning software to a GPS is indeed a 'missing link'. What is needed is a front panel USB stick port and 'import route' option on the a/c installation.

Plan the flight using an on-line planning tool with embedded current meteorological and NOTAM information, then download it to a USB stick. Creating lat/long waypoints by mouse-click would be a lot simpler and less error-prone than typing waypoint strings into a conventional GPS. The planning s/w should flag an alert if, for example, you plan to fly through areas of hazardous weather or through an activated danger Area. Then import the route to the a/c GPS with the USB stick - if NOTAMs have expired since the planning date/time stamp, then an alert should be given.

Irrespective of the gucciness of your spangly a/c kit, I will not be persuaded that a current chart isn't also needed as a tool of last resort - with the route pencilled in, as a minimum.

I'm a great believer in the use of GPS by PPL holders - but the user-friendliness and distracting eye candy of the more complicated all-in-one boxes leaves a lot to be desired. You'd need to fly every day to maintain sufficient familiarity with the kit in order to be able to use it safely.

[A and C]

With all the talk of red hot technology perhaps we should take a look at how things were done it the past, may be BEagle could set up a trip for us to the old airliner living museum that is on his door step !.

[unfazed]

GPS Is here and is definitely the future

There are quite a few "Luddites" who cannot see this and who don't want to see this and the CAA gives them plenty of good reasons to stay in the dark ages however....

If you have a paper plan worked out and you back it up with GPS then you have the best of both worlds. FAA advise that a technically advanced aircraft is one which has an autopilot and gps and both of these are required equipment for flight.:cool:

[chriscook]

You'd need to fly every day to maintain sufficient familiarity with the kit in order to be able to use it safely. In respect of at least the Garmin 430/530, this is absolute tosh.
The spread of scaremongering misinformation about GPS continues.

[slim_slag]

The spread of scaremongering misinformation about GPS continues.

Lots of intolerance and 'only my way works' from people on both sides of the argument.

[IO540]

Beagle

The highly desirable utopia you describe will never happen, not in Europe anyway.

As I've suggested, you can get close enough though.

Navbox and Flitestar will both load up a non-IFR GPS. Navbox requires the use of printed charts. Flitestar can have the Jepp VFR/GPS charts in it.

IMV, for VFR or IFR flight at nonpressurised levels, one needs a lot more than just a list of TAFs and METARs along the planned route and the F215. One looks at other sources e.g. SigWX, various bits of GFS. So this looks very difficult to do automatically, to everyone's liking.

Again for VFR flight, Notams are a must and in principle one could set up an interface into the AIS database and stuff the planned route into the Narrow Route Briefing. I believe that Navbox has done a tie-up with Avbrief which is supposed to do just this, but last time I tried it (some months ago) I could not get it to work. However, entering the route into the NRB form is trivial enough.

You don't need to fly daily to remain familiar with a modern GPS, for basic en route operations. And terminal operations are not go get a lot of exercise in the UK right now...

A&C

I think airliners never had much of a problem (well other than going into the odd bit of the Andes because their dead reckoning went wrong) because they have been under radar control for many years, they don't have to avoid CAS, icing is rarely a problem (equipment plus mach heating), and they have 2 pilots. I have better nav gear than Concorde had when it retired (I went into the cockpit after landing). A lot of the technology drive for GA appears to be flash marketing (big LCDs especially) but it should make single pilot IFR safer, through a reduction in cockpit workload.

[chriscook]

Lots of intolerance and 'only my way works' from people on both sides of the argument.
Erm ... from which part of my post did you discern any intolerance or any 'only my way works'? I was not expressing those views and, as it happens, most definitely don't hold them. I would support any navigation method that works reliably.
BEagle made a strong statement against using the more complex GPS's unless you fly daily. That is about as nonsensical and inaccurate as claiming you need to fly daily if you are going to rely on a map, compass and stopwatch!

[slim_slag]

Chriscook, my statement was in support of yours.

[SkyHawk-N]

This is something I have found over many years, not just in aviation. In my previous job as a computer programmer, I often had to study many pages of computer code - a task which I found next to impossible on a computer screen, and far easier on paper.---------------

Hey FFF, is that why you changed jobs? :E

Skyhawk-N

[Fuji Abound]

Beagle

It is worth taking a look at some of the more recently developed aviation software for GPSs before reaching a conclusion.

PocketFMS is a good example.

The maps cover the whole of Europe and are as detailed as the “official” charts. Monthly updates are freely available. There is a growing user group that work together to keep the non critical data up to date. The software can be run on a PC with full facilities and the flight plans “uploaded” to your GPS. METAR and TAFS can be downloaded for all airports for a given FIR not just en route airports. The frequency information for every airport is shown as well as that for all navigation beacons, all controlled airspace is shown including UK class A, as are all danger areas depicted. VFR approach profiles are available for all airports as well as VFR circuit diagrams and AIP extract. Agreed NOTAMS are not yet shown. Agreed, I am not suggesting this is an “IFR”compliant setup.

Proponents of restricting the use of GPS should take a look at this type of software and of the more recent offerings from Garmin and others before reaching a conclusion. It is surprising how much the software and hardware has progressed.

The reality is all the time the system is working there is really no need to look at a chart or a flight guide again because you have all the information on the display in front of you. I accept the caveat "all the time it is working" and thats why the chart and flight guide will remain firmly by my side but as I posted previoulsy not one GPS has yet let me down and with running twin GPSs there is a bit of redundancy as well.:ok:

The real question is how far you rely on “modern” technology and how far you allow the “old” skills to deteriorate. Sailors use to be able to use a sextant, but not many still can, sailors use to be able to “plot” a course using the manual navigation skills we use in the air, and most making serious passages still can, but many are totally reliant on GPS. The fact is as GPS has been perceived as becoming more and more reliable, and sets cheaper, so more than one can be carried, the more sailors have been prepared to rely on the GPS never letting them down. In reality pilots maybe have it easier because were the GPS to fail (at least in the UK at any rate) they will get a steer from D and D if the “old” skills have become so rusty they do not work!

The question this poses is whether we continue to be correct placing all the emphasis on teaching the “old” skills as part of our PPL training whilst almost totalling ignoring the use of GPSs? Might we at some point become totally reliant on GPSs as our primary means of navigation with most pilots taught these skills during their training with little emphasis on traditional skills? After all in most SEPs we trust our lives to at best double redundancy (two mags, two fuel pumps) and at worst to single redundancy (one engine). I would be interested to know the statistics for engine failures a year compared with twin GPS failures a year - I reckon I know which has the better odds.

An anecdote which for me illustrates well the advantages of GPS. I remember getting a bit too close to some very bad weather in an area with which I was not very familiar and with none of the en route diversions I had planned looking very attractive. There was a somewhat pressing need to go in a completely different direction which as it happened was between charts. The nearest function was able to pull up and at a glance eliminate all the airports in an unsuitable direction, plot a steer, show any danger areas that required avoiding, provide all the frequency information needed, pull up the terrain and ensure there was sufficient fuel to beat a hasty retreat. That’s all information that traditional skills should also be able to provide us with but the instancy with which it is available is a heck of a way of reducing cockpit stress and freeing up time to get on with the more important tasks of flying the old girl!

[nouseforaname]

FAO WHOEVER STARTED THIS THREAD

make sure you put in your article how GPS should now be recognised as the way people are going to navigate. Apart from a few people on here.

Someone needs to bash into the CAA's head that the PPL syllabus should cover how to use one properly. Including how to keep you GPS up to date.

HOW MANY OF YOU GUYS THAT RELY ON GPS SKIP THROUGH THAT PAGE THAT SAYS 'DATABASE EXPIRED'?

[IO540]

FA

You could start by asking the CAA to provide their VFR chart data to PocketFMS free of charge :O

That would be a true test of their determination to improve something.

You won't get very far!

[PPRuNe Radar]

GPS is a great 'tool', in other words, something which can be used as an aid (but not a sole aid or technique).

But it's only any good if people are trained how to use it (which is haphazard right now), people are made aware of its limitations (haphazard again), the database is kept up to date (a big variable !!), and people still maintain the other skills to allow them to compensate for equipment failure or reduced capability.

Unless you get joined up thinking from the CAA, then it's not going to happen.

That said, once GPS is an accepted part of the culture, I'd introduce a few things. Anyone using a GPS who penetrated CAS or an active Danger Area would have their licence removed and their hands cut off for good measure. :p Plus I'd have several days a year (unannounced) where the system was shut off or severely degraded to ensure people can still cope without it. With the same penalties above for anyone getting in trouble. GA pilots could see it as akin to their 6 monthly sim check which ATPLs require :ok: And finally, I'd make anyone who believes GPS can never fail or get you in trouble have a look at unedited photos of accident sites where pilots have come to a bloody end because they believed the same.

PS the last paragraph wasn't serious ... or was it ?? :)

[PPRuNe Radar]

You could start by asking the CAA to provide their VFR chart data to PocketFMS free of charge

Mmmm, so an organisation which is tasked by the Government to make full cost recovery through its users should give away portions of its work for free to a company who will then use that free information to make themselves lots of money. Very capitalist ;)

[dublinpilot]

Mmmm, so an organisation which is tasked by the Government to make full cost recovery through its users should give away portions of its work for free to a company who will then use that free information to make themselves lots of money. Very capitalist

Ah....but you're forgetting that PocketFMS is given away free of charge! :p

Ok, they do ask for a donation (which I have given), but it's not required. They are far from capitalists making lots of money ;)

[Fuji Abound]

PR - erhm - as the software is free, I am wondering how they make money? :confused:

You might subscribe to the enhanced maps but I am not sure I would want to earn a living from a once off payment of £30 or whatever it is now.

Within your vein of flippancy, of course you would have to apply the same rules to the “traditional” navigators who bust CAS, and whilst you are running your simulated GPS outage you should transmit the following message to all aircraft without GPS:

All aircraft are now required to divert to a position which will be passed to you by the unit you are currently working. The position will be up to 60 miles away and you are required to ensure you miss all danger areas and CAS en route, you are also required to inform your unit of your estimate for that position. Your progress WILL be closely monitored. I wonder how many will successfully manage the task??

Of course if you fail the task, and you only have 5 minutes to establish yourself correctly on the new route, all priviliges will be immediately revoked.

Only kidding.

[PPRuNe Radar]

Why would an ATC unit require you to divert somewhere 60 miles away ??

That's just being silly :p

Point taken on the PocketFMS being 'free', however the CAA would presumably then have to open it up to everyone for free, some of whom would seek to make money out of it. Or would Jeppesen, Garmin, etc, also move in to the world of 'freeware' ?

[strafer]

I wonder if in a parallel universe, someone on a motorist's website who enquired about purchasing a Tom Tom, is being slated by a red-faced old duffer for not using the Royal Automobile Club's map of the British Empire for all their navigation?

[IO540]

"would Jeppesen, Garmin, etc, also move in to the world of 'freeware' "

Garmin and everybody else use Jepp GPS data, and Jepp wouldn't touch CAA VFR chart data because it's no good to them; it's specific to the UK, they would be unlikely to get as lucky elsewhere in Europe, it is in raster form so isn't suitable for rotation according to aircraft heading. It's all flat; you can't click on a round blob called "Goodwood" and see the airfield data like you can with the Jepp GPS database. See Memory Map for example. Pretty maps and it makes a nice 2nd GPS but that's it. I am sure the CAA data could be incorporated into a deeper database but who will do it?

Sadly, this is all "mental masturbation" as someone referred to something else here recently. It will never happen. An individual can do it, a low level network of pilots could do it, but any overt venture can't because of copyright issues.

To me, flying abroad is the biggest attraction of flying and would never buy a GPS unless it had unified coverage for all of Europe.

In time, things may change. Eurocontrol are doing a project called Skyview (can't find the URL right now) which is basically a database of everything aviation, and you can build up the desired layers of airfields, navaids, airspace, etc. The resulting maps are pretty rough but they are free and, I guess, totally official. I have no idea if the data can be used commercially but it would appear ideal for a GPS. There is a lot of stuff like that going on at Eurocontrol. They are working on ading an autorouting function to the CFMU website, for example (for airways routes, taking into account SRDs, CDRs etc). They already have it in-house.

Nothing can be more expensive than Jepp's 28-day updates and they are milking the European "grab a copyright on this and that" machine for all it's worth.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Strafer, I'll have you know that not all RAC members are old duffers! Some are even under the age of 30 do you know..... They even allow sprog's in now for "family" days.:eek:

Anyway back to GPS.... Surely it is not beyond the realms of possibility that a totally integrated planning/mapping system that can be downloaded directly to a GPS can be developed?

The ability to plan a route and get all current NOTAMS, Wx, airspace as well as topographical data in one place and then shove it into one box in the cockpit (via USB "dongle" or whatever) would make life an awful lot simpler and less prone to mistakes.

I suppose it just requires all the different agencies to get together and communicate.

[funfly]

Why do all those pilots who are suspicious of GPS use as justification that it won't do everything - it doesn't have this bit of information, it doesn't have that".
Does your ILS system have all this, terrain avoidance, danger areas?
Of course not - your GPS is a tool and a good one at that, and it is in addition to the other means of navigation available to the pilot.
Stop thinking that everyone who uses GPS 1. never consults the map or does a plog and 2. only ever uses the GOTO button!

[Fuji Abound]

"Why would an ATC unit require you to divert somewhere 60 miles away ??

That's just being silly"


Prune Radar - ah, well if you read my earlier post you would know why.

"Anyway back to GPS.... Surely it is not beyond the realms of possibility that a totally integrated planning/mapping system that can be downloaded directly to a GPS can be developed?"

Say again slowly - I hate to take your pseudonym in vein, but to say it again very slowly it has already been done! - minus only the NOTAMS.


I think some of these posts typify one of the biggest problems with GPS (and other "new" tecnologies for that matter). People simply cant be bothered to understand what it does, and what its capabilities are. I dont mind that in itself (we are all sometimes too busy) but I do have a problem when they are willing to criticise from such an ill informed position.

[Johnm]

Why does the topic of GPS always arouse religious navigation wars??

GPS is by far the most accurate and easy to use navigation system, but the context in which it is used is important. I have a handheld GPS the trusty little pilot III from Garmin. It is very convenient to use since I can download routes and update its database from my PC using Navbox and Jepp.

It is my primary navigation aid and I've been guided right across France by it before now, BUT IT's NOT THE ONLY ONE, because like everything else it can fail and indeed it lost all contact with satellites while I was flying in the crud only the other day.

I was not then blind because I had two VOR and a DME and an ADF all tuned and I knew precisely where I was because I had been cross referencing my GPS position with my chart at regular intervals and could now do the same using the radio aids. The difference is that the answer is probably a mile or more out with Radio Navaids and it's much more work for the old brain to cope with when flying the plane and managing the engine.

Happily the little beast recovered and helped me into my destination which had no approach to follow and before anyone jumps down my throat the cloud base was well above circuit height and vis about 3kms so I could have used nothing but MK1 eyeball if push had come to shove.

The whole point about tools is they are supposed to make things easier to accomplish well. Surely no-one is going to suggest that GPS doesn't make navigation easier and more accurate:E

[Say again s l o w l y]

Fuji, in that case it hasn't been done has it!
Why are NOTAMs not included? A truly integrated system would do it all, not miss out fairly vital bits of info.

Johnm, I have no idea why there is such a lot of passion aroused when the subject of GPS is raised, but I agree that it's all a bit silly.

GPS is brilliant and an incredible aid to safety, I think the nay-sayers have just never used it fully or experienced the piece of mind it can bring. Having operated for a long time without it and a fair while with it, I for one never go anywhere without having a handheld unit in my headset case. You never know when it may come in useful. Having a proper panel mounted moving map display in colour is even better!

[nipper1]

I'll hold my own council on the merits of GPS versus 'traditional' navigation but please can some body give me a simple technical explanation (leave your prejudices and opinions behind, I just want science).

Question: Why am I allowed to make an NDB approach with all it's know deficiencies (night effect, weather effect, coast effect etc.) and absolutley no integrity checking (well OK, it has a morse ident.) but I am not allowed to make a non-precision GPS approach with a RAIM certified GPS set?

Am I missing something?

[slim_slag]

nipper, I think you are missing the commercial angle. Europe is putting up a GPS system which will have the same strengths and weaknesses as the US one will (the US are upgrading capabilities so by the time the European one is in place it won't be any better).

The only explanation I can come up with is the Europeans will not allow the use of the free American system as it will then be a real bugger to get them to use the chargeable European one when it is in place. Better to ban the use until the European system is in a position to charge, then require European entities to use it. A bit cynical perhaps, but I cannot come up with any other reason that makes sense. I cannot see the US ever turning GPS off, even in Europe. Too many American people and companies use it.

[Fuji Abound]

Nipper1 - you can - Lille has an approved GPS approach, others will follow.

[IO540]

"I have no idea why there is such a lot of passion aroused when the subject of GPS is raised"

I think it is little to do with GPS itself. After all, what do I care how somebody else navigates. The only time I might care is if they get lost, bust some airspace, and then we all end up paying some price for that in the form of restrictions. If everybody else is flying at 600ft AGL (because they want to read the road signs) then so much the better; less traffic where I go :O

I think the reason it gets people going is the much wider issue of where GA is going, and the picture is bleak on nearly every front.

There is the year on year decline in GA activity. PPL issue is down and down. Already nearly every UK airfield is under constant threat, financially, NIMBY-wise, planning-wise. The GA fleet is 25-30 years old and rotting away happily, with so few new planes coming along.

Flying does have some utility value but only once you get an instrument qualification, and most UK GA airfields have no instrument approaches. So it's down to the leisure element. Most leisure activities are driven by social factors. Yet the airfield social scene is full of anoraks!

That's what gets me going; it's the pretence by the anorak group that all is well, while everything is gradually falling apart. Their anti-GPS anti-anything-modern attitude is just a visible trademark. The crap put out by the CAA just makes the situation "official".

The problem (a decline in GA) is also happening in the USA. However they have some advantages: it's happening a lot slower; GA is more integrated into their economy; there is a lot more money about in it; and they have modern planes (e.g. Cirrus) that sell in enough numbers to offer a hope of replacing the rotting Cessna/Piper fleet.

[High Wing Drifter]

Slim,

Galileo will be better in the sense that it augments NAVSTAR and possibly GLONASS too, in addition I bet a Galileo versions of WAAS/dGPS and/or psuedollites are developed for precision approaches. That means more satellites, more redundancy and better accuracy (and no RAIM warnings). In addition, the pay to use Galileo will ensure levels of service, which is arguably necessary for commercial certification.

My reading between the lines, is that if you don't subscribe to Galileo, then you only get to use NAVSTAR. If that is the case then you don't get to use GPS approaches in EASA held teritory. In other words, if you don't pay for Galileo then not only can you not use it commercially, but you are limited to ADF and VOR (where they haven't been switched off).

Effectively, if you don't subscribe you can't run a viable commercial operation.

On the plus side, imagine how straight forward a utilitity (personal or otherwise) trip would be with a guarenteed levels of service GPS system. Plus the knowledge that you follow a GPS approach at the other end. Every airfield could have a non-precision approach without having to maintain and power transmiters. I think it would be fab.

However, for me bimbles, I'll stick with the Vagabond for forseeable future :)

[IO540]

HWD

I agree with your assessment but

"pay to use Galileo will ensure levels of service, which is arguably necessary for commercial certification"

is straight out of the Galileo PR :O In reality, the only guarantee of anything whatsoever in this world is the extent to which somebody wants it to be available, and nothing is more "wanted" than Navstar. Galileo is guaranteed to be a white elephant for a time; the only question is how long for.

I expect Galileo will be authorised for GPS approaches only in its "pay per view" mode but who cares? Navstar is about 10x more accurate that is needed for en-route. And we all have to carry VOR/DME/ADF/ILS anyway.

Here in the UK, the CAA wants so much money for approving instrument approaches, and this together with their insistence on full ATC is preventing loads of airfields having GPS approaches. Nobody wants to spend the money, for the tiny extra traffic. In the meantime, commercial ops working out of such airfields get themselves a private unpublished IAP based on a nearby navaid....

[Fuji Abound]

IO540

Your explanation of why some of us are so passionate about GPS is very well put.

GA needs new blood, it needs new pilots, it needs to embrace new tecnology otherwise GA will cease to exist.

That does not mean there isnt a place for "traditional" skills and traditional aircraft. I enjoy flying Tigers and I have enjoyed the precsion navigation competitions in which I have taken part (in which incidentally you carry a GPS without a display to verify your performance).

However we are increasingly accustom to "satnav" in our cars, electronic ignition, fuel efficient engines etc etc. Todays children will expect "satnav" in their aircraft, will be bemused that we dont have GPS approaches and will demand aircraft that dont appear to be from the dark ages. I am not a todays child but I remember well when I learnt my first flight in an ageing PA28. It was damp in side, the carpet falling to bits, not much of the kit seemed to work - was I really going flying in this?

We need a vibrant GA community if we are going to continue enjoying flying attracting more new pilots who are prepared to keep and use their license.

Rant over :\

[High Wing Drifter]

IO540,
is straight out of the Galileo PR
I was thinking that when writing hence the "arguably" :D Point taken, but if nobody assumes accountability or underwrites the setup then the revenue stream is right out of the window and so is the motivation to do anything.

[PPRuNe Radar]

I remember getting a bit too close to some very bad weather in an area with which I was not very familiar and with none of the en route diversions I had planned looking very attractive. There was a somewhat pressing need to go in a completely different direction which as it happened was between charts. The nearest function was able to pull up and at a glance eliminate all the airports in an unsuitable direction, plot a steer, show any danger areas that required avoiding, provide all the frequency information needed, pull up the terrain and ensure there was sufficient fuel to beat a hasty retreat. That’s all information that traditional skills should also be able to provide us with but the instancy with which it is available is a heck of a way of reducing cockpit stress and freeing up time to get on with the more important tasks of flying the old girl!

Prune Radar - ah, well if you read my earlier post you would know why.

So Fuji Flyer, where did ATC tell you to divert 60NM .... mmm, they didn't. Or did you mean a different post ??

Maybe I am wierd, but as a pilot I accept my own responsibilities and make my own decisions. Sometimes that means I have to think on the hoof .... such is the life of an aviator.

If I make a mistake, I live with the consequences :ok:

As I said earlier ... GPS is a good thing if training is given and used properly. For anyone who uses it as an excuse for their own shortcomings .... that's their lookout :ok:

[Fuji Abound]

PR

The point I was seeking to illustrate is that GPS is a very powerful tool for providing a pilot with the information he needs when having to think on the hoof. It provides a means of navigating that is far less error prone and far quicker than traditional navigation in these type of circumstances.

As I am sure you realised my point was to wonder how many traditional navigators could accurately and quickly complete a diversion of this type if asked to, never mind if they had to.

What your shortcomings and consequences of mistakes have to do with anything leaves me struggling.

The reality is sometimes a diversion over some distance is necessary for all sorts of reasons and I can think of numerous reasons which do not remotely have anything to do with pilot shortcomings. A true traditionalist of course would use nothing but the equipment in a Tiger Moth. GPS provides another way of going about it which is far more sophisticated.

If you prefer to do mental arithmetic rather than use a calculator then good for you. As I think IO540 said it doesnt matter to me how you navigate.

[slim_slag]

HWD,

The future EU system you describe will be no better than the US one, and who do you think invented WAAS? You can already fly your magical GPS flight in the States.

The US system is backed by the US government, it's hard to think an operation run by private companies could be more solid than that. The US understand certification requirements, they probably wrote the book on aviation certification, and GPS is certified as safe over there. I can see why the EU might want their own system for political reasons, but I simply don't accept it will be better than the US one technically or operationally.

It's all down to money, IMO. Another example of rip off Britain???

[IO540]

The case for Galileo is put here

http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/energy_transport/galileo/faq/index_en.htm

The only conclusion one can reach from the language used is that the reader is supposed to be completely brainless.

There is not a shred of solid (or logical) substance in it. Just a load of the standard "us Europeans are morally superior to the Americans, so we can't trust them and their military motives" stuff.

It beggars belief that billions of OUR money is being spent by an organisation employing such morons in their marketing dept. Yet, if they really do have a good (presumably covert) reason for it, what could it be?

One suggested use has been wide (Europe-wide) implementation of road tolls, where a vehicle-borne device records the road(s) used at various times, and occassionally uploads the data (using GSM/GPRS) to a central billing agency. Not only are there difficult anti-tampering issues to overcome there but also I am not aware of any such wide-ranging road charging proposal being made; we already have road tax for that...

Galileo will have a more powerful and more receivable signal than present-day Navstar, but the Americans are doing the same thing with theirs.

[slim_slag]

Ah, Galileo will have SA! What a backward step.

[IO540]

It won't be the Pre-Clinton 200-metre SA; it will be more like the existing Navstar accuracy.

The plan is to charge for a "guaranteed availability" (gosh how will they ensure that, by putting up a website with a statement from J Chirac with a sample of his sperm attached for DNA identification?) signal which you will have to pay for, and which will have a bit more accuracy too, AIUI.

The way to get real accuracy from GPS (below 1m) is to decode the signal which contains the atmospheric dispersion data. The US military encrypt that just for themselves. Galileo appears to plan to provide that to civilian users who pay for it; this appears to be really upsetting the Americans who have put out that famous (if completely unnecessary and obvious) statement that they reserve the right to put Galileo out of action if necessary.

[172driver]

I agree with Fuji Abound. Time to move to the 20th century.

Shall we make that the 21st :ok:

Seriously - I think it's about time the lovers of steam gauges got real. GPS navigation and glass cockpits are the way fwd, both for private and commercial aviation.

I, for one, am sick and tired of the 'look out the window' school of thought that would like to forbid even the use of VORs and NDBs

Can a GPS go wrong ? Sure can. So can a signal from a VOR and an NDB and every other technical gizmo hitherto invented.

In fact, I venture to say that GPS makes everyone, and PPLs especially, safer and it's totally idiotic not to train the use of it.

Why? Simple - because you get more time to actually look out the window and scan for traffic ! More situational awareness, more time to actually 'fly' the airplane. Better than burying your head in the cockpit and trying to figure out where you are on a hopelessly cluttered chart. It also reduces workload - and the less workload you have in the cockpit, the more spare capacity (both mental and time) you have for other tasks. Not to mention the NRST function in an emergency.....

Rant over, tin hat on, awaiting low flying steam gauges or parts thereof.

[High Wing Drifter]

Slim,
The future EU system you describe will be no better than the US one
I would call having 50-80 better than just 24 - simplistic I know :) Assuming of course Galileo succeeds in integrating the three systems.
It's all down to money, IMO. Another example of rip off Britain?
It is rather immoral that tax money (I assume) is being used to fund an entrepenurial (sp?) enterprise. But if there isn't any money in it, it will never happen and it needs to happen.

[IO540]

"But if there isn't any money in it, it will never happen "

That's is entirely inaccurate, unfortunately :O

Once politics gets stuck in, particularly anti-American politics, and the heads of EADS (a.k.a. France Inc.), Alenia (a.k.a. Italy Inc.) and the other usual suspects can smell a number of Euro billions in govt contracts, the financial case falls by the wayside.

Not that I would complain about more satellites, of course. But will they work with the existing receivers? Will there be an upgrade path for the few thousand KLN89, KLN94, GNSx30 etc owners around Europe? Not to mention the higher number of various handhelds? I don't know.

The last I've heard is that it will be possible to develop GPS receiver chipsets which receive both systems, but that certainly rules out any upgrades short of ripping out the complete PCB. Nobody is going to bother, because with a decent rooftop aerial I already get twice as many satellites than I need for a 3D fix, probably 90% of the time, and I've never lost reception in 500hrs. Apart from a 2-minute bit near Italy when both my GPSs went, and that was clearly jamming.

Jamming, for military practice or for real national security reasons, will jam both systems, and it would be naive to believe otherwise. Likewise for GPS being turned off; there is no plausible national security scenario in which private aviation would still be permitted.

I wouldn't pay any money at all to receive more satellites. In aviation ownership, there are always bigger and more important fish to pay for :O

The real benefits of a more powerful signal will be in more reliable road navigation (anyone using TomTom etc will know what I mean) and various spinoffs from that. But not aviation. As I've said before, we can have GPS approaches into [insert your favourite GA airfield] right now. Why not? Because of the CAA charges and the CAA requirement for full ATC. Most of the relevant airfields couldn't wait to get shot of the higher-paid ATC staff fast enough.

[Fuji Abound]

"Most of the relevant airfields couldn't wait to get shot of the higher-paid ATC staff fast enough."

A small word of caution.

In my experience for the competent pilot ATC on the whole is a pain whether you are joining VFR or IFR for an approach.

However, there are occasions when the pilot is clearly struggling, (perhaps joing in visual conditions which are below his personal limits or the approach is going horribly wrong). In these circumstances it is noteworthy how professional SOME controllers can be and usually the more experienced approach controllers. I can think of a recent occasiosn when clearly the guy should not have neen flying and the levels of panic were rising listening to his voice over the RT. It was noteworthy how the senior controller "suddenly" took over proceedings, took "control" of the pilot and carm was restored. I thought to myself well done chap - a real professional - thank you.

Sorry all a bit off topic I know.

[IO540]

I agree; I prefer ATC, myself. I find the hardest airfields to visit are ones like Stapleford or Wellesbourne, where on a nice Sunday it's a total free for all and one wonders if anybody (including the instructors) actually have a PPL.

Obviously the locals there think it's great and they wouldn't have it any other way.

I was just reminding that we could have GPS approaches right now, but nobody wants to pay for the process which the CAA has put in the way.

[Droopystop]

IO540,
GPS approaches would be great and I agree that the CAA should wake up to the 21st century. BUT, some form of protection would be needed for IFR traffic going into Class G aerodromes on GPS approaches. Would you be happy to make approaches to such places with no traffic separation? Hence ATC. Fine. Who would pay for that? Is it reasonable to expect the VFRers to pay extra just so that the few of us who would use GPS approaches can have ATC? The reason places like Stapleford etc thrive is because they are "cheap".
The solution of course is to embrace technology - GPS, Gallileo, Mode S, TCAS etc and make it affordable. But that will require a quantum leap in thinking. Hey presto we would all be flying like airliners. How dull. Just look at how many commercial pilots enjoy the freedom of gliding.

[FlyingForFun]

Droopystop,

Make calls on the Air/Ground frequency - even blind calls if necessary. Separate yourself from anyone who has recently called up in the same position as you are shortly going to be in.

In VMC, there is no need for any additional protection because your primary means of separation is lookout. In IMC, no one will be flying unless they are IFR. So prohibit IFR flight in an ATZ in IMC without making the correct radio calls, and the problem is solved.

After all, the US has plenty of instrument approaches outside controlled airspace, and aircraft don't fly into each other too regularly.

Incidentally, this could apply to any (approved) form of instrument approach, it doesn't have to be a GPS approach.

FFF
---------------

[slim_slag]

After all, the US has plenty of instrument approaches outside controlled airspace

Yes, lots of untowered fields have IAPs with Class G at the surface, Class E above 700ft AGL. Centre will separate IFR planes procedurally. Only one on the approach and nobody else cleared until the first one cancels IFR, no departures either until IFR inbounds have cancel. Also when clearance void times are used a lot.

If its VMC then it's see and avoid. Everybody talks on the common frequency. There are untowered fields with IFR wide bodied jets coming in with VFR spamcans in the pattern, all talking on common frequency, avoiding each other visually. I am sure the jet is grateful almost everybody in the States squawks mode C.

[IO540]

I think it's a non-issue because when the weather is such that somebody might want to use an IAP to get into a place like Stapleford or Wellesbourne, the place would be like a graveyard.

Today was a super flying day, and I was up for a few hours, but with 20-30kt surface winds it was very quiet indeed. Anytime vis is below say 7k, I am happy as a pig in s**t but there is hardly anybody about.

So you would never actually have a "Stapleford" with six in the circuit (plus another three doing "real man circuits" i.e. inside the other six, cutting them up as they feel free) PLUS somebody doing an instrument approach, under conditions where there would be a separation problem between IFR traffic and VFR traffic - because the IFR traffic would be in VMC and would have to look out.

Actually Stapleford and Wellesbourne and probably poor examples; with Welshpool and others they have an on-site navaid and without a doubt have unofficial instrument approaches already, CAA-authorised for certain based operators. So............ how do THOSE work, on a field with no ATC? I reckon they work exactly as I describe; they get used only when the place is like a graveyard.

[Droopystop]

I considered the common frequency and yes it would certainly work in an ideal world. But there are too many old and bolds who quite simply switch off their radio when flying in class G. On top of that there are those who refuse to have radios and those who are too busy to be for ever changing frequency. Class E above 700feet agl - good idea. As for traffic separation based on the weather turning airfields into graveyards......

I am all for GPS, maybe approaches if they can be protected. But I think it is wrong make private VFR aviation more complicated or expensive. I would love to be able to jump into an aircraft and fly where I want, when I want and talk to who I want. That is the essence of aviation - freedom.

[BEagle]

Personally I find Stapleford and Wellesbourne entirely straightforward for anyone with proper training in UK VFR procedures. Basic airmanship is all that is required.

Pretend-airliner drivers are welcome to $od off somewhere else.

[IO540]

"Class E above 700feet agl - good idea"

That doesn't square up with UK's ability to fly in IMC anywhere. With the above proposal, you would need ATC clearance to enter IMC. Where is all this ATC, and who is going to pay their salary?

You can't have it both ways.

It would also catch a lot of planes in en route IFR charges; something else they haven't got in the USA. They also haven't got Europe's vastly and completely intellectually superior (and inaccessible to most pilots) IR.

"I think it is wrong make private VFR aviation more complicated or expensive"

Exactly! :O

I think the UK airspace system is OK, given the IMC Rating, the ability to fly in IMC in Class G, the ability to fly just about anywhere in Class G. It's easily possible to do serious cross country trips in the UK, at low level (say below 3000ft), mixing VFR and IFR as required.

In comparison, say France, IFR is impossible without an ATC clearance (and requires the full JAA IR which most people will never be able to get) but VFR is freely doable but only at higher levels, FL065-FL105 mostly, and most PPLs don't like going that high, or can't because they'd in the clouds (which needs an IR to penetrate, even though they can fly VMC on top). Below that, you are stuck in masses of prohibited military airspace which takes ages to just look up in the SIA book. It's no wonder that most GA in France is VFR and sticks to very short excursions.

So one can't mix different airspace systems, picking the best of each. I tend to see advocates of "Class E everywhere" are mostly sub-2000kg owners with a JAA IR; a miniscule group numerically but quite vocal online. Whereas 2000kg+ pressurised owners with a full IR tend to "fully appreciate" ;) the option to go VFR; in France you can do it up to FL195 and your costs go down by about £30/hour.


Beagle:
"Pretend-airliner drivers are welcome to $od off somewhere else."

Now, that isn't exactly an inclusive attitude, is it?????

I can fly a tight enough oval circuit; what p1sses me off if even when I do that, somebody cuts me up on the inside. You call that "airmanship"? And I might be flying a slightly bigger circuit because I am doing the correct thing and following somebody else doing such a circuit. Anyway, I don't want to start another thread on this well worn topic. Just think of a foreign pilot coming to one of these places.

[A and C]

Most of the GPS units that have a TSO have a databus input/output and the ability to drive the GS indicator on the CDI/HSI at the moment the GS won't work , the whole set up is ripe for expansion aid I see no reason why data from another nav system could not be mixed with GPS in or outside the GPS unit and then drive the CDI for a NP approach OR even (god & CAA forbid) a CAT 1 Approach.

[IO540]

You are right about the GS bar not doing anything when the HSI is in GPS mode, but I've read somewhere that some GPSs (GNS530? - I don't have one) can do vertical navigation to more or less the extent you describe. Unfortunately I don't have more details.

[A and C]

Most King GPS units conections to the GS indicator and spare anunciatior light pins (approx 5 on the KLN89B) however these are not at the moment used.

It is clear that the unit is intended for further development otherwise why go to the trouble of putting all this stuff in ?. King tend to produce Very good kit that will interface with other equipment rather than build things with lots of "showroom performance" so this is the sort of attention to detail that I would expect from a company that is looking to the future.

[PPRuNe Radar]

I see no reason why data from another nav system could not be mixed with GPS in or outside the GPS unit and then drive the CDI for a NP approach OR even (god & CAA forbid) a CAT 1 Approach.

You'll need WAAS or LAAS to support CAT 1 or better approaches (they are precision approaches since they have vertical guidance). WAAS is due for full USA coverage this year sometime, LAAS will have to be provided by a local provider such as an airfield operator. Which means someone will end up paying for it.

As I understand it, the UK CAA are not against GPS approaches per se. But they won't be the ones that draw up the procedures, they will merely regulate them (not as an EASA organ but as the Directorate of Airspace Policy which is a different sphere of operation). To date, no one has grasped the nettle and designed any overlays or stand alone GPS procedures, then done the safety analysis, then submitted them to the CAA for approval. The main problem being that someone will have to pick up the cost of that work and obtaining the approval. Once the first is done, then it may be simplified and cheaper for others following on, but like somone getting a type certificate for a new aircraft, then until someone with deep pockets makes the effort, everyone will just wait in the wings in hope. So there you go IO540 .. you could blaze the trail here and design a NPA for your local field :ok: Plenty examples in the US to use as guidance, although the US uses TERPS for their procedure design whereas the rest of the world uses ICAO PANS-OPS :(

NATS is doing some work on routes which might, in fact will, use GPS as a possible means of navigational compliance. These will be Precision RNAV routes in the TMA airspaces of the UK around about 2010 onwards. But these will be in pure IFR airspace (SIDs and STARs) and all probably a bit above your average PPL though :ok:

Just for the avoidance of doubt, I like GPS, I like what it offers to someone trained in its use. It offers great accuracy, and potentially (with all the right maps and databases), an electronic nav plog kind of capability which can be used to reduce workload.

My nervousness is that we go on to produce a generation of aviators who can only slavishly follow the line on a moving map, without understanding how to navigate themselves, and will end up in trouble if it goes wrong. They'll probably even have to input the circuit pattern so they can follow that around the airfield too ;)

I also don't buy the 'it never goes wrong' argument. The fact that someone has never seen a problem in 500 hours of GPS operation is neither here nor there. Any safety assessment will have a probability of failure to look at and there is no electronic system which simply cannot be degraded or fail at any time in its life cycle. So you have to allow a fallback which deals with that and the obvious one is for pilots to be able to navigate without any electronic aids. Ensuring they are competent in both is the test for this industry ... in terms of training requirements and ultimately cost. This is being dealt with in the other thread.

Fuji

'GoTo' is good for diversions to airfields which are already in the database. Quick and simple (as long as the line also shows CAS and Danger Areas which have to be negotiated). But these are not the kinds of diversions I see problems with. The ones I see causing problems are those where your original route through CAS (because the pilot only knows how to get a straight line on his GPS between established airfields or waypoints) is refused and you then have to 'divert' around CAS.

That gives 2 options. The pilot can visually navigate around the CAS lines on his moving map. Wouldn't be hard as long as the multiple lines are not misunderstood and there is awareness of stepped bases where appropriate. But still a small element of risk. Or the pilot has to input a lat/long which he didn't do on the ground, since he needs a line to follow. Big thumbs, turbulence, poor vis, high workload .. all can contribute to this having an error input. Interestingly, the top navigational error cause in Transatlantic Gross Navigation Errors are where the crew (2 man professionals and operating in a comfortable well equipped airliner) input a lat/long incorrectly (missing digits, wrong digits, etc). So the odds of an under pressure GA pilot making a mistake must be slightly higher.

It's how to reduce the risk involved in navigating in these kinds of operations with GPS that need to be tackled and a suitable 'warm feeling' given to the authorities.

[IO540]

Yes you can indeed make all the listed errors with a GPS but it's even easier to do them with the old methods. This is the great fallacy underpinning the anti GPS position; they chuck out the baby with the bathwater.

Let's say you have a carefully prepared plan, wind corrected and all that, through CAS. You ask for clearance 10 miles out or whatever, get refused and now you have to dogleg around it, using compass, stopwatch, together with trying to identify some villages down below. All the way round you will be in need of fresh underpants because you know what that one little mistake will cost you.....

I am talking about doing this in unfamiliar territory, not in one's back yard which is where most anti-GPS pilots stick to (understandably).

There is no way round this. I am sure INS has severely degraded the ability of your British Airways ATP to use a sextant.

As for direct coordinate entry, that is almost never done in GA, if the pilot knows anything about flight planning. In 5 years I have had to do it twice; once to enter an airfield in Spain (which got put into the Jepp data the following year), and the other to enter some gliding site in Kent which a passenger wanted to take pictures of. If airline ops need nav to ever varying waypoints (to get the best winds) they have to pay the price for that, and check their numbers twice :O There is nothing particularly "airline pilot" about checking coordinates; single pilot IFR pilots are supposed to do it for every waypoint, as are airline pilots; that's why the lat/long is printed next to every waypoint on the IFR charts.

[BEagle]

It would surely be wiser to plan a dog-leg in the first place - and only go direct if you receive CAS crossing clearance....

PPPPPP!

[slim_slag]

Ha BEagle :ok:

IO540

I think these 'anti GPS' pilots you keep going on about are a figment of your imagination. Lots of people use GPS in a different way than you, that doesn't mean they are wrong. Some of the best pilots I know don't tend to leave the local area. Firstly because their planes don't carry enough fuel to go more than 100 miles, secondly they find cross country flying exceedingly boring. Most will have a GPS in their flightbag (one of those hand helds you treat with such contempt)

Wasn't there a study done using 737s which looked at the amount of time pilots spent looking outside during various phases of flight. A comparison was made between 737s with traditional instruments and the variant with a highly computerised flight deck. During the approach and landing phase the pilots on the computerised model spent more time head-in-cockpit as they were spending more time managing the electronics. I'm not saying it proves anything, and I'm sure the engineers took this on board and looked at improving the computers, but interesting stuff.

[IO540]

Beagle

I agree with you; I was just picking up a point made by the person I was responding to.

SS

I never treat handhelds in any comtempt, don't be ridiculous. Some handhelds are brilliant, and because you can load a flight plan into them from a laptop, in some ways much better than IFR approved panel mounts.

I just think the £100 camping-shop handhelds, which need manual waypoint entry using lat/long coordinates, have two big problems:

1) they introduce sufficient scope for gross errors in data entry

2) they don't give you the situational awareness of a decent moving map unit

Your 737 scenario isn't relevant to typical GA. Usually, a 737 is lined up on the runway, up goes the power, climb straight ahead for a bit, then get radar vectors (forget the SID), more radar vectors, climb at 2000fpm+ straight through all the icing layers (and with a TAS high enough to make airframe icing barely relevant), more radar vectors, then DCTs (under radar control) all the way to destination, vectors through descent (forget the STAR), vectors onto the ILS, coupled autopilot landing. CAS is a complete and total non issue, as are danger areas, en route notams, weather except in terminal areas and high level en route. I've flown European airways myself and even at FL150 it is sufficiently different to what we are talking about here to be irrelevant to the debate. And BRNAV GPS is mandatory ;)

[BEagle]

Of course, by planning the dog-leg and later requesting direct, one could play airliners even more:

"Ah....sir,...err..this is ah November blah blah blah, Superspamcan IFR from ahhh...Anytown Internatonal tuh ahh...Otherplace at flight level forty-five, estimatin' thuh boundary at too-fife, reeequestin' direct the ABC......an' any ride reports at this time"

OK - only joking. It's Friday...;)!

[IO540]

Not sure what the joke is, Beagle.

The normal procedure is

1. Plan the OCAS route

2. Plan the more direct route

3. File an ICAO flight plan (if applicable) using the more direct route; abroad this does tend to get distributed "properly" to the proper controllers along the route

4. On the flight, ask (in a very firm tone) for every direct clearance you can ask for, giving the immediate route as IFR waypoints so they can see you are navigating using some proper means and not fishing for villages and ponds which CAS ATC units hate because it makes their life hard

What tends to frustrate the above a bit is the determination of some UK ATC units to send a VFR flight to VRPs when they can see perfectly well you are navigating via radio. This happens abroad too, but isn't a big deal because the official VRPs near airports tend to be in the GPS database. I am not sure of the legal position; I believe a VFR pilot is entitled to navigate by radio when en-route, and in fact some countries (Greece being one) WILL expect VFR navigation by VORs and airways intersections.

I won't take your "playing airliners" bait.

[Fuji Abound]

PPruneRadar


Your posts begs the question with your familiarity with recent GPS moving maps.

The only times I can remember inputting a lat long co-ordinate is when going to a grass strip not in the database. Yes there is plenty of potential for error and you would want to check before you set off that the position on the moving map is roughly where you expected the strip to be.

However to your example of an unplanned diversion round CAS. It is simple. Personally, I would follow the boundary until reunited with my original track. Not too demanding and whilst you make the point of the need to ensure you follow the correct boundary on a colour moving map the boundaries are in my opinion far better defined that on a chart.

Alternatively, and this is where I wonder about your familiarity, move the cursor to a suitable spot outside CAS (any where you like really) it takes a few seconds, hit GOTO and there is the new course. When you reach that point pull up the flight plan and hit GOTO again for the next point you would have gone to outside CAS on the original “flight plan” and there it is.

Finally I don’t recall anyone saying GPS was infallible, what I do recall are pilots observation that the reliability of GPS compared with radio navigation aids is very favourable.

So what do you do if it fails. If you can, use the radio navigation aids in the cockpit, use dead reckoning from your last know position and / or use visual navigation. Depending on the individual the skills might be a bit rusty BUT if they are get a steer or two from D and D. They will oblige, it is not a drama, and if the failure rate is once in 10,000 hours I don’t suppose they will be too over worked.

[Droopystop]

What tends to frustrate the above a bit is the determination of some UK ATC units to send a VFR flight to VRPs when they can see perfectly well you are navigating via radio.

Hang on a minute, are you IFR or VFR? If you are VFR then is it not implicit that you might be expected to enter CAS at a VRP?

Slim Slag's point about 737 drivers illustrates the concerns I have voiced on the other GPS thread running at the moment.

IO540,

I think you have some very valid points relating to the form of aviation you seem to do, ie A to B for a mixture of business and pleasure. You obviously get your kicks from flying as efficiently as possible, using all the kit available to you. I have no issue with that. But it is my belief that many PPLs are quite happy bimbling about enjoying the view, doing burger runs or what ever. Sure they might want to go from A to B but like the flexibility to "go and have a look over there" along the way. GPS moving map - fantastic, ideal. But I can do that without a moving map GPS and so can many other people. We manage that because we have learnt how to read maps and charts. Hell, I actually enjoy navigating visually, it is far more satisfying (and flexible) than beacon or waypoint hopping. We don't all need GPS and new pilots should be able to choose for themselves how they navigate. They should also be taught how to read maps and charts more thoroughly.

[Fuji Abound]

Droopystop

That is the best and most refreshing post I have heard from the "anti GPS" lobby.

I enjoy navigating visually as well. I particularly enjoy the precision flying type events. Pilots should recognise traditional navigation as an enjoyable skill to perfect and do well. In my view what they certainly should not do is claim it is better / safer / easier than using a GPS which it is not :ok:

Anyone who claims to be able to navigate well traditionally should take part in one of these events. They are demanding and of course will encompass an area with which you are not familiar. I accept they are far harder than traditionally navigating long cross country legs but they do give you a good appreciation as to whether your skills are up to navigating through a small corridor between CAS with which you are completely unfamiliar.

[englishal]

When my engine failed at 3000' over LA in solid IMC ,I instantly pulled back until the speed tape indicated best glide speed and went through an unsucessful restart, then I pressed the GOTO NEAREST on the right hand MFD. I instantly knew I was not going to make any airfield, so I zoomed the map display in, found a highway and lined up on it. 500' I popped out of the cloud and made a perfect landing on the road.

Not a real life situation thank goodness, but it was done in an FAA approved Garmin 1000 simulator. They really are that good that you could even determine which side of the road you want to land on.

The benefit of a good GPS in the aircraft outweighs any perceived disadvantages. In fact the FAA now say that paper charts are not required in the new generation of glass cockpit light aeroplanes, and although I'd probably always carry one as it was "the way I was taught" you really do not need one. Last time I was flying a glass cockpit aeroplane VFR I refered to the paper chart for preflight purposes only, entered all the VRPs into the flight plan in the screen and flew using the moving map.

In this generation of avionics, IF gps is lost a) you know about it straight away, and b) it switches to DR mode.

[BongleBear]

thanks alot for all the replies, you all have great points and it's been very helpful to me. didn't mean to cause a discussion that would lead to a few arguments, but these things will happen when blokes have too much spare time on their hands!!

thanks again, b bear

[Windy Militant]

With the GPS I can position the aircraft over a VRP (within 30 metres probably)

Wouldn't that be a rule 5 infringement? :}




I Know off to the naughty step for five hours :O