Instructors using GPS whilst students are in aircraft

[machlimter99]

I was flying on a VFR nav trip with an experienced instructor who had his own GPS. Most of the time I caught him taking a sneeky peek at his " electronic friend". What are your thoughts about this practice? How professional do you think it is???

[FlyingForFun]

Depends on the circumstances. There are circumstances where using a GPS might be appropriate.

I teach my students to fly by ded reckoning because I firmly believe that this method works. It might not be the best method, but it has worked for over a century and it still works now.

Instructors who, for example, use a GPS to check their position whilst on a navigation exercise such as you describe would at least appear to have little enough faith in the methods they teach that they don't believe they can be sufficiently sure of their position without some extra information. (The same, incidentally, applies to any other navigation aid.)

On the other hand, take the example of an early student, say pre-circuits. The weather is distinctly IMC, so the instructor climbs up to VMC on top and carries out the lesson in clear air on top of the clouds. Now, a large part of the instructor's attention needs to be focused on the content of the lesson. Using GPS as the primary means of navigation now is absolutely the right thing to do, especially moving-map GPS, since this makes the navigation a complete no-brainer, and allows the instructor to focus all his attention on what he is being paid to do - instruct.

There are other examples in between, too. While I was training, shortly after Christmas, my instructor pulled out a portable GPS on one of my nav trips. It was a Christmas present, a new toy which he wanted to play with. He programmed our route into the GPS, and monitored how close to our planned track I was flying - but it was with a sense of wonder of how accurate his new toy was, and nothing to do with his inability to follow my progress on a chart.

And of course it is possible for the instructor to teach the student how to use the GPS as part of the exercise (see one of the current GPS threads in the Private Flying forum), in which case of course it is appropriate to use GPS!

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

[Unhinged]

It's very very dumb instructing !! The student will soon realise that you don't have confidence in your own abilities, and draw their own conclusions. Highly unprofessional.

If you can't do the exercise yourself under the same conditions you're asking the student to do it, then there's a substantial lack of ability and credibility. Lack of ability should make you unemployed. Lack of credibility inevitably leads students to request a different instructor next time. And rightly so.

DR is good, and it works, and the batteries never go flat; but if the airspace is complex, or you're unfamiliar with the area, or there aren't too many good landmarks, you may be foolishly tempted.

But if an instructor isn't competent to teach any particular phase of flight instruction, then it's up to them to become competent before they attempt to pass themselves off as knowing more about it than their students.

[Craggenmore]

GPS is there to help once you have mastered Ded Reckoning.

Its a back up system just like VOR's and NDBs (remember, NDB is 70 year old technology that's still an integral part of training!)

GPS is obviously here to stay and in 5 years time it will no doubt be commonplace in all GA aircraft. As with all technology, prices will drop to about £100 per unit (just like cameras, Hi-Fi and DVD players which were once £500 and now you get them free with a tank of petrol.)

Its there to help so use it. If airspace had not become so restrictive in the last 40 years and punishments for entering it so punitive, then surely GPS would still be a figment of imagination in some mad-scientists mind?

[hugh flung_dung]

When teaching Nav this should be an absolute "No No", as others have said. However, when teaching Aeros above 8/8, GPS can be very useful.

HFD

[BEagle]

I often pop the route into the GPS, but leave it on the present position page. To give the student some confidence in his/her pre-flight calculations when they're between visual fixes, I'll flip it to the navigation page and show them "Look - how your good computer work and flying are! The GPS shows you spot on track and agrees with your ETA. Good work, well done!"

It also proves to them how their Standard Closing Angle correction has got them back on the original track.

A useful way of 'rewarding' their efforts. But just to use it with no real training objective would be a bit soul-destroying for the student.

[Captain Jock]

GPS can be useful but not for teaching basic navigation! As an instructor I often have a hand-held GPS running during a cross country navex but not where it can be looked at (either by the student or myself). After the flight is complete the track is downloaded on to a chart and forms the basis for de-briefing the flight. Then there is no debate about where we actually were and a comparison can easily be made with the planned flight.

If we have the technology we ought to take advantage of it.

[mumbo]

I am not usually this belligerent, but when I hear pious drivel by people who attempt to boost their own egos by saying its their way or the high way, infuriates me. All instructors will have past a PPL test and a CPL test. In both you demonstrate you have the skill to navigate visually to the standard required to pass the tests. To come on and say in this forum, that because someone uses a modern piece of gadgetry to assist him in making the teaching environment better shows a degree of arrogance and ignorance.
It is like saying a maths teacher should not use a calculator. The maths teacher is their to teach mathematical techniques, not to show how good he is doing sums in his head! :mad:
I have been involved in teaching/instructing for 20 years. I have only recently become a flying instructor. During my time in training I have come across some excellent instructors and some weak instructors. A good instructor/teacher is one that can asses the students ability and mould his methods of instruction to best suit the individual students needs and is not determined by what he uses to do this. Flying is not a black art.
I purchased a Garmin etrex on e-bay for £70 and its great!! It shows a basic Course line and will show if you are left/right of track. This gives me as a instructor early situational awareness from the outset as to what the student is doing. This means that I have had loads of time to prepare to lead the student to the right conclusion during any navigational exercise. The GPS allows me as an instructor more time to invest in teaching in the same way a calculator assists a maths teacher.

Sorry to all if I have sounded as if I am on a rant. Someone must have rattled my cage today. I off for a beer.

Mumbo:ok:

[GusHoneybun]

you can't go re-writting the ppl syllabus because you think that GPS is a rather natty bit of kit. an examiner will want to see a student do a nav-ex by using dead-reckoning, map reading and closing angles to regain track. no GPS is allowed in the test so why bring it into the lesson?
if an instructor cannot keep their own SA on a simple VFR nav-ex without the use of a GPS then what hope does the student have. :ugh:

[FlyingForFun]

Mumbo, I completely disagree with your post.All instructors will have past a PPL test and a CPL test. In both you demonstrate you have the skill to navigate visually to the standard required to pass the testsThat's true - you know that, and I know that. But if you give the student clues which suggest (even though it might not be the case) that you are not capable of navigating accurately visually, why should he believe that he is capable of doing it?It is like saying a maths teacher should not use a calculator. The maths teacher is their (sic) to teach mathematical techniques, not to show how good he is doing sums in his head!If the maths teacher is teaching long division, he should be able to do long division using the techniques he teaches. Imagine the reaction of a student if he is being taught to do long division, and his teacher shows him the techniques, but then demonstrates that those techniques are sufficiently difficult that he doesn't like using them, and prefers a calculator?

On the other hand, no one is suggesting that the teacher shouldn't use the calculator, and teach the students how to do so effectively, as a different exercise.This gives me as a instructor early situational awareness from the outset as to what the student is doing. This means that I have had loads of time to prepare to lead the student to the right conclusion during any navigational exerciseThis reminds me a little of the frustration I have when watching certain detective movies, and the detective solves the mystery using a clue which wasn't shown on the screen. Of course the GPS will give you "early situational awareness", but the aim of the exercise is for the student to be confident that he can have sufficient situation awareness using the techniques you are teaching him. By using the GPS to enhance your situational awareness above what is possible using visual techniques alone, you are demonstrating to the student that the visual techniques are not sufficient.

Please do not think I am anti-GPS, because I'm not. BEagle and Captain Jock both describe very good ways in which GPS can be used to enhance the educational experience. In both their techniques, they show the student how it is possible to fly visually, and only then do they employ the GPS as further proof that the techniques they are teaching actually worked, which is in contrast to what you seem to be describing.

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

[mumbo]

No one is suggesting that the student uses a GPS for any part of his Nav. Why not make all instructors dispense with their maps to show how brilliant they are and while we are at it, start to wear our pants on the outside. We are as instructors super human. :yuk:

I had an instructor who prided himself at not needing a map. Never carried one and never used a whiz wheel.:eek: Did I think of him as a great aviator who obviously had the mind of a nomad. No, I thought of him as someone with a very high opinion of himself who had obviously been flying around the circuit too long and would one day drop himself in the sticky.

Hunybun do you mean to tell me that you have never tune in the NDB or DME to a station while the student flies pure VFR to have available an accurate loc stat if requested.

The reason my cage has been rattled on this subject is because a colleague of mine was killed during a live firing exercise back in the 80s. He made a minor mistake at night with his map and compass in close country. Up to that point it had been macho to scoff at the shiny gizmo for the navigationally challenged. A £70 GPS would have saved his life and saves others to this day.

Students need to learn VFR navigation in order to pass their skills test. That is something we can all agree on. Instructors carrying a GPS on their laps for what ever purpose should matter not a jot, as long as the instruction on VFR navigation is good.

I’m ranting again. Sorry!!:*

Mumbo

[FlyingForFun]

Why not make all instructors dispense with their maps to show how brilliant they are and while we are at it, start to wear our pants on the outsideErm... because we don't expect our students to be able to navigation without a map, nor to wear their pants on the outside? All I am suggesting is that instructors have confidence in the techniques they teach, and convey this confidence to their students.

Mumbo, I've very sorry to hear about your colleague. His plight is obviously the reason you don't trust visual techniques, and this mistrust is apparent in the way your describe your navigation lessons.

Without knowing the detail's of your colleague's death, I wouldn't want to speculate on why the visual techniques didn't work for him; I'm sure the AAIB have already investigated and done their best to find the reasons for the mistake. Surely the best action now would be to read the report, and try to alter the way in which you teach visual navigation to your students so that the techniques you teach (and use yourself) can be used to avoid a repeat?

I also note that your colleague's entry into the live firing range occured at night. We all know that visual navigation is extremely difficult at night, and unless I was extremely familiar with the area, I would not attempt to navigate visually, at night, in an area where precision is vital - but, more importantly, I would suggest to my students that they shouldn't do so either. In this instance, every navigational tool must be used to back up the visual navigation.

Presumably, though, when teaching night navigation, the student already knows how to navigate. The aim of the exercise is different to daytime navigation, because we do not need to teach the basics of navigation at night. The reason that an hour of night navigation is mandatory as part of the night qualification is so that the student a) learns the differences between how ground features appear during the night compared to the day, and learns which are good features to use for navigation and which aren't, and b) appreciates how difficult night navigation is, and why it is so important to use navaids to back up visual navigation. Since the student has already learnt the techniques of ded reckoning and map reading during the day, and has come to trust those techniques, I can't see any problem with using the GPS, or any other aid, at night, so long as you explain to the student what your are doing, and expect the student to do the same, or be able to do the same, in a similar situation.Hunybun do you mean to tell me that you have never tune in the NDB or DME to a station while the student flies pure VFR to have available an accurate loc stat if requestedI know I'm not Hunybun, but no, I have never used a navigation aid when a student is using ded reckoning. The only time I have navigation aids tuned and use them during navigation exercises is when I am showing a student how he can use the navigation aids.

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

[pilotbear]

next they will be advocating sextants and saying we have to light bonfires to land at night because that is how it was done in the 'good old days', Perhaps we should use semaphore to get our taxi clearance just in case the radio fails or there is a power cut....;)
I'm with you mumbo on this one:ok:

[FlyingForFun]

Hmm... if using a sextant was on the syllabus, I would learn to do so, and I would learn it well enough that I could teach it with confidence. But it's not. We can't change the syllabus, we can only teach it to the best of our ability.

As for using bonfires for landing at night - landing on runways 13/31 at Blackpool was pretty much like that until last week, when they officially closed it for night operations because the lights weren't up to CAA specifications ;)

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

[mumbo]

FFF,

Sorry my post didn’t make it clear. My colleague was on the ground walking. We were in the army together and it had nothing to do with aviation. He just made a basic mistake on his time and bearing and put himself in front of a Battalion night attack. We had GPS at Company level but not at the time to platoon level. If he had had one he would not have goofed.
FFF next time you are over this side of the Pennines you will have to drop by for another Chilli and beers.:ok:

Got to go, the wife is now kicking off!!:ooh:

Mumbo

[mumbo]

I have tamed the wild woman of wonga! :eek:

My main point is, it should not matter what tools a teacher uses to assist any lesson. It is the quality and correct instruction that makes a true professional.

Right, enough said. Off to have a two quiet beers, then some very noisy ones. May the wind at your backs never be your own. :ok:

Love Mumbo.

[FlyingForFun]

FFF next time you are over this side of the Pennines you will have to drop by for another Chilli and beersMumbo - have just worked out who you are, think I may have been a bit slow there! Even knowing who I'm talking to doesn't change my point of view, though - if you're going to teach something, have confidence in what you're teaching. Say Hi to the wife, will definitely invite myself around for another chilli or curry next time!

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

[Unhinged]

Mumbo, I'm genuinely sorry your colleague was killed when a GPS would have prevented that.

But I don't see how that reflects on instructors who are unable or unwilling to fly to the same standard on basic exercises that they're asking students to do.

We're not talking about advanced or unusual training here. This is straight-forward flying that any half-competent instructor needs to be able to do to a professional standard.

If an instructor needs to use a GPS when they're with a student on a VFR DR navex, especially using it secretively as in the original post, the student should be asking very loudly why they're being asked to do an exercise that the instructor can't do.

Why don't instructors go back to sextants and underwear on the outside ? Because that's not what we're asking students to do. We want them to be competent at VFR DR nav. A simple, basic, fundamental flying skill.

[FormationFlyer]

Depends on the circumstances. There are circumstances where using a GPS might be appropriate.
...
The weather is distinctly IMC, so the instructor climbs up to VMC on top and carries out the lesson in clear air on top of the clouds. Now, a large part of the instructor's attention needs to be focused on the content of the lesson. Using GPS as the primary means of navigation now is absolutely the right thing to do, especially moving-map GPS, since this makes the navigation a complete no-brainer, and allows the instructor to focus all his attention on what he is being paid to do - instruct.


Couple of points.

1. GPS is NOT legal as a primary means of navigation in UK airspace. If you cannot fly with a map/radio nav aids in that situation then GPS must not be used to perform the flight.

2. Given that 2 years ago whilst teaching I had a PA34 almost 'punt' me up the rear during an instructional flight I wonder how he passed 30' away from me and NEVER saw me....perhaps too busy enjoying his moving map display...which is the primary problem of GPS...too much time in the cockpit causes accidents.

However, although I may seem anti-GPS I agree it can help the instructor with positioning and reduce workload if used in an appropriate manner. Additionally I can use GPS recording facilities for an IMC ADF tracking exercise, and when on the ground load the GPS trace into my laptop (& memory map/RANT) to use as an aid during the debrief - RANT is paritcularly useful here as I can show the student what the needles were saying at the time. :)

WRT to an instructor using GPS during a VFR DR exercise - my gut reaction is that the the instructor is bang out of order. The point of teaching *how* to navigate appears to have been lost here - no doubt the instructor will be telling the student they were 'off-track' by a certain amount rather than showing them *how* to assess this visually outside.

'bout time that instructor did a flight test/seminar...

[Islander2]

GPS is NOT legal as a primary means of navigation in UK airspace. If you cannot fly with a map/radio nav aids in that situation then GPS must not be used to perform the flight.

Many on these forums have disagreed. Indeed, it has been observed that some UK GA aeroplanes have CAA-approved Flight Manual Supplements for GPS installations that meet RNP5 airspace (BRNAV) primary navigation requirements.

In a thread on a different topic, Formation Flyer asked:
Do you have any ANO reference, as I cannot find any documentation for the rule you suggest exists?

Formation Flyer, it would be really useful if you could answer this question in respect of your own contentious assertion.

[Julian]

Of course the GPS will give you "early situational awareness", but the aim of the exercise is for the student to be confident that he can have sufficient situation awareness using the techniques you are teaching him. By using the GPS to enhance your situational awareness above what is possible using visual techniques alone, you are demonstrating to the student that the visual techniques are not sufficient.

Have to say I dont agree!!! You are not saying that visual techniques are not sufficient you are enhancing you navigation techniques and in some cases the GPS may be required instead of visual techniques. This would come down to your instructing at the end of the day on how you put it across and that is the key. I have instructed before, although in a different field and its how you initially put it across to the student that will be burnt into the minds. I had a student turn upto me for an Advanced course that could have killed him because he misunderstood something a previous instructor had told him, it was down to the way the instructor had put it across!


2. Given that 2 years ago whilst teaching I had a PA34 almost 'punt' me up the rear during an instructional flight I wonder how he passed 30' away from me and NEVER saw me....perhaps too busy enjoying his moving map display...which is the primary problem of GPS...too much time in the cockpit causes accidents.

They could also have had their head in the cockpit staring confused at their map and drawing pencil lines on their map as they tried to work out where they were or a diversion required!!! Unless you know what they were upto in the cockpit you cant make this statement.

A GPS requires a quick glance to determine where you are, the same person who would stare at a GPS would also stare confused at his/her map as well and therefore think its an invalid argument.

[Edited for spelling!]

Julian.

[Maximum]

I think it's a no-brainer.

The idea is to teach VFR DR nav. From a map.

Putting myself back in the position of a student, I'd have no faith in the instructor who wasn't using the same method of nav that he/she was asking me to use. Simple as that. Like an instructor who can't demonstrate accurate steep turns but expects me to do them.

Have the GPS with you - no problem - but used in the way Beagle was suggesting.

[BEagle]

The teaching of visual navigation is one of those things which needs a disciplined approach to flying. Regrettably, all too often FIs waste the student's effort by insisting on totally unnecessary RT communications and other distractions. On the first few navigation exercises, my preference is not to use the RT at all apart from aerodrome departure and arrival. Concentrate on the essentials of Heading and Time, backed up by pre-planned visual fix points - NOT 'map reading' per se!

We also teach the 'standard closing angle' method of track correction. Let the off-track student make his estimate of track error, work out the correction time and fly it, then turn back onto the original heading. If you've left the exact original track in the GPS, there's nothing so confidence-building for the student as pulling up the GPS CDI bar when the student the SCA correction has been completed - and showing him/her that it has worked and we're now back on track!

[jabberwok]

Nicely put Beagle.

Throughout the PPL course a student is learning a multitude of new techniques, many of which will be very foreign to him/her. Map reading has always been a difficult skill to master (except for a lucky few) and, I hope, many of us should remember the hard mental workload of determining how to get back on track once a deviation has been recognised.

The real issue here is developing a student's faith in a technique - and you can only do this if you show the student that you can use the same problem solving methods as you have taught him. Do that and his/her faith in the technique is boosted tenfold - a real step forward to those that find this bit of the course hard.

Used sensibly a GPS can enhance map reading skills a lot. Used badly - the student being fully aware that the instructor is using GPS for positional information - and it degrades the whole meaning of the map reading exercise. All the student will be thinking is that he must get a GPS as soon as possible - it's what the instructor uses!

Beagle's approach is sounder. The GPS is present but the instructor is still showing the pupil that his assessment of navigational accuracy is based on the same technique the student is using. This enhances respect for the instructor and faith in the technique being taught.

[Oktas8]

Students need to learn VFR navigation in order to pass their skills test.
I'm surprised no-one has picked up on this one.

If that's what you believe, then instructors can use GPS as much as they like, and (as you say mumbo) the instructor can really focus on the delivery of the lesson. As soon as the candidate passes the LST, he/she will buy a GPS, and the argument becomes a red herring.

On the other hand, many instructors believe this:

Students need to learn VFR navigation because it will keep them safe for the rest of their VFR careers.
If that's what you believe, then Beagle & co have it right. The student doesn't need a GPS in the same way that the maths teacher doesn't need a calculator to keep track of the long division problem that is half completed.

Liking the thread - hope this adds something useful...
O8

[FormationFlyer]

Many on these forums have disagreed. Indeed, it has been observed that some UK GA aeroplanes have CAA-approved Flight Manual Supplements for GPS installations that meet RNP5 airspace (BRNAV) primary navigation requirements.

In a thread on a different topic, Formation Flyer asked:


Formation Flyer, it would be really useful if you could answer this question in respect of your own contentious assertion.

Quite. Here goes.

AIC 93/2002 Pink 41.

Agreed it is accepted for PRNAV and BRNAV airspace (although BRNAV is FL100+ typically if I recall - although I havent read up on where it is defined).

The VAST majority of pilots not flying heavies or pub transport, will not be flying in such airspace and therefore the other rules apply which are that GPS is not approved to replace convential navigation techniques and is accepted as a 'supplemental aid'.

Additionally flying instrument approaches based on GPS when the approach is based on a radio aid is not allowed.

and so on.:ok:

Hope that helps!
FF

[FormationFlyer]

2. Given that 2 years ago whilst teaching I had a PA34 almost 'punt' me up the rear during an instructional flight I wonder how he passed 30' away from me and NEVER saw me....perhaps too busy enjoying his moving map display...which is the primary problem of GPS...too much time in the cockpit causes accidents.[/I]
They could also have had their head in the cockpit staring confused at their map and drawing pencil lines on their map as they tried to work out where they were or a diversion required!!! Unless you know what they were upto in the cockpit you cant make this statement.
A GPS requires a quick glance to determine where you are, the same person who would stare at a GPS would also stare confused at his/her map as well and therefore think its an invalid argument.
[Edited for spelling!]
Julian.

You are of course right. Point accepted. Please accept my apology - mere speculation without a shred of evidence...hmm...wonder why I even posted it now...im starting to have a go at myself!!! :E

[FormationFlyer]

We also teach the 'standard closing angle' method of track correction. Let the off-track student make his estimate of track error, work out the correction time and fly it, then turn back onto the original heading. If you've left the exact original track in the GPS, there's nothing so confidence-building for the student as pulling up the GPS CDI bar when the student the SCA correction has been completed - and showing him/her that it has worked and we're now back on track![/COLOR][/FONT]

Quite. Absolutely. On a slight side issue there - I was talking with another instructor at another establishment recently who was taught SCA on his civilian CPL course, at an FTO I had not heard of but he assured me his instructors were not mil background (although the potential is that the course content may have been). However, he intimated that SCA had been viewed on by the CAA with much more warmth recently - is there any official word regarding the teaching of SCA? i.e. something that will make it enter the books of Pratt et al. - which would be a significant improvement...mind you so would max drift and clock techniques be more than useful to PPLs. In my experience SCA + MD/Clock techniques have been very very easy for new pilots to understand, adopt, and fly with accuractely...

[Islander2]

AIC 93/2002 Pink 41.

Since you had stated, unequivocally, that the use of GPS is NOT LEGAL as a primary means of navigation in UK airspace, I was hoping (as, I know, were others) that you could put this debate to rest by quoting law (ie ANO or Eurostuff) rather than operational guidelines.

But leaving the legalities to one side, let's consider the logic. GPS is approved, or shortly to become approved, as the primary navigation means for:

1. IFR in BRNAV controlled airspace, with direct clearances that can be greatly in excess of 100nm;

2. IFR in PRNAV exceptionally-busy TMA airspace, flying SID's and STAR's to very tight track-error tolerances; and

3. IFR non-precision approaches in IMC to NDB minima or lower.

But it's not suitable as the primary navigation means in VFR in the open FIR? Laughable ... and a quite unsustainable position, since most pilots know first hand that with the right equipment, knowledge and SOP's it is at least as good a navigation method as anything else that is available.

None of which is meant to decry the alternative of map reading and MDR as first taught to me nearly thirty years ago. They work perfectly well in VMC (less so single crew in IMC!), could be said to be immune to equipment failure (although where was I recently reading of someone's watch failure on skill test!?) and have stood the test of time. Flying the Chipmunk, I can still enjoy the challenge. When using my high performance SEP to go places? You must be joking!

[Dude~]

Islander2, the same principles should work fine in a fast single... the military navigate visually at low level and 450kts.

Arguably the faster you go the easier it is becuase time between features is likely to be less, and the faster you go the less effect drift has so as long as you hold the heading you plan it should be work as well as if not better than in a spam can.

[Islander2]

Islander2, the same principles should work fine in a fast single.

Absolutely, they do. So does navigating by sextant. But precious few CAT flights still use map reading and MDR (or sextants) as the primary means of navigation. Or even secondary means for that matter.

The question is, which method is easier, more accurate, less likely to leave you uncertain of your position, extends the utility of the aeroplane and is, overall, less nerve-racking?

That this argument arises frequently on these forums suggests there is no overwhelmingly right answer to that question. Each pilot will decide for themselves given the challenges they enjoy, the equipment available and the type of flying they do.

I believe strongly that map reading and MDR should continue to be the first method of navigation a student pilot learns. Back to basics will always be, at the very least, an available fall-back when all else fails, whatever primary means is used.

Personally, I couldn't get overly concerned if an instructor keeps an eye on GPS-determined position while instructing basic navigation. Others on here would have said instructor put against the wall and shot.

But those same antagonists, in some cases, are complicit in a serious failing of the current PPL for many students, and I do get hot under the collar about that.

The fact is, a majority of pilots WILL use GPS when they get their licence, and some of those poor, misguided fools will go on to use it as the primary means of navigation. But the position taken by some individuals within the CAA and within much of the training industry will have ensured that many of those pilots received little or no useful tuition in flight planning and navigation where a GPS is to be used. They will not have a proper understanding of the gotchas, and how to avoid them. And they will not have a scientific basis for developing appropriate SOP's.

Those same individuals then wag their fingers where GPS is said to be a contributory factor in CAS infringements or head-in-cockpit airproxes, and attempt to take the moral high ground by saying: "I told them not to do it!"

GPS is here to stay. It WILL be used by numerous pilots as their primary means of navigation. Scaremongering by saying that it's not legal (untrue), unreliable (untrue) inaccurate (untrue), too difficult to use safely unless you fly daily (untrue) and all the other nonsense that is aired on here from time to time is unhelpful.

Surely, instead, the training industry should be providing practical assistance in GPS operation ... based on facts and experience rather than 'it wasn't like that in my day' prejudice ... to help those pilots fly safely.

[Oktas8]

How should the training industry provide practical assistance in training? Serious question actually.

a- Give dual instruction in VFR GPS use (preceded by instructors getting qualified in VFR GPS instructional techniques).
b- Give classroom instruction in GPS use, in such a way that it satisfactorily transfers to post-PPL gallivanting around the sky.
c- Make it the subject of the CAA magazine, again with the "satisfactory transfer to piloting skills" caveat.
d- All of the above.
e- Don't care, as long as someone else pays for it... (Sorry, had to throw that one in. :E )

I see problems with cost for a & b. Costs include - instructor training, familiarisation with a wide variety of OEM styles, teaching methods that transfer to all the different GPS's on the market, extra training pre-PPL (say current average +3 hours), equipping crusty old aero clubs with kit, and finally upgrading all the above down the track a wee way. (c) might happen - lobby your favourite CAA office. (d) probably will happen by 2010, and (e) is the current response by most of us.

Howzat Islander?

[FormationFlyer]

Since you had stated, unequivocally, that the use of GPS is NOT LEGAL as a primary means of navigation in UK airspace, I was hoping (as, I know, were others) that you could put this debate to rest by quoting law (ie ANO or Eurostuff) rather than operational guidelines.

But leaving the legalities to one side, let's consider the logic. GPS is approved, or shortly to become approved, as the primary navigation means for:

1. IFR in BRNAV controlled airspace, with direct clearances that can be greatly in excess of 100nm;

2. IFR in PRNAV exceptionally-busy TMA airspace, flying SID's and STAR's to very tight track-error tolerances; and

3. IFR non-precision approaches in IMC to NDB minima or lower.

But it's not suitable as the primary navigation means in VFR in the open FIR? Laughable ... and a quite unsustainable position, since most pilots know first hand that with the right equipment, knowledge and SOP's it is at least as good a navigation method as anything else that is available.


Er. No 3. Where is your information for this? 1 & 2 are already accepted. 3 isnt and I havent seen a proposal in the UK for this - I would be interested in reading the background material - out of curiosity - and I would add that all approaches to a/d under IMC must be published approaches.

GPS is no worse than anything else? I believe that the reservations regarding GPS come down to the amount of electronics required to block GPS and cause serious disruption to air traffic - as I understand it the low level of the GPS signal means that relatively small transmitters and cheap electronics could block GPS signifcantly - however, to do the same to an ILS or VOR etc requires significantly higher power transmitters...but thats all hearsay but i thought id mention anyway.

[FormationFlyer]

But those same antagonists, in some cases, are complicit in a serious failing of the current PPL for many students, and I do get hot under the collar about that.

The fact is, a majority of pilots WILL use GPS when they get their licence, and some of those poor, misguided fools will go on to use it as the primary means of navigation. But the position taken by some individuals within the CAA and within much of the training industry will have ensured that many of those pilots received little or no useful tuition in flight planning and navigation where a GPS is to be used. They will not have a proper understanding of the gotchas, and how to avoid them. And they will not have a scientific basis for developing appropriate SOP's.

Those same individuals then wag their fingers where GPS is said to be a contributory factor in CAS infringements or head-in-cockpit airproxes, and attempt to take the moral high ground by saying: "I told them not to do it!"

[snip]

Surely, instead, the training industry should be providing practical assistance in GPS operation ... based on facts and experience rather than 'it wasn't like that in my day' prejudice ... to help those pilots fly safely.

Quite agree totally. Which is why GPS training *IS* in the PPL syllabus, and should be taught wherever practicle. I ensure that all my students get basics in GPS (typically use of long-lat, and NRST, Direct) etc - anything else starts getting very GPS specific though and they are best reading the manual for their prefered unit.

GPS is here to stay. It WILL be used by numerous pilots as their primary means of navigation. Scaremongering by saying that it's not legal (untrue), unreliable (untrue) inaccurate (untrue), too difficult to use safely unless you fly daily (untrue) and all the other nonsense that is aired on here from time to time is unhelpful.

er....sorry which bit of primary means is not legal (untrue)? Christ we are talking about PPLs here - and students - not ruddy 747 FO & captains - Who the hell in the PPL world uses BRNAV or PRNAV? hands up?! I can probably count them on one hand. GPS in the open FIR is not a legal primary means for the average PPL holder. Perhaps you can show us the reference that states it is?

unreliable(?) - potentially, NOTAMS are regularly put ot regarding GPS jamming and areas of unreliable reception - so it is to a degree more unreliable - but in specific circumstances. For the average Joe the reliability issue is not one of technology per se - but more one of BATTERIES.... :(

[Islander2]

Er. No 3. Where is your information for this? 1 & 2 are already accepted. 3 isnt and I havent seen a proposal in the UK for this - I would be interested in reading the background material - out of curiosity - and I would add that all approaches to a/d under IMC must be published approaches.

At the AGM of PPL/IR Europe at Cambridge Airport on 6th May 2006 there will be a presentation by Adam Whitehead, Staff Flight Examiner from the CAA, on the progress that has been made with trialling GPS approaches in the UK. I understand it is possible one of those approaches could be active by that date. I believe non-members are welcome to attend, so you may like to come along. Details can be found on the PPL/IR Europe website.

Also, I believe you are incorrect when you say that all approaches in IMC must be published approaches. And my view would seem to be supported by the CAA, since in January 2003 they published an RIA for a proposed amendment to the ANO that, inter alia, would prohibit any person from flying any instrument approach procedure to any aerodrome in the UK otherwise than in accordance with an approval granted by the CAA to the person in charge of the aerodrome. The proposed amendment has not been incorporated.

Finally, on GPS comparison with other aids, it is simply ludicrous that you and others continue to put forward arguments as to why GPS is a fundamentally less reliable system than the traditional aids. Nobody is saying that it is 100% reliable and, yes, that needs to be taken into consideration, but it's pretty damn close. My aeroplane has had panel-mounted GPS alongside a traditional full-airways fit for the last twelve years. During that time, I've experienced one instance of loss of GPS accurate-position availability, and that was for a period of around one minute! Across the same period, I've lost count of the numerous times I've been unable to use VORs because of their unserviceability or lack of range at lower levels, or unable to use NDBs because of weather or worries about their hopeless inaccuracy at night or near the coast.

Experience has shown, for me, that the basic arguments against use of GPS are fundamentally Luddite in nature. I am 100% confident that the vast majority of pilots getting a reasonable level of exposure to GPS reach the same conclusion. So, whatever the views of the dinosaurs, it is fast becoming the prevelant form of navigation in GA, and that is not going to change.

What is needed for safe use of the GPS equipment is knowledge, some limited skills development, and appropriate SOPs. But that is no different from many other aspects of flying an aeroplane safely.

[Islander2]

GPS in the open FIR is not a legal primary means for the average PPL holder. Perhaps you can show us the reference that states it is?

Sorry, FF, but you have a fundamental lack of understanding of how the law works in this area. For GPS not to be legal as a primary means of navigation in the UK open FIR, such use would have to be prohibited by the ANO (or other UK Statutory Instrument or Eurolaw). It does NOT have to be expressly permitted for such use to be lawful.

So, as before FF, I invite you to provide us with the legal reference to support this contoversial and unhelpful view about the illegality of GPS, which I am certain is just plain wrong.

[FormationFlyer]

Sorry, FF, but you have a fundamental lack of understanding of how the law works in this area. For GPS not to be legal as a primary means of navigation in the UK open FIR, such use would have to be prohibited by the ANO (or other UK Statutory Instrument or Eurolaw). It does NOT have to be expressly permitted for such use to be lawful.

So, as before FF, I invite you to provide us with the legal reference to support this contoversial and unhelpful view about the illegality of GPS, which I am certain is just plain wrong.

Er..so you dont consider an AIC - pink - worthy wording then?

Interesting.

[FormationFlyer]

At the AGM of PPL/IR Europe at Cambridge Airport on 6th May 2006 there will be a presentation by Adam Whitehead, Staff Flight Examiner from the CAA, on the progress that has been made with trialling GPS approaches in the UK. I understand it is possible one of those approaches could be active by that date. I believe non-members are welcome to attend, so you may like to come along. Details can be found on the PPL/IR Europe website.

Thanks.

Finally, on GPS comparison with other aids, it is simply ludicrous that you and others continue to put forward arguments as to why GPS is a fundamentally less reliable system than the traditional aids. Nobody is saying that it is 100% reliable and, yes, that needs to be taken into consideration, but it's pretty damn close. My aeroplane has had panel-mounted GPS alongside a traditional full-airways fit for the last twelve years.

[snip]

Experience has shown, for me, that the basic arguments against use of GPS are fundamentally Luddite in nature. I am 100% confident that the vast majority of pilots getting a reasonable level of exposure to GPS reach the same conclusion. So, whatever the views of the dinosaurs, it is fast becoming the prevelant form of navigation in GA, and that is not going to change.

What is needed for safe use of the GPS equipment is knowledge, some limited skills development, and appropriate SOPs. But that is no different from many other aspects of flying an aeroplane safely.

Dinosaur? Im probably younger than you. Technology aware? I spent 15 years as a software engineer - Ive written the software for comms links etc, and possibly the anti-virus software on your desk - so Im no technophobe - I have no problem with GPS at all - it is fantastic! no really.

Where i have the problem is handheld GPS - which I doubt will EVER be a primary means of navigation - in the same way that at night you cannot fly without lighting systems powered by the main busses in the aircraft - i.e. the CAA will not allow you to fly using battery powered torches or headlamps. If the GPS is panel fit then Im all for it. However, I do feel that moving map GPS can cause a certain amount of heads-in due to incorrect use of the navigation aid - that said so can VORs/ADFs.

The other area is as already discussed - poor quality training for pilots - the problem is that most pilots pick up the 'wonder-box' and don't seek helpful advice from a knowledgable instructor, nor put their mind to how it should be used in the cockpit.

Incidentally I often have a GPS in the back of the cockpit on IMC training sorties so I can link the GPS into my laptop, run up RANT and debrief the student - and be able to show them the needles - a valuable aid indeed.

So im not the anti-GPS cretin that you perhaps think I am...

[Islander2]

Er..so you dont consider an AIC - pink - worthy wording then?

Interesting.

I made no comment about the worthiness, or otherwise, of the AIC in question.

Are you saying that an AIC - pink - creates law?

[Islander2]

Where i have the problem is handheld GPS - which I doubt will EVER be a primary means of navigation - in the same way that at night you cannot fly without lighting systems powered by the main busses in the aircraft - i.e. the CAA will not allow you to fly using battery powered torches or headlamps. If the GPS is panel fit then Im all for it.

Well, reading your soul-bareing c.v., it seems we may not be so far apart after all. When, that is, you've brushed up on your air law. :D

I certainly agree that portable GPS equipment (as opposed to panel-mounted units) present important additional issues. Issues that would benefit from suitable guidance (often unavailable in the present 'GPS is the work-of-the-devil' environment). Issues that can be adequately dealt with by appropriate pre-flight planning, the provision of spare batteries and by the proper use of map reading as a secondary means of navigation.

You confuse these issues, however, with your analogy. Night flying requires, per the ANO, lighting that is supplied from the main electrical source of supply in the aircraft. It does NOT require the equipment to be 'installed' as opposed to portable or 'hand held'.

Many users of portable GPS (including me, in the Chipmunk) use the aeroplane's main electrical source of supply to power the equipment via an electrical-supply socket (or cigar lighter). With an adequate GPS aerial, I can think of no reason why such an arrangement should not be used as the primary means of VFR navigation. Indeed, I successfully used just such a system recently to 'assist' my navigation around 4,000nm of Africa in a Cessna 182, where the lack of distinct ground features (and an almost total absence of traditional radio navigation aids) makes map reading/conventional radio-nav rather more of a challenge than it is in the UK (although, for the purists, unquestionably not impossible!).

Of course, if you or anybody else can actually point to the legislation that prohibits the use of GPS for primary navigation, I would protest (along with a very, very large number of other GA pilots!) that I only ever use it as back up ... except, that is, when I'm actually required by legislation to use it in the altogether much less demanding application (sic) above FL095 in controlled airspace designated for the purposes of RNP-5. :hmm:

[Islander2]

Who the hell in the PPL world uses BRNAV or PRNAV? hands up?! I can probably count them on one hand.

Oh, and should you come to the PPL/IR Europe AGM in Cambridge, you will meet a representative sample of the nearly 300 UK PPL members, many of whom fly in BRNAV airspace using GPS, AS REQUIRED, as the primary means of navigation. Maybe you need to get a rather larger hand. :O