The Wizwheel, time to say good bye?

[Superpilot]

Some bad points:

1.) Extremely difficult to use in the air, when work load is high.
2.) Navigation side impossible to use without a pencil (and pencils do like getting lost) :rolleyes:
3.) Incredibly difficult to learn for new generation of (computer savvy) students who have never seen anything so archaic.
4.) Innaccurate.
5.) Too big in some cases.

Things I've often heard:

1.) The navigation side helps you to "see the triangle problem much more clearly" - So do some electronic devices.
2.) It's the only thing that can help you when your batteries run out or the electronic computer stops working - I can buy an additional battery, I can buy two electronic computers. I've never had an electronic handheld device fail on me. Ever.
3.) An electronic flight computer makes you lazy - It does not make you lazy, it reduces the work load which is key to safety and learning other aspects of flying.

The wizwheel (analogue flight computer) is an outdated, over rated navigation/calculation tool which is only used these days due to cob wridden oldies not understanding the benefit/ease of use of newer electronic devices.

Discuss.
(Sorry didn't mean to be rude, just extemely passionate about this subject. Thanks ;))

[DFC]

Some bad points:
1.) Extremely difficult to use in the air, when work load is high.
2.) Navigation side impossible to use without a pencil (and pencils do like getting lost) :rolleyes:
3.) Incredibly difficult to learn for new generation of (computer savvy) students who have never seen anything so archaic.
4.) Innaccurate.
5.) Too big in some cases.

1. It is for pre-flight planning purposes. In the air, use the various airbourne techniques for making changes to what you planned based on actual conditions. In this respect, I would also not condone the use of an electronic version in the air either.

2. Not the case at all. I use the Jeppesen circular CRPs and they do not need a pencil mark. It does help though. Yes pencils and pens get lost but if you can't draw a line on your map then you are probably not going to need the CRP anyway.

You will need to draw a line on your map for an unplanned diversion as well as noting down various times, frequencies etc enroute so the lack of any writing device at planning stage does not bode well for the navigation exercise.

3. Easy to use and easy to learn if not too lazy and the instructor knows what they are talking about. Practice is all that is required.

4. Is easily accurate to +/- 2 degrees. You can not fly as accurate as that and the metoffice can not predict the winds as accurate as that.

5. Get yourself a small one. The Jeppesen circular CRPs come in various sizes and the smaller one fits in the plam of your hand.

With practice, one can complete the drift and groundspeed calculations in your head. That also requires practice and it not for the lazy.

Regards,

DFC

[GusHoneybun]

Ah, the old CRP-5. Completely invalueable for the Gen Nav ATPL exam, completely useless afterwards. It's an archaic throwback to the olden days when pilots where called aviators, had fantastic moustaches, smoked pipes and referred to their aircraft as crates.

draw a line on your chart, work out your max drift, then apply the clock code to work out how much drift you need to offset. work out your groundspeed and bingo, flight planning complete. no faffing about with some overpriced piece of plastic. and as for electronic calculators, they are even worse. anything that has an instruction manual greater than 4 pages is not going to make your life any easier.

[BEagle]

Except that most people then fail to calculate their groundspeed properly from MDR - and cannot then work out the time at fixes accordingly.

MDR is excellent for unplanned diversions. But it is emphatically not an acceptable substitute for proper pre-flight planning. Whether you use a Dalton, an electronic calculator or an on-line method is immaterial. But the flight does require proper planning.

Incidentally, putting the groundpseed against the '60', then reading off time at waypoint distances along a leg is a classic example of the advantage of analogue versus digital computation in some circumstances.

Now waggle your ears and do some bunnyhops!

[GusHoneybun]

au contraire

in my humble opinion, using the max drift method is proper planning. you have assessed your flight and corrected for the wind. if people make mistakes, then it is down to unfamiliarity and a lack of practice, not indicative of the method being flawed. if you use familiar, you will find using it for real in flight will be doddle.

if you are not convinced with the method, try a few examples, they are within a degree or two and a few knots of groundspeed. close enough for the accuracy of your average PPL student and wind forecast by our friends in bracknell (or is it exeter).

batteries run out on electronic calcs, people lose whizzwheels, but you can't forget your brain. although some students do try and prove me wrong.

and you only get bunnyhops if it's your birthday!

[FlyingForFun]

I assume we are talking about real-world flying, rather than training?

If that's the case, the first thing to point out is that the majority of real-world flying is done using some form of nav-aid (ground based or satelite). In this case, only a very rought idea of wind is needed, since the navaids can be used to ensure the correct track during flight.

Real world flying over reasonable distances without navaids, though, definitely requires proper planning. Doesn't really matter what method is used, but I can't see any problem with the whiz-wheel, for the reasons DFC gives. Likewise, I can't see any real problem with electronic planning tools. Once you've learnt to use it properly, I don't think the whiz-wheel is necessarily any more difficult to use.

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

[The Trolls' Troll]

Replying to the points made by Superpilot
1)Difficult to use in the air. Yes. Answer. Make the triangle of velocities simpler, by only using the information relevant to the particular plane you’re flying in and making it bigger and clearer. See my solution at Navok.co.uk.
2) No pencils are used for any calculation but I consider that pencil and paper are essential items.
Where you were and when you were there is the most important information you can acquire.
What sort of information or calculation do you want to do in the air? Just do a thorough preflight plan and it’ll all be in the notes. Won’t it?
No. It’s that annoying stuff called wind. It doesn’t always do what it’s supposed to do, and quite often, all the times and headings have to be re-adjusted as the flight proceeds. Using my device I can get an up- to-date wind vector in 2-3 seconds and then use MDR(mental dead reckoning) to get the time and heading for the next leg of the course. The times of pinpoints are logged. I know the distance between them and that gives me the ground speed and I note the average WCA and in 2-3 secs I’ve got the latest wind vector.
This updating is not of much value for local bimbles but I have found it invaluable on longer flights of 50-400mls. A change of wind strength and direction gives an early warning of change in weather or acts as a confirmation to the suspicion that a new set of conditions is on the way.
Calculation of heading and groundspeed is amenable to mental calculation via the 1:60 rule, but there is no reasonably accurate method of calculating the wind strength and direction. It can be inferred from headwind and crosswind components, but tangents are not amenable to mental calculation in the way that sines and the 1:60 rule is. A graphic model is easy,quick and accurate.
3)Incredibly difficult to learn for those reared in the computer age—and the decimal system and a generation or two, let down by poor quality teaching. Generations that did not have the essential template of fractions, multiplication tables, and the tricks of mental arithmetic burned into their brains at an early age. That’s the price you pay for making learning fun.
I like the “archaic” observation. The idea presumably is that because it is old it is valueless. It is not. It’s an ingenious bit of kit that provides so much information in a small space, but you need to know a bit about numbers and have some knowledge and appreciation of the use of logarithms, otherwise mistakes can be made. The chances of that are much reduced if you have the ability to anticipate the answer. The design of the machine is such that it assumes that the user is already well-practised in mental arithmetic. Those who are deficient in this respect, are forced to think in a different way and become resentful and return to their comfort zone of digital electronic gadgetry. Which incidentally I find uncomfortable, feeling much more at ease in the analogue world where geometry and numbers are combined. The retention of analogue displays on watches and cockpit instrumentation displays suggests that I am not alone in this.
And it’s not that old. It’s only about seventy years old and nothing else was there to take it’s place until the mid-eighties.
4) Inaccurate.
We are presumably talking about aircraft navigation and not guiding Voyager Two past Neptune by a hairsbreadth(in astronomical terms). Great accuracy is not a requirement and never has been. If anything, a reasonable criticism of the wind side of the instrument is that it is too accurate. 5 degree divisions round the compass would be fine, the individual degrees just add to the clutter.
5) Too big. Yes it’s not readily pocketable. I wouldn’t take one with me on the aircraft. I’d just use it for pre-flight planning. So it’s size doesn’t matter.
Taking your other points:-
1)The wind side helps you see the triangle more clearly. I don’t think so. It’s too cluttered and the scale is too small. Fine for the pre-flight on the ground, but too small for serious use in the air, especially in turbulence. Compare that clutter with the Navok design. The triangle of velocities is in your face, in colour, that guides the eye to the correct places.
2) You make a good point about the reliability of electronics. By and large my experience too. But one or two points. The displays have to be improved and more thought given to the size and number of buttons/switches, waterproofing and the provision of a facility to guard or lock the controls. Greater protection by way of design for use outdoors rather than an office environment would be highly desirable. A recall of the input figures, like a printout calculator, would be another good feature.
3) Flight computers make you lazy. Yes they do. Well they make me lazy. That is why I do all my calculations by mental arithmetic. If you don’t use it you lose it. Not only that but the more you practice the faster you get. So much so that I could get the figures for a flight in the time it takes you to go to your flight bag and get your calculator out.
Re-the thing being outdated and much beloved by oldies that don’t know about the ease of use etc of electronics.
That may be true to a degree but it is only fairly recently that electronics have become so reliable and cheap. Prior to the late eighties such devices were very, very expensive, heavy and bulky and unreliable. The old codgers were right not to place too much reliance on the new-fangled devices and often had to revert to the old techniques in the event of frequent failures and encounters with new, little-understood phenomena. We stand on the backs of those who have gone before. A little respect is in order.
When I was a boy in the fifties, the radio or wireless was a major item of furniture, the size of a fridge, that dominated the living room and took five minutes to warm up. Now, I believe you could get instant reception from one that could be fitted into a wrist watch.
Electronics do a lot but not everything. Take your GPS. Nothing affects a flight more than the wind, yet it doesn’t give you a wind vector as it doesn’t know the orientation of the aircraft’s axis. You have to go to the E6b page and input the heading and it will give you the wind vector. Mine doesn’t remember this , neither can it apply it to the rest of the route. All times given for the rest of the route are based on the current groundspeed. How daft is that?
Every pilot has to know the elements of navigation as a fall back and to check that everything is working as it should. We’re almost there, but not quite at the stage where lives or multi-million pound investments can be entrusted to electronics. Until then you’ll just have to get to grips with the maths and geometry of navigation, with the whiz-wheel being employed as a teaching aid. Get that information into your personal, portable computer--- the brain. If it(your brain) has an opinion it can criticise the output of the instrumentation. If it doesn’t have an opinion it is a slave to the instrumentation.
Whether the whiz wheel is the best aid in teaching the maths and geometry of navigation is perhaps open to question but the triangle of velocities, speed, time and distance have to be thoroughly understood. The current electronics may be easy to use and give (unnecessarily) accurate results, but they do not give understanding. I think that has been the reason why the whiz-wheel has not been dropped.

[porridge]

Agree with DFC:
5. Get yourself a small one. The Jeppesen circular CRPs come in various sizes and the smaller one fits in the palm of your hand.
Had one for over 20 years (same one) - does the wind & ground speed etc in the same way as the Max Drift and Clock method - just much more accurately. I can do the calcs using one hand too once I've got the wind dot done. Totally magic and it never fails to amuse/impress the studes!

[rmcdonal]

2.) It's the only thing that can help you when your batteries run out or the electronic computer stops working - I can buy an additional battery, I can buy two electronic computers. I've never had an electronic handheld device fail on me. Ever.
I have had 1 wiz wheel melt on the dash, and have had 1 GPS handheld zap itself in the middle of the NT (And out came the map from the back of the seat).
Dont put to much trust in your little handheld device, electric or otherwise.

[jayteeto]

I do the drift bit in my head but have used the back of the CRP for years and it has served me well. Fuel, TAS when in airways in smaller aircraft, conversions etc. I am not a dinosaur, I just find it much easier to use than an electronic navcomputer. It becomes easy with regular use.

[BEagle]

Gus - is the smile on your face caused by where Fern has had her hand?

Max drift is fine for heading calculations, but it is much more difficult to use for groundspeed calculation. Let's say that at 2000 ft and ISA, the wind is 50 deg off at 20 kts, that means a headwind component of 2/3 x 20 = 13 and a bit, call it 15 kts. If your IAS is 90, then that's a GS of 75. Now, the first fix on track is after 21 miles, so that'll take (21/75) x 60 = err, umm .....well, at 90 it would have taken 2/3 of 21 which is 14 minutes and we're doing 5/6 of 90 so it'll take, err..6/5 of 14 which is 12/10 x 14, so that's 120 plus 48 divided by 10 = 16.8 minutes.

Fine - but what a faff pre-flight. Yes, clever folks can do it, but why bother? It's within a minute of the correct value - but it seems more trouble than its worth to me!

Now can Gus please turn out the lights?

[DFC]

BEagle,

If the groundspeed is 60 knots then 21nm will take 21 minutes.

If the groundspeed is 70 knots then it will take 6/7 of the time i.e. 18 minutes

If the groundspeed is 80 knots then it will take 6/8 (3/4) of the time.

If it is 75 knots then it is half way between.

Regards,

DFC

[BEagle]

So working out a rough estimate twice and averaging the result is the way to go, huh?

OK - this time the GS is 83 KIAS. Work it out at 90, then at 80, then add a third of the difference to the 80 KIAS figure?

Still a stupid amount of work, compared to doing it accurately once!

[hugh flung_dung]

Err, the simple way is surely to work out the still air times then change them by whatever percentage the head/tail wind is of your TAS.

TAS 90kts = 2/3nm/min so 15 miles = 10 mins
HWC = 12 kts so about 13% increase on still air time, = 11.3 mins

Or if you prefer, just use 10% of g/s in 6 mins. GS=75kts gives 7.5nm in 6 minutes. 21nm is just less than 3 lots of 6 minutes.

Personally I like using the DI to solve all my drift and H/TWC sums "on the fly" - just look at it, find the wind and use ratios to do the MDR assessments - trivially simple, totally accurate, no gadgets needed and no maths.

HFD

[The Trolls' Troll]

Or you could try this:- “Factor” for 75kts is 0.8(time taken in minutes to complete 1nml)
The factors for each groundspeed are printed on the Airspeed /Groundspeed plate of the NavOK equipment.
21×0.8=21-21×0.2=21-4.2=21-4=17-0.2=16.8mins. But the windspeed was overestimated therefore the groundspeed is a little faster than 75kts. 16-16.5 mins will do me. I’ll be looking out for the target at 10-12mins.

[BEagle]

I advocate the simple percentage method for MDR when calculating the time for an unplanned diversion as has been described.

But for pre-flight planning, I expect the student to use a computer of some form, not MDR.

And as for the organisation which teaches people to use still air planning at medium level if the wind is 'less than about 10 kts'.... That's just laziness; fair enough if the wind is 'light and variable', but if you start out with such a 10-12% error in groundspeed, then on a typical 50 mile leg you'll be outside the PPL Skill Test limits before even taking off.

[Centaurus]

The whizzwheel won me a heart for the night many many years back when I was a callow PPL youth. It was in my top pocket and while chatting up a young lady I convinced her I was an aerodynamicist because I showed her my "circular slide rule." I mumbled something about lift formulae of her boobs quoting Lift = CL half row something V squared alpha and showed her how to work the whiz wheel and Bob's yer Uncle...

[rmcdonal]

Centaurus thats a classic effort. :ok:
I still bump along with "Im in High Speed aluminium tubing" (Not my call but I stole it anyway)

[hugh flung_dung]

BEagle:
who's teaching people to use still air planning at medium level if the wind is 'less than about 10 kts'?

The advantage of using MDR for pre-flight planning is that the techniques are then fresh if you need to plan a diversion. How many non-mil pilots have you flown with on refreshers or LST/LPCs who pre-plan with a wizzwheel and can still plan and fly a diversion properly?


AWL:
I wish you success selling your gadgets but they really aren't necessary. Anyone with a circular DI (or any other compass rose) can do all the drift/gs planning just by calculating MD (WSx60/TAS) and then visually using the DI to estimate the drift and T/HWC on any heading. It takes less than 30 seconds.
Having said that, one gadget which people who struggle with 2+2 find very useful for estimating durations is a scale with distance/time for different GS - Transair sell one but it's simple to make one.

HFD

[Signature]

I teach my cadets to try and do everything with circular computers. It freaks them out how easily, and accurately most things can be calculated on the Whizz.

Recently I held an informal briefing on the lost art of 'Whizzing'. Taught how to calculate the cost of each can of beer (6pack vs carton), exchange rates and how fast your car goes (percentage Mach).

Personally, I have recently discovered how to calculate head/cross wind components using the SIN/COS feature on the wind calc side. All you need to know is the difference between track and wind origin, and wind strength. Set COS 0 (the top) to wind strength on outside scale. Then decide if you want to calc crosswind or headwind.

Want to know wind on your SIDE? Use SIN. - X wind

Want to know wind on you COCK? Use COS. - Head/Tail wind.

Being really crude helps me remember, so sorry about writing cock.

If you wanted to get really technical, you could calculate 'ETAS', or effective tas reduced by wind drift... Don't worry, blame the slower performance on your crate.

Back to the whole point, people far smarter than use designed an incredibly intimidating device, which is really very easy to use. The Jeppesen CR series are the only way to go, the sliders do not have enough functions and get out-grown. I'm sure every one of use would love an original Brietling Navitimer with authentic slide ruler in the bezel...

And chicks won't steal the batteries from it to put into remotes.

[BEagle]

"BEagle:
who's teaching people to use still air planning at medium level if the wind is 'less than about 10 kts'?"

The RAF, it seems... "d. Still-air planning is to be used. When the wind speed is greater than about 10 kts, MDR techniques should be used."

"The advantage of using MDR for pre-flight planning is that the techniques are then fresh if you need to plan a diversion. How many non-mil pilots have you flown with on refreshers or LST/LPCs who pre-plan with a wizzwheel and can still plan and fly a diversion properly?"

Virtually all the non-mil pilots I've flown with have been able to use MDR for the diversion aspect of the PPL Skill Test - because we teach them how to. Whereas most of the RAF pilots I've flown with doing their PPLs cannot accurately calculate an ETA pre-flight as they have no idea how to - it seems that nowadays they aren't taught how to use a whizz-wheel (or even an electronic equivalent) during elementary flying training. Fortunately the Army and RN do still teach this basic part of every pilots' education...

Best though was the naval rotary mate doing his diversion. No MDR for him - from a big bag behind him he produced a selection of pens, planning jobbers and a whizz-wheel. I was waiting for the big brass dividers and the pusser's parallel rule! To his credit he managed to juggle with all this kit, look out of the window and fly the aircraft at the same time and his ETA was spot on time!

Incidentally, I am entirely happy for pilots doing the nav section of the renewal LST / revalidation LPC to use GPS if they do so properly.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Personally I hate the CRP's, but I find my little Jepp wheel invaluble.

Pre-flight planning should be as accurate as possible, even though we aren't able to fly to within a deg. or two and the w/v is an approximation sometimes, why build more error into it in the first place?

Using something like the clockcode whilst in flight is a very sensible thing, but expecting people to do fairly complex calculations in their head without making a mistake is asking a bit much unless these are practiced regularily. This goes for pre-flight planning aswell.

I'm very surprised to hear that the RAF don't teach what I consider to be a fairly fundamental thing. I suppose 10 kts of drift doesn't matter as much when you are doing 600+kts!

[hugh flung_dung]

"Virtually all the non-mil pilots I've flown with have been able to use MDR for the diversion aspect of the PPL Skill Test - because we teach them how to." - I was thinking more of the people who come back for refresher or LPC/LST flying and have only used wizz wheels for planning and not practised MDR for a few years. IME they've usually forgotten how to plan a diversion whereas if they had practised the techniques for pre-flight planning (even to check wizz wheel output) they would be totally up to speed when needed.

I haven't had anyone want to use a GPS, but I'd expect them to do the normal planning and map/plog prep then use the GPS for en-route guidance, keeping a written log in case it goes belly up.

HFD

[IO540]

There is a rather more basic consideration here, which appears to have been overlooked.

Flying is not a cheap hobby. It's not like F1 racing but it does cost more than fishing.

Currently, most people who enter GA don't get very far. They barely have enough to do a PPL; most pack it in soon after. A number of reasons no doubt; money is one (but they must have known!!), lack of utility is another (most rentable planes are crap), crap social scene (most airfields are full of anoraks, and most prospective passengers won't fly in crap old planes).

Now stand next to the M25 (or any other road) and count the £50,000 cars. Due to all the tax changes, many of them won't be company cars. Even fewer of the copious quantities of £100,000 cars will be company cars. There is a lot of money about. Most of the drivers are executives or people at the top of their profession - not the stereotype stupid people with inheritances.

Here's a question for the instructors: how many people with a realistic flying budget (PPL and post-PPL) do you see, as a percentage of all punters that get past the first lesson?

So, why do so many apparently good pilot candidates avoid GA? May I suggest a few factors:

1. A desire to keep everything in the past
2. Outdated procedures (the circular slide rule is a really good example) when it's obvious to anyone with a brain that there are better ways
3. Anoraks everywhere (result of 1 2 4)
4. Lack of women (result of 3, mainly)

So, while one is debating the circular slide rule and how brilliant it is for sorting the men from the sheep, anybody with a brain (and a car whose wheels won't fall off anytime soon, probably with a GPS in the car) who gets anywhere near a trial lesson, will politely smile, turn around and walk out again.

It's a very quaint scene around airfields, old chaps, with the tea, the cakes, the WW1 biplanes with pilots (mostly in their 60s and 70s) in leather caps and leather jackets.

I am sure re-arranging chairs on the Titanic was a fun job, too.

It's time to move on, ditch all this old rubbish and drag GA kicking and screaming into the 20th century.

Will it happen? No way. My kids will almost certainly not be flying. Not because VFR GA will be outlawed, but because the shrinking GA population won't support the present GA airfield network. Once these start to close, things will move fast. The UK will become like Greece or Spain, with negligible GA activity.

[BEagle]

Although I find the whizz-wheel pretty simple to use, I have no problem with people who prefer to use elctronic or on-line methods. But however they do it, they should be able to minimise error pre-flight as Say again Slowly states.

Now it's invention time. Let's have an on-line UK navigation tool with accurate wind/temp information. I want to be able to specify or drag-and-drop my start point, turning points and destination onto an up-to-date electronic chart (a bit like MS Autoroute!). I then tell it my IAS and leg cruising levels and select 'create plan' - it should know all about variation etc automatically. Then download it onto a USB stick and trot off to the aerodrome. At the aerodrome I insert my USB stick into a planning computer - and ask it to apply current met info and ETD to the plan. Also to warn me of any pertinent NOTAMs within a specified distance of the route.

Then take the plan with winds-of-the-day and insert it into my aircraft's mini-FMS USB port. When I get airborne, this monitors my actual v. planned route using GPS and nags me if I get off track or near wherever any NOTAM'd restrictions are....

Although currently I still fly with a chinagraph line on a map, surely the next generation of GPS units should be able to accept a USB stick with a standard format route plan? Or maybe they already can?

The aeroplane would be of modern lightweight design and construction with a FADEC controlled efficient engine - not a 1950's combine harvester gas guzzler!

And perhaps come with an optional aerosol can of 'Olde Aviator' odorant to appease the anoraks?

[IO540]

Beagle

You can do most of that right now.

You can plan a route with Navbox, print off a wind-corrected plog, print off the (rather rough) map, load the route into a handheld GPS, and fly it.

You still have to go to ais.org.uk for the narrow route briefing but that's only a few mins. Most of what comes out is rubbish anyway.

Similarly for the weather - for most local VFR hacking, Avbrief will deliver the data in minutes.

Still need the printed chart to plan for CAS, MSA, etc.

One could write a checklist for this process.

Little spanners in the works are:

No IFR GPS can be preloaded, but there are non-IFR panel mounts (which are actually perfectly good for IFR) which can be.

The only way to print off proper enroute VFR chart sections is to buy Jeppesen Flitestar and the VFR Raster Charts add-on; then you have the dog's bo11***s but it's not cheap. With their now-obsolete Flitemap you could run a moving map GPS over the planned route, too.

"Serious" pilots have been doing this stuff for years.

The expensive bit is of course the modern plane, but if you just want VFR and 2 seats you can get that too. Less choice and a lot more money for IFR. It's happening. But it will happen too late for the UK GA scene. The training process needs a complete overhaul first, attitudes first.

[Cricket23]

IO540,

Do you know whether or not Navbox works with a Garmin 96C?

Also, I believe there are two versions of Navbox. Is it any use getting the more expensive version for the average VFR bimbler?

Cheers,

C23

[DFC]

"BEagle:
who's teaching people to use still air planning at medium level if the wind is 'less than about 10 kts'?"
The RAF, it seems... "d. Still-air planning is to be used. When the wind speed is greater than about 10 kts, MDR techniques should be used."


Probably has a lot to do with the fact that on the F214 wind chart, the windspeeds are given in multiples of 5 i.e. 5, 10, 15 etc. The 5 knot wind will not have a direction provided i.e. it will be VRB 05.

Thus if the wind is forecast to be less than 10 Kt i.e. 5 Kt or Calm then it makes sense not to fuss about with trying to guess a direction.

-------

Online planning is great but how many flight briefing rooms in the UK have internet access? - not many. I often find now that we end up going into the terminal to use a WIFI connection or some other public internet facility.

Regards,

DFC

[BEagle]

Certainly agree that there's no point in planning for 'light and variable' winds! But on a 50 mile navex at 90 KIAS which would take (at 90 KTAS) 33.3 minutes, I expect a student on a PPL Skill Test to be able to plan as accurately as reasonably possible - certainly to within 1 minute. Ignoring a 10 kt headwind component on such a leg will give a 4.2 minute error, ignoring a 10kt tailwind component will give a 3.3 minute error. Both of which are outside the in-flight accuracy expected, so anyone doing such lazy still-air planning could fail the navigation section of the PPL Skill Test before even getting airborne........

Yes, there are various standalone planning tools available, but in the future we should have a generally available on-line system as I described. Internet access at clubs should cost the club a mere £15 per month, easily recoverable. And it should be easy enough to prevent all but the most determined geeks from fiddling with the desktop settings.

[IO540]

I think that every airfield should have free wifi internet.

However, looking at going further afield, the only solution to streamlined flight planning is a laptop with a GSM/GPRS card. The access is not cheap but one doesn't need much data. I spend a few quid per flight on average and that includes filing an ICAO flight plan and faxing the GAR form to all three numbers.

I don't know about supported GPS types for Navbox Pro - have a look at www.navbox.nl

As regards dead reckoning, it works quite well because the aircraft speed is so (normally!) much higher than the wind, and if the visibility is OK then one can see terrain features a few miles away, and one can correct the track accordingly well before reaching the waypoint. I think that human errors are a bigger problem in reality, e.g. messing up the stopwatch, an arithmetic error in the plog, etc.

I also think that training could be much improved when it comes to selection of waypoints. It's no use picking a lake, when there is another similar one 10 miles away. One should look for unusual features, unusual patterns in road/railway intersections, etc. Same with towns and villages, so many look the same.

[BEagle]

Correct - many people choose entirely unsuitable visual fixes and far too many. You shouldn't really need more than 2 or 3 on a 50 mile leg, I would suggest. Even when you've graduated to basic, non-IFR TSO'd GPS use, a good confirmatory visual feature adds a lot of confidence!

I find GSM/GPRS internet access quite slow and unreliable with the original Vodafone Mobile Connect card and only ever use it as a last resort.

We will be upgrading our computer at the Flying Club and intend to add a wi-fi router which will be MAC-address restricted so that any member who provides their MAC address should be able to access the internet using their own laptops.

[Say again s l o w l y]

It's a very good idea having such a system, we have both wi-fi and a standalone computer with broadband access for flight planning and they make life much easier for students, instructors and PPL's alike.

With the price of a new computer from someone like Dell nowadays, there really is no excuse for not having it, unfortunately most of GA is still in the dark ages about this stuff.

[IO540]

What's needed is a training course on how to do "modern" flight planning!

Nobody does anything remotely resembling that, as far as I know. It would not be hard to put together a syllabus.

It would not go down well with instructors because they would see it as undermining their teaching, and a lot of PPLs drop out immediately, so perhaps getting enough bookings might be the challenge, limited as they would be to PPL holders who go places and can afford a laptop.

I use the Voda PCMCIA card too, a badged Sierra 750 in fact, and it has worked everywhere, including the USA.

[RVR800]

Your post about anoraks is amusing.. and true I agree that regulatory authorities are very slow to grasp new technology.

One major issue is the use of GPS navigation and approaches although the CAA are running some trials at the moment its very slow in coming...

NDBs are being swithched off stateside and GPS is seen as the way forward

Joe Public is becoming unimpressed with the archaic technology used in aviation - he will be guided precisely up the road to the flying school in his car by GPS and then be taught about whizz wheels and NDBs for navigation - its a quaint old world we live in isnt it?

[IO540]

The reason I write this kind of stuff is because whenever I speak to somebody outside GA, almost the moment I start to answer some question about why is this done in that way, etc, they tend to start laughing and shaking their head in disbelief.

I am pretty sure that any pilot who is also exposed to similar issues and problems in the outside world will wonder why the hell things are done this way. This basically means anybody in design, technology, engineering, computer hardware or software. If you know something about this stuff, a lot of stuff in GA just doesn't make sense.

On the other hand, if flying had not been invented, and somebody invented it now, there is absolutely no way it would be permitted. Way too risky! So we should be grateful :)

[Dimensional]

BEagle, Sir...

so anyone doing such lazy still-air planning could fail the navigation section of the PPL Skill Test before even getting airborne

Yesterday I planned and executed a 1:30/1:45 landaway, over completely unknown terrain (and wildly different to the flatlands of the Fens), and did it all with still air planning and airborne MDR. Just as well, really, as the wind was a good 30 degrees and 10Kts from that forecast by the metman. Furthermore, I did a good twenty minutes of it in IMC, using point-point radio aids methods; needless to say I hadn't planned that beforehand and would've been scuppered had I relied on headings and groundspeeds I'd calculated beforehand on the Dalton.

Needless to say, I was never more than 10 seconds innaccurate with my ETA estimates at any of the turning points, nor more than 1/2nm off track at any point. I put it to you, therefore, that the Dalton/Whizz-wheel is completely unnecessary for the average GA flight... Whilst I can see the reasoning behind campaining for its use, I think it's a little overkill when it's a) complex to understand initially (who else spent a good couple of hours misunderstanding the manual) compared to MDR and b) no more accurate in practice.

-D

[BEagle]

I take it you're not a 20hr student then?

Learn to walk first, then how to run...

[hugh flung_dung]

BEagle:
MAC filtering requires the club to maintain the MAC address filter (lots of numbers to type!) whereas you can get similar basic security by hiding your SSID and use WEP128; this saves you from having to maintain a MAC filter (the client would need to set-up their WLAN to work with your WAP).
You need to consider why you want to restrict access to your WAP. Most simple schemes (including MAC filtering, hidden SSID and WEP128) can easily be circumvented with the appropriate skills and tools. If you only want to prevent neighbours from freeloading on your bandwidth then simple schemes will probably be OK; if there are other reasons to keep people out (or you have educated impecunious neighbours) then you need to look at some real security measures. If you don't have neighbours then why have any access control?

HFD

[kluge]

ooo-er

Whiz wheel for me ........ and a backup GPS panel mount AND handheld.

Works on the yacht too. Put the handheld in the oven in case of thunderstorms - make sure missus is not baking bread at the time otherwise definately ooo-er.

Faraday cage an' all that don't ya know.

Great thread and great revision for the E6B-1.

Learned a lot from these posts BEagle - please share any other 'quick calcs' that you may have up your wings.

K

[The Trolls' Troll]

“Travel to airfield by GPS and then revert to Whizz-wheel/NDB.”
That is a good observation RVR800, but against that one should consider the strangeness of human beings and their attachment to old technology, particularly with respect to historical forms of transport. Surely with the invention of internal combustion engines, one would have expected the disappearance of the horse, the sailing boat, and the bicycle. As one travels about the highways and byways, the creeks, inlets and estuaries of these beneficent Isles, one cannot be but struck by the number and variety of equestrian and yachting establishments.
Taking the equestrian first.
It is my firm opinion that a more dangerous and uncomfortable means of transport over the surface of this planet has yet to be devised. Yet this activity (unlike flying or sailing) seems to much excite the interest of the female of the species. In conversation with a member of that sex, in the spirit of intellectual inquiry, I advanced the theory, for her consideration, that the female had a proclivity to having something warm and hairy between it’s legs. This was not well received and occasioned my speedy retirement to avoid a whack from her riding crop.(a stick-like device employed to discipline errant, fractious equines.)
Almost every sheltered bit of coastline is festooned with archaic craft of all sizes, the employment of which causes much expense both in time and money and despite the owners being subject to much uncomfortable exposure to the elements, they persist in the use of such craft, propelled by no more than the wind, a notoriously perfidious force of nature. Why this should be so, when the attachment of a simple engine would fulfill the objective of reliable water-borne transportation is a mystery.
On a hot summer’s day, one occasionally sees a cyclist reaching the top of a long rise, his tortured features, and the sweat on his brow, a testimony to considerable exertion, if not actual physical distress. Why? This question is even more puzzling when it be known that the cyclist is in possession of a perfectly serviceable motor vehicle.
Could it be that similar, unusual phenomena are to be witnessed in the activity of aviation, and thereby explain the continued existence of archaic aircraft with little in the way of navigation or handling aids, other than the pilot’s knowledge and experience?
Has not man reached such a stage of technological development, that getting from A to B is so easy, that in circumstances where time is not of the essence, in order to excite his interest, he reverts to those older modes of transport even if they cause some discomfort? Man is such a perverse creature that he seems to delight in the acquisition of the skill and knowledge required to handle and navigate those archaic aerial conveyances.
Why this should be so, I do not know, neither have I ken of the reasons for the continued use of equines, wind-driven craft or human powered vehicles, particularly when the owners invariably exist in a state of some financial prosperity. But ‘tis so.
Similarly with the interest in Ray Mears’ programmes. People are intrigued by the examples of how man can do so much with so little when thrown back on his own resources, as can happen in emergencies. And so it is with aviation. You don’t need sophisticated equipment to go places. Maurice Kirk got to Sydney, Australia in a Piper Cub. Too many people outside aviation but also many within it, associate it with complexity and sophisticated technology which is not necessary, to simply fly. A fan to provide propulsion and a wing to deflect air downwards and some flight controls and you’re away. One or two instruments aid the pilot but they are not essential for controlled flight.
These basic facts of aviation were rediscovered in the hanglider/microlight revolution where people revisited that very basic aspiration of man, to fly like the birds. In the planes advocated by IO540 you won’t get that. A large part of the time you’ll be sitting there in a climate-controlled environment monitoring dials, gauges and the output of computers, droning along mile after mile through a sterile world of cloud, yammering away in radio speak, only to be able to land at an airport that looks like a penitentiary with food and facilities to match.
Compare that to the microlight world of wind in your hair, the creak of the rigging, the bend and flex of the wings as they respond to every little aircurrent, the booming whoosh of a thermal that propels you upwards at 1000’/min. Land at beautiful grass strips, buried in idyllic corners of England. Make your own tea and coffee and enjoy a homebaked scone or homemade sandwich. No posing required and indeed much frowned upon. Not a gold epaulette or Rayban in sight.
Yes it is a quaint old world and I can’t get enough of it.
Ps. Perhaps the social scene at airfields would be improved by offering stabling and stud facilities.

[BEagle]

hfd - we will probably need a list of 'approved clients' to keep site-plod happy. MAC-address flitering is hardly very difficult and gives us the association proof we might one day need.

[shortstripper]

Blimey ... I'm only 40 but feel old when I hear about all this about outdated navigation, aeroplanes, engines, ect ect ... yadda yadda yawn yawn! Just as much as IO540 gets frustrated with all the knocking of new thinking, I get frustrated with all the knocking of traditional stuff! (Bloody hell, flying was only 60 years old when I was born "how long has man been around"?)

The whizz wheel for all it's draw backs is essentially a very accurate and clever bit of kit. Run down the batteries, throw in some nasty atmospherics or even a dodgy time in the middle east, and all of a sudden that GPS isn't as good as you thought (but the whizz wheel still works!).

Perhaps I'm IO540's nemisis, but I'm sure if we met, we'd probably get on well. Why? we both love flying ... but maybe from entirely different ends of the spectrum. I'm sorry IO540 but you sometimes make me boil with all your "Let's drag flying into the 20st century" stuff (you may not have noticed but the 20th century has passed BTW). Lot's of what you say in subsequent posts makes a lot of sense ... but that first post was simply a virtual copy of numerous knocks of "traditional" flying you have made in other forums over the last year or so! Sorry, I digress ...

Yep, I'm kind of a traditionalist. I like to fly open cockpit, slow draggy (but fun) airframes around the sky. I've been flying years, but have relatively few hours cos I'm not made of money, and funnily enough having said all that I have, I rarely use the whizz wheel. Most of my nav is ... draw a line on the map, mark in a big arrow showing wind direction and speed and then play it by ear. Yikes! .... but (so far) I've never been lost and find I'm rarely far out.

My point is (in the most protacted and round about way) that there are no hard and fast rules. I still think you should learn about the whizz wheel, as it teaches the fundamentals and it's then there if you want to carry on using it. If you later want to embrace or enhance your nav with modern aids then great, but why sacrifice the basics to do this? Don't be suckered into thinking that more and more money thrown at a problem will fix it ... there are many out there who want to fly, navigate and challenge their brains, rather than just burn money on flash, fast kit and a big pointy thing that takes away all the brain effort.

SS

PS ... Shhhhh! Just set myself up with a PDA and GPS as I had to have the former for work. Show's I'm not a complete luddite ... but perhaps just a slight hippocrate :p

[IO540]

Beagle

IMHO there is only one reason to care who uses the access point: somebody downloading child porn, or transferring some other illegal material (e.g. posting something on pprune that is a breach of the Official Secrets Act :) ).

The flying club isn't going to be liable in such cases, any more than an internet cafe would be. Your liability starts only once you become notified of the alleged offence, and then you can do something about it. I doubt a flying club would be targeted; I count over 80 access points over a 10 mile drive with a PDA running Netstumbler and 2/3 of them are wide open, so some perv only has to drive another 100 yards.

Plain WEP security, with the password written openly on the club notice board, would do just fine.

shortstripper

I am sure we would get on just fine :) There is a place for everybody in GA.

However I fundamentally disagree that the circular slide rule is a useful teaching aid for anything whatsoever.

The slide rule has two sides.

One side is a conventional slide rule, as was used by all real engineers for mult/div throughout the first half of the 20th century. It also just happens to have supposedly handy markings on it for common conversions e.g. 0.72kg=1 litre of avgas, but nearly all people that use it don't know this. They never used a slide rule so don't know this and really believe it is a dedicated aviation converter of some sort. In this context, any pocket calculator is vastly better, and most people have those coming out of their ears, and they don't stop working when the Americans drop a load of bombs in the Midle East.

The other side is a specialised calculator for solving the wind triangle. It's accurate to better than 1 degree. But as with all computers, garbage in = garbage out. Do you know the typical error in the Form 214 today? I give you a challenge: Pick any day when there is any significant wind at say 5000ft (most days in the UK), get up there (with a GPS, no other way practical to do it) and measure the actual wind. Then apply the F214 error to the calculation done with the slide rule. How much better or worse would a simple rule of thumb (e.g. max drift = 1/2 the wind, at typical spamcan speeds) be? I think you would be suprised. On the average day, the accuracy of the slide rule is totally wasted.

The other crucial point is that always flies a heading, even if using a GPS. This facilitates a fallback toother nav methods. I had to do that once, for 2 minutes, off Italy, in 5 years of flying with GPS.

[FlyingArab]

Quick question for any FIs in here (or anyone in the know).. I'm still in training and have been using a whizwheel for all my calculations. I know electronic computers are far quicker and easier to use as I've used one too.
Can they be used in JAR-PPL exams as an alternative to the manual CRP whizwheels? I know they can be used in FAA/Canadian exams.


Cheers!

[DFC]

Can they be used in JAR-PPL exams as an alternative to the manual CRP whizwheels?

No.

----------

get up there (with a GPS, no other way practical to do it) and measure the actual wind

Some of us were calculating the actual wind in flight before GPS was invented.

While I have no real problem with people who promote modern gadgets, I do have to draw the line at people who clearly can not do anything without them.

Regards,

DFC

[Jinkster]

I do like using my whiz wheel for wind calculations and groundspeed, however when working out, distance, speed and time I prefer the good old calculator or tappy tappy as referred to by my Gen Nav teacher!

[FlyingArab]

The dyslexics among us (including myself) find the manual CRPs very tedious and hard to use. I made right fool of myself the other day by rounding 11.5 to 8!!!!!! I've been doing really well (so I'm told) and progressing fast although I can't/never have trusted myself with maths. I always need to get things cross checked with someone else.. and usually find I've messed up. :}

[hugh flung_dung]

IO540: One side is a conventional slide rule, as was used by all real engineers for mult/div throughout the first half of the 20th century. - Well it was in common usage by the end of the 17th century and I was still using one as a student in the mid 70's so I reckon that makes it more than 300 years! :)

A slide rule is an excellent tool (and the CAA require that we teach it, so we teach it) but it requires an ability to estimate and many people do seem to struggle. Personally I would prefer to keep it in the syllabus but I'd rather be a flying instructor than a maths teacher so maybe we need to recognise that society has changed and it's time to allow it to fade away.

The vector triangle solver is great but MDR can be just as accurate and is more suitable for airborne use - so why not use it on the ground too.

HFD

[Centaurus]

I'm a great advocate of the three drift wind method myself. Especially over the sea. Used to get a black eye from the rubber padding on the drift sight. Showed you were a true old salt, though. Sea - old salt - joke - gettitt?

[IO540]

I'd love to see a public statement from the CAA explaining the need for the slide rule, over an electronic version.

This is for ground use after all - nobody is expected to use it in the air.

[BEagle]

I agree entirely. Or even an on-line planning tool. Pre-flight planning doesn't have to be difficult to be completed correctly - and advantage should be taken of modern technology as a safety enhancement.

Another thing I really disagree about is the CAA expecting people to try to remember all the factors to apply for t/o and ldg performance on grass etc in the PPL exams. When I used to instruct on 4-jets, I told folk never to try to remember the various degrades to be applied for 'contaminated runways' - ALWAYS use the book. The CAA produces Safety Sense 7 which lists all such safety factors - but students aren't permitted to use it in their exam. Madness - and a very bad habit to develop.

Any pre-flight planning tool should be simple and easy to use. Because then people will actually use it.

[Kengineer-130]

Sorry but I disagree :} , being a PPL of a massive 75 hrs,and not having used all the new fangled-fly-the-plane-down-the-line GPS stuff, I can see exactly why the whizz wheel is taught. Firstly, it gives a good appreciation of the triangle of velocitys, crosswinds on runways etc, and many of the other calculations used in flying :ok: It also gets your brain working, and by the very fact that it is an accurate guessing device, you automatically double-check yourself when you get an answer. I know that you should when using an electronic device as well, but I don't think anyone can say they have never just taken the answer off the screen as correct? ;) . As with everything, the whizz wheel has its place, just as GPS units do, and as far as i'm concerned is an invaluble and simple (once learnt) bit of kit that should be used :ok:

[ShyTorque]

The same argument happened in the 1970s when pocket and scientific calculators came into fashion. It's certainly sound policy to ensure that the user knows the basis of the caculation in order to understand it and to prevent "rubbish in = rubbish out".

Once the user knows his stuff, why indeed not use modern technology to assist him most of the time? After all, I would never deliberately switch the engine off the engine of my moped unless I wanted to keep my leg muscles in trim.....

I'm firmly of the opinion that the more spare brain cells a pilot can find himself, the better he can think ahead, look out and be a safer flyer.

There is only one real answer...

Coupled FMS (GPS and multiple DME inputs) and a colour moving map with 1:1,000,000 to 1:50,000 zoom facility.

It's magic. :E

[IO540]

I am reliably informed that this same argument was done to death, and eventually killed comprehensively, in sailing.

And in sailing, one likely has a nice big table on which one can (weather permitting) put down a cup of tea, and on which one can spread the charts.

Whereas in aviation, one cannot even use the circular slide rule when airborne. It's purely a ground based torture item, to separate the men who are fit for the privileged Masonic Lodge called "aviation" :yuk: from those who obviously are not worthy of it.

Unless you have an autopilot, and if you have one of those then calculating wind drift is the last thing you will need to be doing :)

There really isn't an objective and rational argument for it anymore, and hasn't been for about 30 years.