GPS v's Good ole Nav

[gcolyer]

Right there has been a couple of threads where we argue the pro's and con's of GPS and if they make us lazy pilots or make us depend on them.

Bose-X and myself have decided to do a little test, and to share the whole experience.

The plan is for us to plan a flight and then go and fly it (in the same plane). One of us will follow the plan the other will follow the GPS. we are going to see if we can get each other lost. Hopefully we can dispell any theory that we become lazy for forget how to navigate.

Does anyone have any suggestions on how to make this more entertaining?

Or is anyone intertested in hearing about the experiment.

[slim_slag]

What are you trying to prove? Turn the GPS off and I bet one of you gets lost :)

[dublinpilot]

Are you going to do it in an area that neither of you are familiar with?

No point in doing it in an area you are reasonably familiar with ;)

[gcolyer]

I would definatley pick an area neither of us are familiar with. So the North west is pretty much a no go, the midlands is pretty much a no go and the South West is pretty much a no go. For me it leave the South east or Scotland


As for what are we trying to prove.

1) There should be a seemless transition going from GPS to Map and compass and vice versa with out circling while trying to find where you are.

2) A GPS pilot can still read a map and navigate as efficiently and accuratley as a good ole navigating pilot.

[Rod1]

Call an unscheduled diversion ½ way through and then simulate total electrical failure inc any batteries. Should sort one of you out!

Rod1

[Chesty Morgan]

1) There should be a seemless transition going from GPS to Map and compass and vice versa with out circling while trying to find where you are.

2) A GPS pilot can still read a map and navigate as efficiently and accuratley as a good ole navigating pilot.

1. To make it as realistic as possible I assume you will be solely using either one or the other and then swopping with no cross referencing?

2. Of course he can. Provided he's kept his traditional skills up to scratch.

Good luck:ok:

[robin]

Try a flight something like Stapleford - Ipswich - Cambridge.

Flat, fairly featureless and a host of disused and used airfields. Even better in not brilliant visibility

[gcolyer]

Call an unscheduled diversion ½ way through and then simulate total electrical failure inc any batteries. Should sort one of you out!

Rod1

You are cruel...but i like it. You might as well of said just switch the master off!!

[QDMQDMQDM]

Write it up for one of the mags and take lots of groovy pics. Should pay for the fuel at least.

I bet Philip Whitehead at Flyer will go for it. Give him a ring.

QDM

[SkyHawk-N]

Bose-X/gcolyer,

Here's a routing for you.

Seething to Peterborough/Conington to North Weald and back to Seething. Get them lost over the fens somewhere, or inbetween Lakenheath and Marham MATZ. That will sort the question out.

[Maxflyer]

Are you going to be allowed to use VOR, NDBs etc? Or is it simply map and stopwatch?

[SkyHawk-N]

What are you trying to prove? Turn the GPS off and I bet one of you gets lost :)

also try throwing the map out of the window ;)

[FREDAcheck]

Stapleford - Wycombe/Booker - Cranfield - Duxford - Stapleford.

And at a time unknown to him/her in advance, the GPS pilot is told to switch off the GPS (simulate GPS failure). I'm all in favour of GPS, but the critical issue is: flying near to complicated CAS, can you cope when it stops working?

[gcolyer]

Write it up for one of the mags and take lots of groovy pics. Should pay for the fuel at least.

I bet Philip Whitehead at Flyer will go for it. Give him a ring.

QDM

I like the idea. I fyou have any contact details can you PM me?

[Gertrude the Wombat]

All this talk of getting lost over the fens is absolutely fine, provided that you pick a low vis day and fly low. Then indeed one twisty little road and twisty little stream and twisty little village does look exactly like the next one, particularly with 5km visibility from 1500' and "the next one" being 6km away.

On a clear day from FL95 you can see the whole of East Anglia. No navigation is needed other than "oh look, there's Norwich, it's around 30 miles away, there's no military airspace at this height, just point at it and go". (OK, so the 172 does take a while to get up there, but you get a whole different view of the world.)

[gcolyer]

Are you going to be allowed to use VOR, NDBs etc? Or is it simply map and stopwatch?

Good question, we need to agree on this one. Maybe for triangulation if one is momentarily misplaced on the map :eek:

But then again. VOR's and NDB's are covered all be it breifly for the PPL.

[SkyHawk-N]

On a clear day from FL95 you can see the whole of East Anglia. No navigation is needed other than "oh look, there's Norwich, it's around 30 miles away, there's no military airspace at this height, just point at it and go". (OK, so the 172 does take a while to get up there, but you get a whole different view of the world.)

True, that also goes for the majority of the UK. Get up high enough on a clear day and you can always see a major landmark. I do a lot of flying around Suffolk and Norfolk and I still have some problems spotting airfields in amongst the patchwork of fields, even if I can see Norwich!

[SkyHawk-N]

Good question, we need to agree on this one. Maybe for triangulation if one is momentarily misplaced on the map :eek:


I thought this was between GPS and dead reckoning?

[S-Works]

I thought this was between GPS and dead reckoning?

I am pretty easy either was as it will be an interesting experiment. But I am guessing we should be sumulating the tools that are available to the average PPL without GPS. So we should establish what is available to the average PPL.

In my microlight days we only had a 1/4mil map a compass and stopwatch not even a DI!

[helicopter-redeye]

Does anyone have any suggestions on how to make this more entertaining?




1... Include a CAA Examiner in the back seat and call it a 'CPL skills test' :p

2... Include the Vale of Eden in the flight plan on a busy weekday in good VMC conditions and see how many RAF jets try to put you off :uhoh:


h-r;)

[rustle]

But I am guessing we should be sumulating the tools that are available to the average PPL without GPS. So we should establish what is available to the average PPL.
As well as deciding the navigation rules, you need (IMO) to think about other criteria as well. If you follow the PPL skill test profile regarding heading/height/speed maintenance, ETA calcs and recalcs, diversion heading calcs etc., etc. it would be more meaningful. i.e. workload goes up when the GPS is suddenly lost -- what happens to altitude/heading/speed awareness? (The skill test profile can be read/downloaded on the CAA site)

Will the charts be marked-up before departure (as they would be if you were flying by charts for real) or is this a situation where the GPS "stops" and you have to identify where you are then replan using only charts?

Interesting experiment, but I think the value will come from agreeing beforehand the criteria for success... ;)

[gcolyer]

I think we should use the basic equipemnt allowed in a PPL skills test, and yes a plog should be written and the charts marked up. After all don't GPS users usually do this as well:\

[White Bear]

Well, I just draw a line, does that count?
Regards,
White Bear.

[drauk]

I'm sure it'll be fun however you do it, but I am not sure you'll prove much. There is no way that Bose-X (an experienced, highly trained, highly current pilot) is going to get lost just because you switch off his GPS half way through a flight, least of all when he is generally expecting it. Well, he just possibly might, because anyone can make a mistake, but that doesn't prove much.

You could introduce some other factor to make life tougher. Fly from the back seat and do a soduko at the same time? A couple of large whiskies before take off? Use a PDA-based GPS and and program it to slowly start giving duff output without any notification?

I think if you want to stress-test someone there should be no planning at all, take off with the "victim" blinfolded, fly around for a while, take off the blindfold and then ask for a diversion, sans radio aids, GPS and D&D, to go to somewhere tiny. But what does that even prove, other than that one person can do it?

If the point is to prove that "old fashioned nav skills" go rusty, find a commercial airline pilot who has been flying that way for 10 years and hasn't touched a GA plane since. Get him to plan one of the flights someone else here has mentioned.

Perhaps a more interesting test would be to train someone with zero hours post-PPL to use a GPS for a couple of hours on a sim, then get that person to fly the route. Train them also to get a position fix from a VOR or to call a radar unit or D&D to get a vector. Pull their GPS from them half way without telling them and see how they do. I don't think calling a radar unit is a skill that would go rusty and with the slim chance of a panel mount AND handheld GPS failing I reckon that just about does it for me.

[IO540]

I haven't read the whole thread (writing this from a cafe in Corfu) but this won't prove anything.

The way to do this is to get 100 new PPL holders, get them to fly from say Goodwood to Prestwick, give 50 of them a GPS (a decent moving map unit; anything less is a waste of time) and make sure they know how to switch it on, etc. Ensure the other 50 do not have one hidden somewhere.

Run this experiment in nice hazy summer weather and see how the ATC system copes with all the "activity in controlled airspace".

Run the experiment again in poor but VFR-legal weather, with some rain, and see how many of the pilots in each group end up in hillsides during scud-running. This isn't a navigation issue primarily (one would not normally fly into a hill if maintaining genuine VMC) but it is a cockpit workload issue.

The backward attitudes in UK GA are plain astonishing. Weird really since the same people are usually quite happy to use mobile phones, computers, cars, text messages. Then they get into a plane and chuck away the most reliable most accurate and least human error prone navigation device ever invented. The CAA with its endless stream of anti-GPS diatribe must be partly to blame for this. The PPL syllabus is of course threatened by GPS so flying schools don't like it either.

[gcolyer]

I haven't read the whole thread (writing this from a cafe in Corfu) but this won't prove anything.

The way to do this is to get 100 new PPL holders, get them to fly from say Goodwood to Prestwick, give 50 of them a GPS (a decent moving map unit; anything less is a waste of time) and make sure they know how to switch it on, etc. Ensure the other 50 do not have one hidden somewhere.

Run this experiment in nice hazy summer weather and see how the ATC system copes with all the "activity in controlled airspace".

Run the experiment again in poor but VFR-legal weather, with some rain, and see how many of the pilots in each group end up in hillsides during scud-running. This isn't a navigation issue primarily (one would not normally fly into a hill if maintaining genuine VMC) but it is a cockpit workload issue.

The backward attitudes in UK GA are plain astonishing. Weird really since the same people are usually quite happy to use mobile phones, computers, cars, text messages. Then they get into a plane and chuck away the most reliable most accurate and least human error prone navigation device ever invented. The CAA with its endless stream of anti-GPS diatribe must be partly to blame for this. The PPL syllabus is of course threatened by GPS so flying schools don't like it either.


This makes sense, although i think you will find it hard to find 50 pilots that are willing to end up in hillsides during scud-running And i am sure ATC really appreciate 100 PPL's all flying the same route at the same time with 50 of them using very accurate timing and quite relaxed on the RT and 50 of them mixing up the RT and not being so accurate on the timings.

[IO540]

I am pretty sure that if the % of new PPLs that chuck in flying for good within a year or two decreased from whatever it is (say 80%) by say 30 percentage points, there would be widespread chaos.

The only reason the flight training business gets away with teaching the present syllabus is because most never use it for anything.

[gcolyer]

I am pretty sure that if the % of new PPLs that chuck in flying for good within a year or two decreased from whatever it is (say 80%) by say 30 percentage points, there would be widespread chaos.

The only reason the flight training business gets away with teaching the present syllabus is because most never use it for anything.

Another good point. I certainly think i have learnt more in the first 50 odd hours post PPL course than i did on the course. Not that i am saying my course was not any good.

Things like flying in real marginal weather flying, being told to orbit for ages in class D. Being told to use specific VFR routes (especialy around Dublin) blah blah blah...

[S-Works]

What does surprise me more than anything else is poor old Microlight Pilots come in for the thin end for poor airmanship and skills (often deserved on airmanship) but having come the microlight route back into GA teh standard of the VFR navigation I taught was superior to anything taught my a spamcan instructor.

My entire ML course was done with a map and stopwatch and and low level to stop me getting a birds eye view of the coutryside.

Going back to the 80's during my FTS at RAF Swinderby once the general chippy handling skills had been taught everything else was down to accuracy in navigation. The RAF basic navigation training was harder than the CPL nav by a long way all done at 500ft.

I think also the problem is that new pilots are so overwhelmed by being in the air they have not developed the capacity to do anything more than fly the aircraft and do rudimentary nav. I had the same sensation when doing the IR, going beyond the level of just keeping the aircraft sunny side up as taught in the IMC to true cockpit management, advanced navigation, reading and understanding approach plates on the fly, getting the weather and all of the other great stuff that comes with airways flying.

Now I think nothing of a 4hr flight hand flown in IMC accross Europe with a cup of coffee on the go. But those first hours were an eye opener!!!

I am a great believer that more experianced pilots should make the time and effort to fly with lower hour pilots to help them expand the envelope further and realise the real privilege that we enjoy as pilots.

[Lucy Lastic]

Bose-X

Coming from the gliding side, my navigation was about knowing where I was on the map and where I was going. Forget about the stopwatch bit - I almost never went where I'd planned to go.

It was more about height vs distance and what the air was doing to feed into the glide calculator.

As a result my flying these days is still basic map reading with some rough calculations to work out where my next waypoint is.

[gcolyer]

I am a great believer that more experianced pilots should make the time and effort to fly with lower hour pilots to help them expand the envelope further and realise the real privilege that we enjoy as pilots.

I could not agree more. A friend of mine on the Isle of man done just that for me. And he has taught me a thing or two that you will never see on a PPl course.

Any way...we need to arrange a date for this little exercise. this weekend is a no go as I am in Dublin.

[S-Works]

Guernsey Air Rally for me this week. You know the usual, NAVIGATION excercises, spot landings etc...... ;)

[gcolyer]

Great fun...wish I was going. Now i am not on the Isle of Man I don't have a plane at my disposal!

[Windy Militant]

The backward attitudes in UK GA are plain astonishing. Weird really since the same people are usually quite happy to use mobile phones, computers, cars, text messages. Then they get into a plane and chuck away the most reliable most accurate and least human error prone navigation device ever invented. The CAA with its endless stream of anti-GPS diatribe must be partly to blame for this.
GPS is a fine tool but not to be followed blindly! A few years ago flying with a mate, he accidentally punched in the coordinates for somewhere in Alaska instead of Bath. Fortunately we were both familiar with Bath from the ground and figured there was something amiss. had we followed the GPS we'd have busted the Bristol Zone.


With the Advent of Mobile phones and Sat Nav in cars this kind of thing is getting more prevelent
Lorry Stuck 1 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/mid_/5234396.stm)
Lorry Stuck 2 (http://www.tivysideadvertiser.co.uk/search/display.var.808909.0.tight_squeeze_for_lorry.php)
A zone bust is a lot easier to wriggle out of however an error programming could result in CFIT if your scud running.
Also Issue 32a and a compass don't have a big switch in the Pentagon that says OFF!
Which may have a lot to do with the CAA's attitude to GPS but it's played down for diplomatic reasons.

[gcolyer]

oooh political big brother theory now.

Bose-X
I wonder if we can G Dubya B to use the off button when we perform our test. It would certainly add some realism

[skydriller]

GPS is a fine tool but not to be followed blindly! A few years ago flying with a mate, he accidentally punched in the coordinates for somewhere in Alaska instead of Bath. Fortunately we were both familiar with Bath from the ground and figured there was something amiss. had we followed the GPS we'd have busted the Bristol Zone..

What kind of GPS?? Must have been one without a moving map or aviation database.

I have a Garmin 196 and have absolutely no idea how your friend could have inadvertently programmed to go to somewhere in Alaska while flying in the UK with something similar to this.

[gcolyer]

That would be amusing...

Bristol Approach "G-XXXX pass your message"

Pilot "G-XXXX C172 from XXXX to Bath overhead blah blah at 2000 request FIS"

Bristol Approach "Roger FIS you have QNH 1009 squawk XXXX"

a bit later

Bristol Approach "G-XXXX you are leaving my airspace squak VFR free call XXXX"

Even Later

ATC "G-XXXX you are leaving my airspace free call XXXX"

Even later

ATC "G-XXXX are you sure you are routing XXXX to bath"

G-XXXX "Affirmative G-XXXX"

ATC "G-XXXX maybe you can explain why you are coasting out over the Northwest Scottish coast then"

G-XXXX "erm....standby G-XXXX"

G-XXXX" ATC G-XXXX i screwed up my GPS...minimum fuel minimum fuel minimum fuel....."

[IO540]

GPS is a fine tool but not to be followed blindly

Same old tactic: assume the user is an idiot.

A more pertinent question, assuming everybody is an idiot, is whether blind reliance on a GPS is better or worse than blind reliance on dead reckoning and the pile of gross errors which one can commit doing that, some being obvious and being not at all obvious.

I don't go for the "idiot" theory (most PPLs are far from stupid) but even if one did, there would be a lot fewer people getting lost if no dead reckoning was taught and everybody was just blindly following a GPS. A proper panel mounted moving map unit, of course.