A passing thought on GPS nav....

[wobble2plank]

Heard an interesting chat on London Centre yesterday.

A chap with 1 pax was on his way across the channel to the Channel isles in a PA22 when his GPS packed up. He called on 121.5 with unsure of his position, as he was obviously over the oggin. During the ensuing conversation he revealed he was blessed with a ..... wait for it ...... VOR onboard but didn't know how to use it. No chart, fix, DR position, drift calculation etc.

Some VERY patient radio transmissions from LC got the unluck chap VOR briefed and en-route towards the Jersey beacon when he cheerily chirped up that his GPS was back online now and all was hunky dorey.

An excellent service was provided by an outstanding controller on London Centre, well done to him. A, probably very relieved, pilot made it to the Channel Islands.

My point for discussion is that this was a good VMC, VFR day. How would you feel about doing a cross channel flight in a single engined aircraft with only the GPS as your primary navigation aid across featureless terrain/water. Equipped with navigational equipment but unable to use them, even in the event of an emergency.

My personal one would be to sit back, learn the DR nav and figure out what the VOR does if, as in this event, I may not be legally able to use it for IR as a PPL holder but it could tell me where the airfield is.

Your views :ok:

[dsandson]

I have to agree... nothing wrong with VORs helping your nav, again as long as its not your sole means. Used that lots when I learnt in the states, but I must admit now it'd be a bit of a stab in the dark... seven years is a long time.

Mind you, after my experiences on a nav yesterday, I'm inclined to work on it. Took my dad on a sightseeinging and landaway trip. Set my gps to dim after 3 mins, trying to ween myself off it. result... I tapped the screen every 3 mins to bring it back up. I let my course vary far too much, whilst relying on the gps, and paying lip service to my plog.

Got to the landaway, fueled up, paid landing fee and got a coke. While I was enjoying the sunshine, it began to dawn on me that I wouldn't have the plane back in time for the club shutting up (grr... need my own plane!) so my circuitous route home had to go out the window. Gps had died. I'd expected that, but it back up battery pack was done too. Bugger. So planned a route back like a diversion. Had to draw lines on the map with the edge of my logbook as I'd not bothered to bring a ruler!

Turned out to be one of my most enjoyable flights so far. So relaxing. Everything went to plan, and I got to sit back aand enjoy a gorgeous evenings flying listening to all the IFR traffic around the Aldergrove zone. And some nice pics taken by my passenger.

Greeaat!!

Think I'll be keeping the gps in the bag next time. Charged of course!

Back to the original point... A VOR wouldnt have been able to guide me home, but having the knowledge meant i could've used 2 VORs to pinpoint my position. Its quite a lot of work for a vfr pilot like me but I should really be able to do it. I did it on my first flight test so I should have a try at it! Might surprise myself!

[flugholm]

Hmm.. my view: A map is a great backup. It doesn't rely on electricity, magnetism, vacuums etc, and is virtually indestructable, and works at least a bit even in crummy weather. The concept of paperless cockpits should stop short of eliminating the map (and paper checklist), even if it's a four year old, very crumpled one tucked away somewhere under the sandwiches, water bottles and baggage on the rear seats or so. (No, I'm not advocating using out-of-date charts, but any out-of-date map is much much more useful than a failed GPS in such a situation.)

I wouldn't fly without one!

[tangovictor]

everyone knows, CHART first, gps as backup only, :ugh:

[Shunter]

GPS is new technology, and will get you where you want to go.

VOR is old technology, but will still get you where you want to go.

MAP is very old technology, but will none the less get you where you want to go.

Personally I fly with, and can use all of the above, and the ADF, the the DME, etc etc etc...

Eggs? Basket?

[dublinpilot]

The concept of primiary nav and backup nav is the wrong way of looking at it. It's all about using more than one means of nav, and cross checking them, and making sure that you are able to seemlessly change to using just one of them, if the other stops working.

dp

[gcolyer]

Chap in PA22 should be ashamed and grounded!!

This is exactly what I have been harping on about when it comes to GPS. Personally I think JAA/FAA whoever his licensing body is should throw the book at him.

Tin hat on.

[eharding]

everyone knows, CHART first, gps as backup only,


So, for over-water transits, which shade of blue do you prefer for the expanse of the square-root-of-****-all features on the map? - the CAA 500K I always find a bit too electric blue, and the 250K *does* show icebergs and mermaids, but is almost always out of date...

[gcolyer]

So, for over-water transits, which shade of blue do you prefer for the expanse of the square-root-of-****-all features on the map? - the CAA 500K I always find a bit too electric blue, and the 250K *does* show icebergs and mermaids, but is almost always out of date...


Thats when a stop watch and compass come in handy, or VOR, NDB, DME if there are any in range. There really is no rocket science to good old navigation.

[LH2]

Allow me to repost the following very relevant anecdote, shamelessly lifted from an old thread over at the Military Forum:


Another ancient, but fast-ish jet pilot wheezes across the North Sea in Winston-the-Meteor on his way to some weekend do in the Clutch. "Squawk blah, clear direct to the blah TACAN" "Negative, no TACAN" "No squawk observed, request you recycle" "Sorry, no parrot, not even egg" "OK Can you report the blah NDB then?" "Negative - no ADF. Nor VOR either, for that matter" "Well what navaids DO you carry, Sir?"
"I'm talking to you on it!!"

[mark147]

I can believe that there could be people flying aircraft equipped with instruments they don't know how to use. I can believe that people might be using a GPS as their primary means of navigation - why not? I can even believe that some might get into the habit of not bothering to cross-check their position and using the GPS in isolation, especially if the GPS has always worked fine in the past. What I find incredible is that anyone would set off without a paper chart of the route!

There simply isn't enough information on a typical GPS moving map to plan a route and if anything isn't going to plan (weather, aeroplane, passengers, bladder, whatever) in-flight planning is going to be required.

[wobble2plank]

It's a while since I did my PPL but I seem to remember having a bit tuition on basic VOR/DME nav.

I have also done lots and lots of over oversea flying and this would be my approach to a cross channel flight:

Prepare a chart which covers my route from my departure point, my coast out point on the English coast to my coast in point and arrival field in the Channel Isles. Get the winds for both the departure point and the arrival point. Calculate an average wind, plot it on a CRP 5, transpose my track and ground speed onto the chart. Calculate a mid point and, if required, a point of no return and an equal time point. Write on two minute markers based upon my ground speed. Why? To look for that mermaid again but more importantly to give me an accurate time scale as to when I can expect to see my destination. Fly, as accurately as possible, my planned heading to achieve my track, and my planned airspeed to achieve my groundspeed. As long as all goes well the margin of error at the other end should be a mile or two max. If all doesn't go well then I have an estimated position and an accurate time plot to know when I have missed my destination point.

Does that come familiar to most of you or am I running past the current PPL syllabus?
W2P

[Fuji Abound]

.. .. .. but if he kept aiming in the direction he was presumably pointing he would have run into Jersey zone radar and the French coast.

That long peninsular thing sticking out is a bit of a give away as are the CIs position relative to it.

[IO540]

One should always use TWO methods of navigation.

This kind of thing, involving the 3-letter word (GPS), is just a gift to the anti-modernisation crowd who work so hard to keep aviation in the Middle Ages.

If the pilot was navigating across the water using a VOR, and it packed up (which, given the condition of the average rental wreck, is pretty likely at some time, and I've had it happen to me), and reported it duff, it would not be reported here or anywhere else ;)

[FREDAcheck]

One should always use TWO methods of navigation.
Quite right. I'm all for GPS (and VOR etc), but if the back-up navigation is to look out of the window, and the ground is featureless (such as ocean), then you should have worked out dead-reckoning tracks. That's why I say that dead-reckoning is not, er, dead.

Now, I wonder how many people that say they have no use for dead-reckoning actually have multiple navigation systems (and are practised in using them)?

[High Wing Drifter]

In my view, this has nothing to do with GPS or VORs, but that the pilot flying VFR did not take the incredibly simple and unburdensome precaution of getting regular fixes with whatever nav method he was using (GPS, radio, pilotage, whatever) and marking those fixes with an X and the time on his chart...the chart he didn't have. Do that and getting lost is virtually impossible as you will always have an arc of probability.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

If the pilot was navigating across the water using a VOR, and it packed up (which, given the condition of the average rental wreck, is pretty likely at some time, and I've had it happen to me), and reported it duff, it would not be reported here or anywhere else
Yes it would! It would have been reported here as supporting evidence by one of the hand-held-GPS-solves-everything-including-making-me-attractive-to-women brigade!

[S-Works]

everyone knows, CHART first, gps as backup only, :ugh:

How about correct use of GPS FIRST and a chart as BACKUP....... :ugh:

[wobble2plank]

The main thrust of this thread is not the age old 'should we trust GPS' debate. The aircraft I currently fly has 2 of the buggers which constantly update the INS, as long as the perf page says GPS Primary, I'm happy so please don't take me as an old ways are best lover :eek:

What made me curious was that there was indeed NO backup for the GPS and the pilot in question seemed to be having difficulty with the rudimendary details of the VOR beacon.

Should you really embark, with a passenger, on a long oversea/featureless terrain, leg without that simple, and for me obvious, secondary navagational backup.

:ok:

[gcolyer]

High Wing

The guy had to get a crash course from LC on how to use a VOR!!! so it has everything to do with the pilot not knowing the basics and relying on a GPS.

Bose-X

Do you not think it is advisable to learn how to use and rely on VOR's before a GPS? And then use the map as a backup.

[S-Works]

Nope.

I would rather see GPS taught as an integral part of the PPL and used as a primary navaid with the map and conventional aids as a backup. I have had plenty of conventional equipment failures but can count the number of GPS errors on a couple of fingers and I would bet I have a lot more time navigating using them than most.

I do think anyone using a single method of navigation is a lunatic and requires some remedial training. There is no excuse for not having a map with a route drawn on it.

The problem with VOR/DME, NDB navaids is in the general GA fleet they are not FM immune, rarely maintained or properly calibrated despite the requirements for an avionics annual. They stop working at a moments notice, but the BIG problem is they do not wor very well at the alts that the average GA flyer operates. I flew back from the Guernsey Rally today at FL110 and only got SAM at about 60nm and that is on a perfect condition Garmin. GA heights over the see the coverage is much worse even after accounting for VHF signal propagation.

I am a great advocate of GPS and think it is a powerful PRIMARY tool. However even though I am permitted to use it as my PRIMARY source of navigation data for my flying I still draw the route on either the map or the airways chart.

The problem with incidents of this type is it just brings out the map and stopwatch/anti GPS lobby. We have to move with the times and GPS is part of this. You only have to look at the airlines move towards GPS driven FMS and the future of 4D FMS/GPS navigation to realise that GA is stuck in the dark ages.

Sooooooo.... GPS is a great tool, any idiot who has no backup plan for any type of primary nav is a fool. So lets not turn this into a GPS debate, Again..........................

[Fuji Abound]

backup instruments .. .. ..

poppycock

two GPS, one to backup the other.

[S-Works]

Was that aimed at me Fuji? I always fly with 2 GPS, GNSx and 496. I was trying to be charitable with the conventional aids.

It is however possible to lose the GPS signal and in the case of the pilot under discussion he had a VOR which would have backed up the GPS and Map.

I love GPS but at the same time if other tools are in the cockpit use them all.

[FREDAcheck]

two GPS, one to backup the other
Presumably with two separate antennae and cables. And in the event of a GPS signal failure (e.g. local jamming, which the MoD keep experimenting with)...

[Fuji Abound]

Was that aimed at me Fuji? I always fly with 2 GPS, GNSx and 496. I was trying to be charitable with the conventional aids.

I promise you - not at all.

Just my sense of humour.

I fly with a G1000 so I am the last person to complain about GPS, and thinking about it I have two hand held GPS in my flight bag - a G195 and an iPAQ. Then again I also have an iCom with VOR.

Mind you I agree with you Bose, I have had just about everything fail, although never the GPS touch wood, other than on one occasion when it was blatantly my fault.

[High Wing Drifter]

gcolyer,

I suspect you missed my point. He had to get a crash course because he couldn't instigate the basics. There are generic get out of trouble skills that are unrelated to what equipment may or may not be available at any given time. Would that scenario be an issue for you if radio nav was not available?

[Crash one]

GPS may be the most wonderful navaid ever, I'm quite sure all those Lysander pilots of WW2 going to some obscure field in France would have loved it. BUT, "signal failure" how often do we hear this? To not do the basics with the chart / wind / sums for when it all turns to worms, is, in my opinion, utterly dumb. I thought it was a legal requirement to carry an up to date chart of the area? No excuse, ground the prat for gross incompetence!

Edit
D&D should charge him for the nav lesson.

[tangovictor]

while we all know, what we'd like, gps being taught to all, untill such time, I will follow CAA guide SRG_GAD_SSL25.pdf
gps as a backup

[Cusco]

What the ****'s to stop you using GPS and Chart simultaneously?
I find it soothing to follow the magenta line but I do look out the bleedin' window all the time and match stuff on the ground with stuff on the chart and stuff on the GPS.
But I also before I go anywhere programme waypoints on the steam driven 8-waypoint RNAV.
Soooooooo..... I believe in triple redundancy but prefer to follow the high tech to the map and stopwatch.
These long drawn out GPS bashing threads give me the willies but while the rules are that GPS is for back up only , the detractors will always have the moral (and probablylegal) high ground.
Safe (and triple redundant) flying
Cusco.;)

[wiggy]

Ah, interesting read this, we heard the same conversation as you on 121.5 and it did sound a bit alarming that a GPS failure, close to destination, seemed to have led fairly swiftly to a call for help on 121.5, despite the aircraft having other navaids...glad it worked out OK but wonder what happend to pilot nav as I was taught it and as I taught it...closing angles, 1 in sixty rule and all that....
At least the guy had the good sense to get onto 121.5 and there was a happy ending.

[IanSeager]

My point for discussion is that this was a good VMC, VFR day

I didn't hear the conversation on 121.5, but I did hear the preceeding request on London Info and did share the bus on Guernsey with the pilot. I was also flying to the CI (Guernsey Air Rally) and the visibility between SAM and ORTAC was pants with no horizon at all for quite a while. I have no idea how experienced the pilot is, but had I made thr trip a few years ago I would have been working very hard indeed for a while.
Ian

[IO540]

Half the people here have not read the first post and don't realise the chap was over water, so the stuff about map reading is nonsense :ugh:

What made me curious was that there was indeed NO backup for the GPS and the pilot in question seemed to be having difficulty with the rudimendary details of the VOR beacon.

One is not (IME) taught VOR tracking in the PPL. All I did (year 2000) was a VOR/VOR fix. VOR tracking is trivial enough but I bet you most PPLs currently flying have never been taught how to use the thing at all.

The stuff about loss of signal is rubbish. I've had about 2 mins in 800hrs. With VOR nav, one can easily be out of range of any VOR much of the time and that is over UK mainland (if flying low, at the typical GA levels of 2000ft or lower).

[S-Works]

while we all know, what we'd like, gps being taught to all, untill such time, I will follow CAA guide SRG_GAD_SSL25.pdf
gps as a backup

It's just a GUIDE you know, not the law or even a rule. And written by the anti GPS brigade at the CAA.

If people actually bought proper GPS units fit for purpose it would solve 90% f the problems. Instead we are always seeing the discussions on what is the cheapest GPS to buy (to keep switched off for an emergency in the flight bag of course...). This usually ends up being some crappy hiking or road GPS or one of the tiny aviation GPS that you then start trying to put your own waypoints into and not bothering to keep database up to date.

If you are going to us a GPS, buy a proper aviation database with a big clear moving map, and keep it updated. Use the database waypoints and cross check the route on a map. Get it mains powered and external antenna.

I have a panel mount GNS and portable 496 and have managed to not get lost or bust airspace for in over 2000hrs. I can count the GPS signal loss from the portable unit on 2 fingers and in durations of less than a minute. I have NEVER had signal loss in the panel mount unit.

AS long as people view GPS as a backup rather than a primary and refuse to learn to use them properly we will continue to have these problems. I wonder if early aviation had the same problem with NDB, VOR, Decca, LORAN etc.

[High Wing Drifter]

Half the people here have not read the first post and don't realise the chap was over water, so the stuff about map reading is nonsense :ugh:Incorrect, a chart is entirely relevant. A fix is a fix. With a chart a sensible heading can be established in moments avoiding horrid airspace along with a distance and hence an ETA. Once on the heading, at a unhurried pace you can re-examine your, chart and look for radio aids that might be useful. I'm not even sure if mid-Atlantic or mid-channel would change the process much for the same scenario.

With regards to the primary vs secondary debate: My view is that the primary means is the one where the buck stops, not the one that you maybe referring to most frequently. If some doubt arises over the 'active' method (GPS, rad nav, whetever), then one would work back to a known last point, GPS maybe 99.999% reliable but this is only 100% reliably possible with a chart, so a chart would still be the primary aid.

[wobble2plank]

IO540, I don't think having a chart over water is exactly rubbish, most people, when transitting water, usually select a direct track (oddly enough as there is very little to see!).

By using standard navigational techniques a clock and a compass with a correctly annotated chart can give you an accurate position at the other end, i.e. your coast in point. Having an Equal Time point written down along with a Point of No Return will reduce your workload (and that of London Centre) by giving you vital information that you now need to continue or that you are indeed closer to your destination. Correctly worked out winds (CRP5) and groundspeeds followed by accurately flown speeds and headings will get you there in the event of a loss of signal or in a degradation in the weather.

All that GPS is doing, and it is an excellent nav aid, is allowing some pilots to leap airborne without correctly planning a nav route and flying off into the wild blue yonder totally unprepared.

This discussion was never meant to be 'should GPS be your only nav aid' it is supposed, looking back on it, to ask 'should GPS replace proper pre-flight planning and aircraft knowledge'. I feel that most, if not all, on this board would agree that it should not, irrespective of your views on GPS as a primary aid.

(My systems uses 2 independant GPS receivers feeding an INS with DME/DME, DME/VOR, VOR/VOR backups. RNAV capable to 0.3 Nm ;) )

[Southern Fly Guy]

A friend at my airfield pointed me to this great thread as he knew it was about my recent trip...

So there I was, having just got my PPL. I thought I don't want to be one of those pilots that never goes more than 20 minutes from my home base, so I'll set out to improve my skills and do a cross channel trip. I did all my planning, based on using ground turning points, just like I'd been taught. I was using a PA22 that belongs to a friend which I'd flown with an instructor to get the hang of, doing the usual handling, circuits etc.

I had my GPS turned on all the time and was following my track on that. I was pleased because all my timings had been spot on as I headed toward the coast. There wasn't much of a horizon over the water, so I concentrated really hard on the AI and keeping the thing straight and level. It was freaking me out a bit to be honest and I think I got a bit fixated on the AI. I was getting the leans and having to fight really hard to counteract it. The instrument appreciation stuff I'd done in my PPL didn't make me feel any better and the turning and leaning sensations I was feeling made me feel scared and unwell; it was so different to be in actual poor viz conditions - my instructor had insisted on only flying on perfect VMC days and the hood I wore for instruments didn't simulate this at all!

Then, my GPS lost its signal. It is an aviation handheld with an up to date database. I use an external antenna stuck on the inner windscreen, but I think maybe the sucker let go as they sometimes do and the antenna fell down a crevice. I was calming down a little bit from the problems of a poor horizon and I hoped that my passenger could sort out the GPS. Aviate navigate and communicate had been banged in to me from an early stage in my training so I followed that advice.

A few minutes later I got a bit worried, because I'd not had a position check in a while - kind of tricky when used to using ground based turning points! One thing I had constantly in my mind was that everyone says you should call D&D sooner rather than later. I pressed on a few minutes, because I was kind of ashamed to call them. I figured if anyone heard me making the call they'd call me a moron, so I just ploughed on it out for a bit. In the end I decided that it was best to follow the advice I had repeatedly received; call when you need help - D&D won't mind. So I called them. I didn't lie and say I was temporarily unsure of my position - I came clean and told them my GPS had packed up. They asked about other nav equipment and I again was honest and told them there was a VOR in the aircraft, but I was unfamiliar with it and was struggling to fly and didn't want to divert attention from that. ANC I kept saying to myself.

I was getting a bit flustered. By this point my passenger was freaking out - she'd announced she couldn't fish the antenna out and she was getting really scared. She started saying how she'd never speak to me again after this, let alone fly with me. I told her to shut up and let me concentrate but she was so scared she couldn't help herself. D&D asked me a few more questions. I now realise they were asking if I had a chart, though at the time I didn't get this straight. It seemed an odd question to be asking so I thought they meant did I have a chart I could use to fix a position. I thought "I am over the water, how can I fix my position on a chart!" so I said "No". Still struggling in the haze (damn my instructor for only flying in "all the 9's"!) I gave as much attention as I could as D&D helped me figure out the VOR.

My passenger was calming down a bit because it was clear we were going to be okay as soon as I could find the damn button which toggled the VOR frequency from one display to the other. Just as I got that sorted the GPS came back online. Everything settled down and I was comfortable so I told D&D I was happy to proceed.

In the end we had a great day out and I learned a lot. I was really proud of myself that I'd traveled all this way on my fresh new PPL, I was proud that I followed the advice repeatedly given by those in the know to call D&D sooner rather than later and most of all that I followed the advice of Aviate Navigate Communicate.

I decided when I got back that I'd do an IMC rating. I did read somewhere on here that it might be scrapped quite soon but I guess what I really want is just an appreciation for instrument flying and navigation, which obviously you don't get on a PPL. I'm also going to find an instructor who is willing to come along with me and let me experience flying in what legally is still VFR - I can't believe how different it was from what I'd seen during initial training.

Thanks for all the great advice on this thread. That's the great thing about flying isn't it? Despite all the NIMBYs, the beuracratic nonsense, the huge cost and so on, we're all happy to help each other out, be given the benefit of the doubt and encourage one another to keep on flying and learning. If people on this thread had slated me for having a bit of a panic a bit when the going got tough I think I might have given up flying! But the aviation community is small enough as it is, so when everyone praised me for calling D&D and sticking to ANC I was really happy. The beers are on me!

[Justiciar]

This is like to old exam addage about first working out what the question is about.

This is about good old "situational awareness" is it not, not about whether the pilot was trained to use a VOR? This means knowing where you are, where you have just been, where you expect to be in the next 6, 12, 15 minutes, which way you have to turn at any particular time for your alternate, possible diversion airfields at any given time, what your max drift is expected to be etc., and the instruments you will use to get you there.

Most of this information should be either on the chart or your flight log or even both. It may be that I have just not been trained in the correct use of GPS, but now that I am flying an aircraft with a wonderful modern colour GPS fitted I now spend more time with my head in the cabin than looking out. I start to loose that sense of awareness of where I should be at any point because I pay less attention to flight time and comparing estimated position with actual. At the first hint of uncertainty I look at the GPS rather than doing the mental analysis. The danger to me is that the basis mental skills are going to attrophy with lack of use. At least using a VOR is more in tune with conventional navigation as you will often be flying on or to a radial and DME distance fix, calculated in advance.

All my own fault of course, but clearly I am not alone.

[High Wing Drifter]

Southern Fly Guy,

Well it isn't very often that we get to read the other side of the story, it is very interesting and a reminder that all is not as it sometimes seems :O I also hope your passenger is cool with it now.

The issue of the antenna is just one of those hard to predict buggeration factors that crop up. A reminder that one must simply assume that a GPS (or whatever) will fail without considering the list of possible reasons.

The issue with the chart is simply that with DR, if you fly the correct heading for a set amount of time, you will be roughly where you calculated you should be. It simply will not work out any other way, even if the wind is in a completely different direction over a 30nm leg you will probably only be about 6 nm off course at 100kts and a 20kt wind and 30nm is a long. So long as you keep the distances between legs within a sensible time frame, you won't be far off. The notion of a fix over a featureless sea is valid and one may as well get those fixes from the GPS whilst it has a signal.

The more I hear about other people's training experiences, the more I realise how fortunate I was to fly in near marginal conditions before being let loose. During one of my very first lessons I was taken over the sea and given control. I could feel everything getting light, but I could not tell what way was up, and the experience of suddenly 'loosing it' has stuck with me and has been of immense benefit. On the other hand it could be argued that it gives one more confidence to get into trouble. I don't agree, I think I learnt to see trouble coming.

[Mariner9]

Well done SFG :D. You recognised the problems, correctly rememberered ANC priorities, and in the end sucessfully completed the flight.

Seems to me that those who are critisising your failure to recall VOR training have failed to recall their Human Performance & Limitations training.

I suspect most of the fiercest critisism on here has come from those who've never found themselves in the mental overload situation you described.

Cross Channel flying will get easier with experience, and next time you get a nav problem (whether GPS or any "traditional" means), you'll be better equipped to deal with it.

Incidently, I often find my GPS loses its signal from abt 30 miles to 10 miles S of Cherbourg for some reason.

[wobble2plank]

SFG,

Thanks for a very candid reply. I could hear from your RT that you were having a hard time and I think that London Centre handled your situation excellently as you did as well for a relatively in-experienced pilot.

The decision to call on 121.5 is a very difficult one at times and, as an ex SAR pilot, one that is often not called enough. It is far better to get help early than to let a potentially dangerous situation develop where assistance is made far more difficult. All to often I have been out to scenes that could have been prevented by early RT and assistance from LC.

The really good news about the whole incident is that you have learnt from the experience and decided to continue your training to avoid it in the future.

Safe flying and I hope the pax wasn't tooooo freaked out ;-)

W2P

[dublinpilot]

SFG,

Thank you for telling us your side of the story :D It can be very easy to get overloaded when things go wrong, and you clearly took the right decisions....fly the airplane first, and ask for help early on.

Well done! I hope you enjoyed Gurnesey, and I hope your passenger has forgiven you :O

dp


edited for typo

[modelman]

Very impressed with your candour in letting all know the build up to your 'moment'
As you said,the horizon was not too good,did you consider turning back?
Having read stuff about not trying to 'wing it' in bad vis/IMC, it may have been an option.I saw the 'appreciation of instruments' during my training as a way of getting yourself out of the brown stuff not as IMC Lite.
I recently had my first 'foreigner' EGBE to LFAT,but I chose to do it with the a/c owner (IR qualified) as with my low hours it helped to have someone to show me the ropes.The horizon was quite poor that day and I would probably have turned back if I had been alone.(maybe I am a wimp?).

I still plog/map/stopwatch but carry a GPS and if I am honest with myself I do use the GPS a lot to correct my track.

Happy landings
MM

[tangovictor]

I agree SFG well done :D

[scooter boy]

Well done SFG,

It really makes me laugh when the person whose blood (or license) everyone is baying for pops up on the forum and puts their side of the story.:D

Most importantly SFG, you learned from this and will be a better pilot.

Personally I think you did a fine job, no harm done.

Judgemental, this forum? surely not!!
Now if I fessed up about some of the really dumb things I've done and lived to tell the tale...

SB

[FullyFlapped]

SFG,

The majority of people you will find posting on Proon or elsewhere have never had to deal with a serious airborne problem. It is to your credit - especially with next to no experience - that you haven't either, because by concentrating on keeping the thing the right way up and asking for help early enough you prevented your problem from turning into a crisis, so - well done.

Things to do next ? I'd suggest getting some real instrument time and training in, but you've already thought of that. Obviously, next time you launch on something like this, you'll be making sure you know how all the toys work before you go, so that's covered too.

What's left ? Well, buying your pax an enormous bunch of flowers and charging them to the "instructor" who never showed you what less than ideal viz actually looks like springs to mind ... I don't know if most instructors do, but they ALL bloody well should at some point ! :ugh:

FF :ok:

[IO540]

SFG - well done, you did exactly the right things, especially the way you dealt with the freaking out passenger (telling her to shut up) ;) I would suggest you learn about VOR/DME nav though - it really is a piece of cake and once you now how you will never go back.

wobble2plank - I don't think you will get a 0.3nm fix with VOR/VOR navigation!! If you believe that, I suggest you learn about your aircraft systems before flying again (no kidding). A standard jet transport INS will do DME/DME updates (which, at a stretch will give you 0.3nm RNAV), and on the most modern aircraft will use GPS for the updates (because GPS is vastly more accurate, reliable and there is no issue with the navaid DOC) but in the unlikely case that it really does do VOR/VOR or even VOR/DME updating the error will more likely be "miles".

And to the rest of you GPS bashers.... I am on holiday in a very warm place (in Crete), a good 1500nm from the UK, and I navigated here entirely with GPS ;) The last leg here was ~ 800nm. Never been lost, or even "uncertain of position" (the CAA authorised term) in 800hrs. Been here VFR too, 3 yrs ago, and amazingly had no problems then either. GPS/VOR/DME all the way. Never used visual nav since the day after my PPL skills test.

The stuff about the map being "100% reliable", well it is. The problem is that the pilot often ends up somewhere else on the "100% reliable" map, with the result that his position is not 100% reliable...

If coming back from le Touquet, and you have no idea where you are, do what countless WW2 pilots did when they got lost (which was exceedingly often) - fly sort of norff, and when you get to the coast, that is bound to be goode olde Engoland, and then fly along it until you see a place you recognise :) Just don't do this when the Eastbourne air show is on ;)

[wobble2plank]

IO540,
Quite right, VOR/VOR will not give you 0.3 RNAV, hence the reason I posted twin independant GPS receivers BACKED up by DME/DME, VOR/DME, VOR/VOR as that is the FMGS redundancy. GPS Primary, followed by DME/DME fixing followed by DME/VOR followed by VOR/VOR. RNAV accuracy 0.3Nm downgraded dependant upon beacons/fixing mode available.

RTFQ.

Anything more before I fly?
:mad:

[High Wing Drifter]

The stuff about the map being "100% reliable", well it is. The problem is that the pilot often ends up somewhere else on the "100% reliable" map, with the result that his position is not 100% reliable...But at least they won't be going round in circles :ugh::}

[FullyFlapped]

Just out of interest, does anyone know if there is a map showing the locations within the UK / Europe where you are always within range of, say, two DME/TACAN stations, and at what heights you must be for this to be the case ?

FF :ok:

[wobble2plank]

FullyFlapped, there is a generic rule of thumb that you can use to get radio ranges.

I seem to remember it as being 1.44 x SqrRoot(Height of emmiter + Height of receiver)

It will give you a fairly good estimation of the receivable range.
e.g Emitter=8ft, Aircraft = 2000ft 1.44xSqrt(2008)= 65 Nm

Cheers
W2P

Sorry, forgot to add that this is the theoretical maximum range, not taking into account transmitter power, occlusion etc.

[IO540]

Unfortunately these figures are rarely realised when flying at typical UK GA levels.

Under the LTMA i.e. at 2400ft or lower, the MAY VOR's DME is often not receivable from more than 15nm, when coming down from say CLN or DET.

This creates large gaps in coverage for low level flight in Class G.

50-80nm is possible at airway levels, say FL150-200.

I think that if one plotted the official navaid coverage of UK Class G, at say 2000ft, 3000ft, 4000ft, the resulting map would suprise some people.

Over the sea it's a lot better because one can (and would, for reasons connected with max time before ditching) fly at FL055+.

There are also different grades of DME. A DME for an instrument approach (called a TDME) has much less power. One would do well picking up one of those from >40nm no matter how high.

Finally, most VORs in France don't have a DME. I have noticed they have added a few recently but the main ones are still just a VOR.

As to flying in circles, this is a lack of training in radio nav. One always flies a heading, and in the event of a nav loss one continues to fly the heading. A "perfect pilot" will also be timing the leg, but frankly few people bother once they get into radio nav.

[High Wing Drifter]

IO540,
As to flying in circles, this is a lack of training in radio nav.
I was referring to the discussion :)

[wiggy]

SFG
Thanks for the full story, glad it worked out OK...

[A and C]

First one guy above posted that he could only get the SAM VOR at 60NM range at FL110.............. Get the system checked mate, your VOR unit of most likely the aircraft instalaton has a big problem, at that FL you should be getting the VOR at 100NM+

DME range is all about transmitter power and height at around the FL70 mark I can usualy get a DME station at 130-140NM provided it is not to near a major airport.

As you may know a DME station can only work 200 transmitters at a time and the weekest transmitters get pushed off the system. most modern airliners have five DME units 2 for use with the VOR/ILS and 3 to update the FMS/IRS and these usualy have a TX power in the order of 200W.

So you can so why those of you with a badly adjusted Narco DME are lucky to get DME at over 20 miles if you are near to a major airport as you are very lucky to get more than 40W TX power on a good day out of these units.

If you have a King KN64 you will get a lot better performance this unit will make 60W TX power at the very least, the KN62A and KN63 (same tx unit) will push out better than 100W so are at the top of the tree when it comes to DME range.

The King units are some of the very best bits of GA avionic kit in terms of reliability and usualy work for years without giving trouble, the more modern Narco units are not bad but need a lot more TLC if you want them to work well. If you have a Narco unit that is a bit suspect I can recomend the avionic shop at Stapleford as peope who understand these units an can get the best from the limited power avalable.

[S-Works]

A&C, It was me that could only get SAM at 60nm the other. I can assure you there is nothing wrong with my GNS430 or MX170 or my King DME. Neither of my NAV/Com units were able to pick the signal up until around the 60-70nm mile mark. What you should get in theory as signal propagation is often very different to what you see in reality. I have enough time airways flying to know this as a fact.

I have often seen avionics struggle to get a number of different VOR's, some days it is better than others. With SAM the DME comes in a lot earlier than the VOR.

[Southern Fly Guy]

So let me get this straight...

Before I was an idiot who should have his PPL revoked. Then I put forward my version of events and now I'm like some kind of sky god? Hmmmm.... So maybe there are two sides to every story after all.

Thanks for the kind words though. Lovely! Odd that the others who were so quick to judge have stayed rather more quiet.

[wobble2plank]

I don't seem to recall any judgmental comments within my posts, I left that to the others who prefer to hang, draw and quarter then ask questions.


Often without reading the previous posts properly! :ugh:

Have fun

W2P

[S-Works]

Nah, welcome to PPrune, judge jury and executioner!! Now you are here stay around and contribute, you may find you even learn something once in awhile!!

[A and C]

Range like that from a VOR recever would have me checking the antenna system from the box right back to the antenna I am guessing that you are using one antenna for both boxes via a diplexer.

I would expect the GNS430 to lock on before the MX170 as the GNS 430 is a more modern bit of kit, this is what leads me to think that the aircraft instalation is not up to muster, it is only likely to be a dirty or corroded connection but your comments about performance changing with the same VOR from day to day I would be minded to check for the ingress of moisture into the conection at the antenna end or corrosion affecting the antenna grounding.

At one time I was running two King VOR,s from the same antenna and the KX165A always locked on before the KX155 due to the 165A,s more modern receiver, having replaced the 155 with another 165A the lock on range is identical.

From memory a think that I have receved a good signal fron SAM well south of Cherbourg at FL 70 but I will have to check this as the range did not seem unusualy low at the time I did not take a lot of notice.

[Fuji Abound]

SFG

Well done, an interesting and candid account.

The only serious comment I made was that GPS rarely go wrong and it is usually ones own stupid fault if they do - like the antenna falling off.

It does however highlight why a hand held GPS will never be as reliable as a panel mount.

Bits fall off (imagine what can happen in a bit of turbulence), batteries run out, aerials are in the wrong place .. .. .. Plan for all of these things to happen.

We have discussed on this thread the wisdom of channel check outs before.

There be those that argue any half well trained PPL should be able to cross channel - others are more cautious. I have tended towards the second camp.

In spite of your PPL training it is "surprising" how disconcerting flying on instruments can be for the first time, and how common it is cross channel despite a reasonable forecast. It is unnerving the first time, degrades your capacity to deal with other issues, and until you have experienced the leans once you never quite appreciate what it is like.

SFG did well not to let the situation over well him.

[S-Works]

A and C,

Trust me there is nothing wrong with the installation, I and my avionics guys are most meticulous when it comes to things working.

I have also recieved a good signal from SAM at St Brieuc. I am just pointing out that some days VHF navigation is variable.

However if you want to put your engineering hat on and come and check my avionics installation you are welcome..... :ok:

[A and C]

It is little wonder that it has taken the ex-navigators at the CAA over 10 years to approve GPS for approaches when we read things like this.

Full marks to the guy for "fessing up" on these pages because it might well stop other people from putting so much faith in and held kit.

I am just sure that the use of hand held GPS has held the approval for IFR use of panel mounted for years in the UK.

[Fuji Abound]

Full marks to the guy for "fessing up" on these pages because it might well stop other people from putting so much faith in and held kit.

I am just sure that the use of hand held GPS has held the approval for IFR use of panel mounted for years in the UK.

Sorry - lost on me - and your point is?

[A and C]

The point is that the CAA has used the widespred use of unaprroved handheld GPS units as an excuse to avoid the issue of approving the IFR use of GPS.

The sort of inccident reported above has renforced the "head in the sand" attude to GPS that we have seen from the inmates of the opperations department in Aviation House.

The CAA,s engineering department has had the IFR equipment aproved for years so this is why I have to why it as taken so long to approve GPS approches in the UK when the rest of the world has been using them for years.

The only conclusion that I can come to is the reason is the fear in the mind of the CAA that they would some how be to blame if someone used unapproved equipment to fly a GPS approach and that approach ended in disaster.

Can you think of any ther reason fo he CAA to be so slow on this issue?

[S-Works]

Erm........ The use of IFR certified GPS is approved and in fact is a requirement for those of us whistling along in the airways that actually want to get anywhere. Above Fl95 as I recall.

[A and C]

Yes.....................But why has it taken so long to get the approach approval in the UK? The kit has been in my aircraft for over 11 years now and only in August is the first GPS approach approved in the UK & BRNAV was very slow to get approved.

[englishal]

GPS is new technology, and will get you where you want to go.
I studied GPS in "Radio Navigation Systems" at University in the 80's ;)

My VOR was labeled INOP at last annual. What if I had been using that for trans channel crossings at the time, with no GPS.

DR is ok, but it is really Dead Lucky. After a while of flying across water with no references, DR will eventually become horribly inaccurate. Me and my brother used to regularly sail across the channel and althogh we used DR we updated our DR with GPS fixes (i9n the 90's now) to correct it.

Perhaps the best method is to DR to GPS waypoints and update as nescessary?

[IO540]

Can you think of any ther reason fo he CAA to be so slow on this issue?

I don't think anybody really knows.

At a CAA presentation I went to in 2006, a CAA man claimed that they asked the FAA whether anybody in the US has ever done a study of GPS reliability, and that the answer was NO. So, the CAA had to do it all again (and were told the answer was something like 1 in 100000000 or whatever).

A google reveals this a lie - there have been loads of formal GPS reliability studies.

My guess is that it is the politics of it - the US control of the system, plus a selection of old farts in the CAA holding things back.

There are various factions within the CAA, with different powers. That's why when one meets individuals from there, they are usually very competent and do in fact understand GA and its needs. But when you assemble a committee of these people, and a few others we rarely meet, the result is nothing gets done. Corporately, the CAA is very different from the individuals that make it up.

As regards the BRNAV requirement (which can be meaningfully met only by a GPS) I guess they had no choice there because you could not fit the only other option (INS) into a GA spamcan.

[High Wing Drifter]

Yes.....................But why has it taken so long to get the approach approval in the UK?
I suspected somebody somewhere was waiting for Galileo. It has become apparent in the last couple of years that it is still a long way off, hence the recent movement.

[Southern Fly Guy]

So like I said before, I have decided that I must do an IMC rating. However, I've been doing some research on PPRuNe - my wife wants to throttle me as I literally sat up all night reading postings on the topic. I was supposed to be organising someone to install some new fence posts in the bottom paddock; it's such a pain when your staff quit without notice.

It seems to me that maybe I shouldn't do the IMC after all; after my reading marathon! I was a bit bleary eyed but it seems that Bose, the company that make those fancy Wave Radios (my wife bought one for each of the guest suites - they sound super), have petittioned the CAA to make the full blown airways-type Instrument Rating easier to do. I'm not even sure why they bothered, to be honest. Is it because they will sell more headsets? Still, it's good for us pilot types so no complaints from me!

Anyway, my question is, should I do it or should I wait? I'm tempted to just go for it and if the other thing comes in then I can do that as well. Thoughts, kind forumites?

[Justiciar]

Why do you want an IR?? Serious question. If you want to fly IFR in the UK you can do so in all but Class A airspace with the IMC rating. If europe is your destination then you will need an IR to fly IFR. Next question, do you have the aircraft capable of flying sustained IFR, i.e. fast, oxygen or pressurised, de-ice, auto pilot etc.

An IR is expensive and time consuming to achieve and requires alot of dedication to maintain. It is renewable annually by flight test (think you can do it in a suitable sim). I know of a very experienced frozen ATPL, flying instructor and examiner, 1000+ hours who has never used her IR in anger!

[scooter boy]

"An IR is expensive and time consuming to achieve and requires a lot of dedication to maintain. It is renewable annually by flight test"

Not if its an FAA one it ain't. 3 approaches every 6 months and a few holds / VOR tracking and you are done.

I use mine in anger most times I fly as do many others who use this forum.

SB

[Justiciar]

I think the point concerned the JAR version :*

The question still has to be answered: do you have a use for it, given that it will cost probably £12k - £15k (the JAR version, that is)?

[S-Works]

I think that while we have the IMCR then you should go out and get one regardless of what the future may hold. At the moment the future is unwritten!

The IR is a fantastic tool and opens up a world of opportunities. But you need to keep it current and need regular access to an aircraft that you can use it in.

A considerable percentage of my flying is around Europe and the IR makes life easy. If you are a regular UK flyer with only occasional trips out of the UK the IMC if properly taught is the perfect tool for the job. If you find that you outgrow it as I did then moving onto the IR becomes the next logical step.

I will reserve comment on the "flavor" of IR you aim for!

[Southern Fly Guy]

I want to be able to fly to France and use my IFR abilities there, so that is why I would consider the Instrument Rating over the IMC one.

I hope to never use any rating in anger - from the Human Performance and Limitations exam I remember that flying when angry is to be avoided. I did make the mistake of flying after a big row with my wife once and that was bad enough. Surely the FAA system doesn't encourage flying when angry? I know the Yanks have a more liberated view of aviation, but that one would suprise me.

As for all this airways business, it does sound very good so I think I am going to have to do some more reading.

[IO540]

SFG

I have a CPL/IR but would recommend doing the IMC Rating even if your eventual objective is flying IFR in Europe (and thus the full IR).

3 reasons:

Opinions vary massively when (or whether) Europe will get any kind of "reduced content private IR" but it is quite likely that IF it comes you will be able to use your IMCR training time towards it, or at least a bit of it.

ALL the hours of instrument training you do are allowable right now towards an FAA IR, should you choose to do that one.

The instrument training is dead handy for VFR (yes VFR) flight. There is a great deal of VFR flight which cannot actually be done on the UK PPL sausage factory training syllabus. Examples include the haze on a very nice summer day (5000m vis makes map reading very difficult unless you already know the area well); flying in rain/drizzle; flying over featureless areas (plenty of those in Europe); flying over water; flying VMC above cloud (legal worldwide if you have the IMCR). Instrument flight, with radio navigation, expands your horizons and increases the certainty with which you can go places.

[A and C]

IO540 has hit the nail on the head doing the IMC will improve your skils and make you a safer pilot.

The ability to go "VFR on top" is very usefull in France when flying VFR on the airways.

All the people who slagg off the IMC rating have missed the point that it brings IFR training into the average PPL,s cost range and this education is never waisted even if the pilot never flys in "hard" IMC.

I would be very suprized and disapointed if the IMCR training time did not count towards the new EASA "lite" IR when and if it happens.

The introduction of the IMCR was one of the best things to improve flight safety that the CAA has ever done, it teaches enough about IMC flight to allow the compident and current pilot to fly IF approaches and gives the pilot who is not current enough the knowlage to recognise this in himself and avoid flying in such conditions.
And before some of you start, no amount of education will protect the totaly arrogant and ego driven from there own stupidity but the IMC will make most PPL,s much better and safer pilots.

[S-Works]

I would be very suprized and disapointed if the IMCR training time did not count towards the new EASA "lite" IR when and if it happens.

Watch this space.......... Also for clarity there will NEVER be in IR "lite" but in time there will be an accessible IR. Just let us keep working on it!

[Crash one]

Southern Fly Guy
I apologise most humbly for my previous post.
Original information was , no chart, no idea how to use VOR, over water & totally reliant on GPS.
Just shows how wrong one can be.

[Zulu Alpha]

I would have done exactly as you did. with a poor horizon, relying on heading and time when going to the Channel Islands is risky. If you miss them then there is a lot of water before you meet land. Keeping left a bit is safer as you will arrive at the Cherbourg peninsula rather than carrying on to Spain.
Calling D&D while you were close to the UK was also a good idea. Travelling 60 miles south and then calling them would not have been sensible.
One thing I learnt early on is not to get in a situation where a single failure can cause problems. VORs, GPS's etc do fail and always at awkward moments so be prepared. I have an old simple AA battery powered GPS handy for such situations, they are cheap on ebay. I have had the radio/VOR/RNAV/Panel GPS CB pop and not been able to reset it, another time our gyro compass automatic precession corrector had been connected wrongly so even fitted equipment is not 100% reliable.
Doing an IMC course is a good idea. Its really a 'get out of jail free' card...and of course you shouldn't get into jail in the first place.

[IO540]

Also for clarity there will NEVER be in IR "lite" but in time there will be an accessible IR

I think there is a terminology-only issue there, bose-x ;)

Of course one cannot call it an "IR lite" because that would be politically unpalatable to the olde grey-bearded gold-striped standard bearers that inhabit the national CAAs :)

But seriously, anyone wanting to go places VFR should get the IMCR now. And get themselves a really good GPS - the best they can afford.