How would YOU teach PPL nav? [Archive]

FlyingForFun

14th Oct 2007, 10:00

Agree 100% with BEagle (and PompeyPaul), as a starting point.

Ded reckoning, the art of flying a heading and time, is the basis of all navigation. It does need to backed up by something else, though, and pilotage (map reading, cross-checking the map against the ground) is the most basic way of doing this - combined with some technique for fixing any track errors (and there are many of these, all equally good - standard closing angle is one of my favourites, very easy to use).

Once the student has got the idea of how the technique is used, it can be expanded by including techniques for dog-legging (e.g. around weather or small bits of airspace), techniques for avoiding controlled airspace to the side of track (having a stop-point which you know you must or must not be to the left of, or the right of), or techniques for stopping short of controlled airspace when you don't yet have a clearance (based on timing, possibly backed up with a good visual reference if there happens to be one).

However, once a student has mastered this most basic form of navigation, the syllabus ought to include the effective use of navaids: how to fix position with navaids, and use this as an alternative to pilotage to back up ded reckoning. And then, finally, GPS, which again is nothing more than a way of backing up ded reckoning. Initially, moving map features should not be used. Only once a student is fully conversant with all the other normal modes of use should the student be allowed to see the moving map for additional situational awareness of aircraft position along track and the relative position of controlled airspace.

The reason I have suggested this route is because it starts off by building good, solid foundations which can be used throughout the rest of the training (the building block principal). It then moves on to more practical, realistic techniques which can be used every day.

Unfortunately, it takes far too long to teach people everything they need to know on a PPL course. When I taught PPL, I started an initiative to train PPLs to a more advanced level in whatever areas of flight they felt they most needed it. This included several different modules on the subject of navigation.

Now, on the CPL course I teach students ded reckoning and pilotage (or, very often, un-teach them the bad habits they've taught themselves), and then teach them the use of conventional navaids to back up these techniques. On the IR, I go on the teach them how to use GPS - without moving map to start with, and then with moving map after that. Even on these two courses I don't have time to teach students everything I'd like to.

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

youngskywalker

14th Oct 2007, 10:29

I agree 100% with BEagle. By the way, Is it possible to buy any notes or books that teach the RAF techniques for various subjects, mainly VFR nav? I lke the idea of dispensing with the Plog and instead putting down all the info on the chart instead.

Contacttower

14th Oct 2007, 10:55

I'm in two minds about the plog, I was always taught not to mess up the map by putting stuff all over it- so the plog means that one runs less risk of writing over landmarks that you might need. Having said that I can see the logic behind having all the info on the map and one is more likely to spot mistakes in heading and the like if they are on the map.

Croqueteer

14th Oct 2007, 12:14

:)Think positional awareness from day one. When I was instructing (Not yesterday) on a trial lesson I would brief that we would fly west for five minutes and do some handling over a certain landmark. After 15mins or so, I would say "Take us back to the airfield" Panic. I don't know where we are! When they did remember how we got there with a bit of prompting, it would suddenly dawn that if we flew east for 5min, we would be about there. Also, given a wind and a 1/2 million, I would ask students to plan a route with no instruments at all, then when finished, get them to do it with a whizz-wheel protracter, and rule, and with a little bit of practice, they were amazed how accurate they could become. This ,of course, was all on top of the formal training.

IO540

14th Oct 2007, 14:52

You people remind me of a brilliant engineer who develops a really clever product. It is something totally out of this world and "therefore" everybody will want to buy it.

Sounds familiar? It should be to anybody who has done anything in business.

What you need to do first is define the market.

Nowadays, almost nobody is interested in flying for the sake of the kind of anorak techniques that are taught in the PPL. They remain there because they are for the most part the core skills (well, not the circular slide rule which is a total complete load of crap and a waste of many hours of ground school which could be put to better use) and nobody in the flight training business wants a "PPL" to appear on their price list with an even higher price tag, so people in the business always find a thousand reasons for not doing anything about it.

Think about it - if you were training your own child for example, would you teach him what the PPL currently covers and then let him/her go off on their own on a trip which goes anywhere near the limits of their current legal privileges?

The syllabus needs modernising - the question is what can be taken out to make room for stuff that's really needed e.g. GPS, engine management, knowing how to go places so people can get some enjoyment out of flying. I don't think anything much can be taken out, which leads to a bit of an intractable situation.

One could also diverge to a separate stream to do aerobatics, without doing the full current PPL.

Contacttower

14th Oct 2007, 15:20

And what would you add as well? (Apart from GPS and engine mang.)

high-hopes

14th Oct 2007, 15:31

Perhaps navigating the old fashioned PPL way isn't a skill required any longer (although I disagree with that, as it gives you better multitasking and cockpit management skills) , but then again what are the skills involved in pressing a few keys on a GPS unit ?

bookworm

14th Oct 2007, 15:42

I'd teach the fundamental principles of navigation:

1) Calculate your desired track
2) Estimate the heading required to maintain the desired track and fly it
3) Evaluate your actual track compared to desired track
4) Correct your heading accordingly, first to close, then to maintain desired track

I'd then demonstrate that these fundamental principles apply whether you are using a map and eyeball, a moving map GPS, a VOR, an NDB, or a tuna sandwich. These are tools for evaluating deviation from desired track required in step 3, and the difference between them is only in their reliability and precision, both of which should be considered for each tool to be used.

StrateandLevel

14th Oct 2007, 16:31

On a PPL Skill Test the average candidate sets out on the first leg with lots of impressive lines and marks on the chart, often including halfway marks, quarter way marks, distance to go marks etc. None of these have any use whatsoever as you can't see them on the ground; the candidate invariably does nothing with them, and hasn't got a clue why they are there, other than someone told them they must put them on their chart. More often than not they maintain height and heading well, but the track can be up to 15 degrees out and they don't either notice or know what to do about it. When you question what their ETA will be, their watch is seldom synchronised to within 3 minutes of real time!

So if we do nothing else teach them to Fly Heading and Time, and at 6 minute intervals check the track and time and how to correct it if its wrong. There is no substitute for DEAD REKONING, the principle is the same whether you are in a boat or an aeroplane.

Nipper2

14th Oct 2007, 17:05

Ok guys. I am going to be deliberately provocative. I think the original poster was after trying to get some new ideas so I’ll put some up and see how well they can be shot down. I’m not necessarily arguing that I am right, just trying to initiate some discussion.

I would start by letting my student simply watch the moving map GPS and get feeling for what a wonderfully accurate, easy to read and intuitive tool it is. Once they had a grasp of the basic principles I would start and add a single track-line between two waypoints. I would explain the importance of checking that the line did not pass through controlled airspace, prohibited areas etc. and that it was much better to do this on the ground before setting off than in the air.

I would then build on the idea of the difference between ‘heading’ shown by the GPS (which is really course-over-ground or track) and the compass. This provides a very simple and graphic illustration of drift.

Next I would look at the HSI function and explain the relative merits of this as compared to the moving map display.

Once these concepts were understood, I would build a more substantial knowledge of the features of the GPS unit including (but not limited to):
* How to check the integrity of the GPS signal (gross error check at start-up and satellite signal)
* How to check that the database was up to date, how to update it if it is not and how important this is
* How to enter routes
* How to use the ‘nearest’ function for diversion planning
* How to find out the details of airspace from the moving map
* How to get airfield information from the unit
* The importance of checking that routes generated on the fly (in the air) did not cross through controlled or prohibited airspace.

Finally I would switch the GPS off and get my student to call a Practice Pan on 121.5. I would explain to D&D what I was up to and have them give the student a steer either back to base or to a suitable airfield. Repeat several times for confidence.

Job done.

On the basis of my personal experience, if well taught, learned and tested, knowledge of this syllabus would result in a vast reduction of CAS busts and a significant reduction if ‘temporarily uncertain of positions’.

For those who were lost, the learned response would be to call D&D early (hopefully immediately).

You can go on all you like about the possible frailty of GPS but my experience (and that of the vast majority of recreational pilots) is that it is a damn sight more reliable than compass and stopwatch navigation will ever be.

Hardhat firmly on…… incoming!

englishal

14th Oct 2007, 17:54

I'd spend 10 hours teaching them how to program the G1000 so they could use it to the full potential (or GPS equiv. in the crappy warriors we get in the UK)......seriously. DR is outdated, it was outdated in the 30's according to Ernest K Gann, which is why navaids were invented. GPS just happens to be the best navaid around, and I don't think I have ever seen it drop out for more than a few seconds since 1995 when I started using it for work.

IanSeager

14th Oct 2007, 18:14

I'm with Bookworm, apart from his tuna sandwich method, everyone knows that tuna mayo is the way to go.

Ian

Wrong Stuff

14th Oct 2007, 18:41

I'm with Bookworm, apart from his tuna sandwich method, everyone knows that tuna mayo is the way to go.
I'd agree, but I'm not sure about the tuna. The real problem with GPS navigation is when it becomes the sole method.

Nipper2

14th Oct 2007, 19:00

Just out of interest, why is GPS (which can and does go wrong very very very rarely) worse as a sole method of navigation than DR (which can and does go wrong quite often)?

Bravo73

14th Oct 2007, 19:49

Here's a scenario for the panel (especially the GPS fans):

You are teaching someone to drive.

Once you've covered the basics of car handling and 'roadcraft', you teach them how to navigate.

Would you hand them a TomTom, show them how to enter their destination (postcode etc) and tell them to follow the instructions. Or would you hand them a road map and teach them how to use road signs?

er340790

14th Oct 2007, 20:39

Ever heard of 'OFF-COURSE NAVIGATION'????

It was used by helicopter pilots in the jungles of Vietnam - they had to find very precise LZs, but often when they arrived at their Ded Reckoning position, the LZ was nowhere in sight......... so which way to turn??????

What they started doing was flying their computed track @ the appropriate speed and ignore the WCA. Then when Ded Reckoning said they should be over the LZ, they only had to turn and head INTO the wind to find the LZ.

I didn't believe it either, so tried it and it WORKS!!!!

Not sure I would recommend it to students though..........;)

IO540

14th Oct 2007, 20:39

You are teaching someone to drive.
Once you've covered the basics of car handling and 'roadcraft', you teach them how to navigate.
Would you hand them a TomTom, show them how to enter their destination (postcode etc) and tell them to follow the instructions. Or would you hand them a road map and teach them how to use road signs?

In reality people are taught neither. Anybody can read signs with place names on them. But this is not a valid scenario, because TT is a completely different product to any non-road GPS. You could ignore the screen and just follow the voice prompts, and the upmarket products do just that. It's great for nav to a specific address.

What this has to do with aviation I have no idea.

It was used by helicopter pilots in the jungles of Vietnam

I think if they had GPS in Vietnam they would have used it immediately.

One has to get away from the "military viewpoint". In that business, one is working with a few hand picked pilots, the cream of the cream, after the other 98% have either been kicked out or became navigators. These people are highly trained, highly current (not as current in peacetime as we may think but a lot more current than the average PPL) and they can use all sorts of methods. They are also young and fast on the uptake - probably under half the average PPL age. Their final saviour is that nowadays they don't have to fight any real wars (the Americans do the dirty work now, using GPS) and you can be certain the enemy will be using GPS - if it hasn't been jammed locally.

The average PPL has little hope of becoming good at visual navigation alone, in today's airspace structure, and the 3-digit # annually of CAS busts proves it. On top of that you have loads of people who are simply lost but somehow managed to stay in Class G so that's OK.

However, as I mentioned earlier, we can wish for this and that but it isn't going to come - because the training business will not go for a more expensive PPL.

Contacttower

14th Oct 2007, 20:47

Navigation is not on the driving test anyway (although some might argue it should be :E) Why can't both dead reckoning and GPS be on the PPL?

FullyFlapped

14th Oct 2007, 20:49

What they started doing was flying their computed track @ the appropriate speed and ignore the WCA. Then when Ded Reckoning said they should be over the LZ, they only had to turn and head INTO the wind to find the LZ.

Hmm. Wonder how long it would be before your first air-space bust of the day .... :eek:

FF :ok:

er340790

14th Oct 2007, 21:09

Yes, I forgot I was addressing a largely UK audience.....

It works particularly well when you have 600+ miles of Class G over largely uniform, uninhabited Canadian bush.

Airspace bust??? I have to land and refuel at least once before I can even get close to such a thing..... unless I can get my J3 up to 16,000'......:ok:

Bravo73

14th Oct 2007, 21:15

What this has to do with aviation I have no idea.

It's called using an analogy to demonstrate a point.

But I've noticed, IO540, that as someone who is so critical of the current system, you haven't actually proposed any realistic alternatives when presented the opportunity. Why is that? :confused:

IO540

14th Oct 2007, 21:47

I have already written that nothing is likely, within the current 45hr limit.

The analogy was poor, BTW :)

homeguard

14th Oct 2007, 21:56

For me there is only one way. That is for the student to thoroughly research the routes to the destination and make correct choices. Virtually all potential in flight problems can be identified in the planning room and resolved there. At the very least plan 'B's should be put in place. A major learning curve for the student is to achieve good cockpit management but also to develop a good standand of reasoned decision making whilst in flight. That is what a PLOG is for! A PLOG is the students 'action plan'. Having planned well they are then free to concentrate on flying the aircraft accurately and looking and listening out. NOT continously staring at lots of chinagraph scribbles on their map which, in my experience, can lead to a sophisticated kind of track crawling at best and at worst a total loss of spatial awareness.
By pre-planning thoroughly and preparing a detailed PLOG they are able to assess much better in flight track errors and begin to understand the volitile nature of the wind any resulting drift off track. As some have already said the full time military Tyro will probably be young and carefully selected for the task. They will also have at least 90 hours of flight instruction (using civil logging times) and have full time groundschool. The civil student comes to flying cold, in most cases and be from 14-65 years of age and from different backgrounds and levels of education and have just 45 hours of syllabus, although from statistics they will average 60 hours to completion, within the UK and world wide.
With regard to GPS and the like. I understand that LORAN is on the up once again but now will also drive moving maps. Of course all of these tools are fantastic but I also agree that they should require specific training as is currently required for VOR and NDB usage.
The 'whiz-wheel' - taking into account all the arguements for it, is also outdated. Although in replacing the whiz-wheel it should be replaced with a better knowledge of the 1:60 (radians) than at present. Understanding 1:60 (better done by in-flight experiences - called 'discovery') i'm convinced gives the student a much greater depth of understanding of GPS and its functions.
I'm for the PLOG and Dead-Reckoning but to emphasise im not a philistine so leading on to the later use of GPS etc.

Bravo73

14th Oct 2007, 22:14

I have already written that nothing is likely, within the current 45hr limit.

So? That is hardly the remit of this thread. Let's have a quick re-cap. (The emphasis is obviously mine):

There have been various comments/criticisms over the last few months/years about the way navigation is taught on the PPL course (Hi IO540 ;) ) Criticisms of the whizzwheel, why no GPS etc etc etc. OK, if you could change the nav syllabus, how would you teach it? What would you include/take out/put in? Bear in mind you'll have to include emergency procedures for when electrics, batteries etc fail. And what to do when you have no PC access on a small airfield in France, for instance. And you can't just say something is rubbish; you have to come up with a better way.

The analogy was poor, BTW :)

The analogy was fine, thanks. You just didn't like the message that it was sending out. (If you must, think of the 'magenta line' as the aviation equivalent of voice prompts.)

Saab Dastard

14th Oct 2007, 22:32

I would add a couple of things to the list:

How to use the AIS website PROPERLY for obtaining NOTAMS (narrow route, at least) and perhaps also for aerodrome charts (although an up-to-date Pooleys / Jepp is just as useful).
How to get weather briefings from the internet (and possibly VOLMET).So many posts on PPRuNe have bemoaned the fact that these aren't taught to PPL students I'm surprised they haven't been mentioned.

Sure, these are Planning matters, but we all know that PPPPPP, don't we? ;)

SD

stiknruda

14th Oct 2007, 22:53

I'll defend tradition!

Two years ago, I was invited along on a trip to la belle France. The CPL pilot (non-handling) had only been to France once and the owner/driver, had about 180hrs TT. Almost all time, post PPL training, was in his new airframe.

So my role was "quiet chap in the back who has been o/seas several times, has filled in loads of Flight Plans and Gen Decs". Backseat also 'cos I'm not rotary qualified.

We lifted and set course, the two chaps up front quickly got us going. They were doing so well, until I realised that they were following a magenta cursor. That was good until I realised that we were about to pop through the o/head of a minor a/g airfield and neither had any intention of using the very expensive radio.

"Would it not be a good time to call xxxx radio?", I opportuned.
"Good idea! Where are they and when?"
"Ah, 3 miles dead ahead and we are only at 1200', freq is nnn.nnn"

------

"Chaps, STN zone descends near Ware, should we not ought to be a bit lower?"

------

Later: Heh, Stik, how did you know about that a/f, and how did you know about the CTR descending just ahead of us?

Well it was on the chart, remember we all drew the same lines on our respective bits of paper? I just ran my finger down the line at the same rate as we approached things!

After the flight was over, I chided the CPL about over-reliance on the Garmin.

Two weeks later, CPL could not find my strip 'cause he'd had not programmed the co-ords. Two weeks after that, owner/driver on approach to mine put down in a field 1.25 miles away, because he'd inserted a 6 when it should have been a 9 in a waypoint! Strip suggests a long enough bit of land for take-off/landing The farm worker's cottage garden had a 40x40' back lawn!

Great bits of kit as support but you need to teach real nav first.

Yes - I think we go way overboard on the whizz-wheel, post PPL skils test, I have NEVER used one in the air. Snapping for the turn (1:60) and easy-peasy-lemon-sqeezy course convergence tricks that Beagle attested to will NEVER let you down.

Stik

Still smiling after today's Mustang trip!

tangovictor

14th Oct 2007, 23:40

i totally agree with most written on this thread, however, I'll always think of my instructor, who insisted everytime I had a lesson, and almost every 10 mins ,to know the following
1, where's the wind coming from
2, where's the sun in relation to our start position
so simple, yet easily overlooked by new pilots

LH2

15th Oct 2007, 00:04

DR is outdated

A few years ago, in the middle of a sandstorm in Saudi Arabia. Eight survey grade GPS receivers on the back of my Toyota, couldn't use any of them for one reason or another. No worries. My Suunto MC-2 (http://www.travelizmo.com/archives/suunto-mc-2-compass.jpg) and the Land Cruiser's odometer (which misread by a more or less known amount) together with the paper map I always carried, promptly got me all 80km back to camp. Visibility was less than 100m and I had to wait until nightfall to make the last few km so I could find camp by the lights.

Dead reckoning might be outdated, but it gets you there when everything else fails.

Having said that, here's my proposals:

* A bit less emphasis on the CRP-5 :bored: and a bit more focus on GPS as part of a modern cockpit, not forgetting the other nav instruments (yes, I agree GPS also has its place along with DR, it's not an either/or choice)

* More emphasis on practical flight planning, as S.D. said (weather briefing, AIS, NOTAMs, flight plans, etc.)

* More emphasis on using FIS when available/applicable. It's there and it's free, so might as well use it.

Dan Winterland

15th Oct 2007, 02:13

The military method doesn't require Buck Rogers after all the unsuitables have been weeded out. It's a simple technique born of experience because when things are getting difficult, the simple techniques are the ones that work.

Quite simply put, the technique I was teaching as an RAF QFI (a few years ago now mind you, but I doub't it has changed) was that if you start from a known point, fly accurately for a kown time having made sensible wind corrections, you will arrive at your next point, or very close so that you can see it. Sounds simple, that's because it is!

The things which will make you miss your next turning point are not flying accurately and getting distracted. An example: One student of mine was a real 'map crawler'. He couldn't fly anywhere without constant reference to his map. One day, I insisted he put the map on the coming face down where I could see it and only pick it up when he was supposed to (1 minute before the next event in this technique). Then I noticed the reflection of another map in the canopy - he had photocopied it an was using the copy! (It was a tandem aircraft with a blast screen between the cockpits so I couldn't confiscate the second map. So on the next trip, I took his map, cut out the turning points and the check points and pasted them on a sheet of A3 in the appropriate places and made him use that. His technique improved immeasuarbly and he got his navigation sorted out.

Teach the basics first, because an understanding of the basics is relevant to any elecetronic technique.

And a bit about GPS. GPS is owned by the US DoD and is their plaything. They're not worried about the bad guys using it because they still have complete control over it. The signals are actually transmitted over two frequncies. The ones you and I use and the separate military only frequencies which you can only receive if you have the correct receiver with the current encryption de-code. GPS signals can be 'slewed'. This was always the case when SA (Selective Availability) was pernamently turned on. Now this has been removed, the GPS is more accurate. But SA can be switched on at any time on the civil frequency and you can bet your donkey that it will be working overtime in any conflict area - to the tune of many miles is my guess! And of course, the signals can be jammed easliy.

RatherBeFlying

15th Oct 2007, 02:56

I confess to being one of those track crawlers -- put a line on the map and stay on it. Works just fine in Southern Ontario and NE USA during the day.

A bit of a different story in a glider without one of those fancy computers and you're hopscotching between likely looking clouds and over an unfamiliar area while trying to get somewhere or back home.

First you have to figure where you are -- then you can work out an angle over the road grid.

That's if you're in a glider with legs:ok: In a low performance machine, you're just looking for the likeliest lift in the general direction:ugh:

PompeyPaul

15th Oct 2007, 07:40

Hi,

I don't understand the acronyms in this:
What they started doing was flying their computed track @ the appropriate speed and ignore the WCA. Then when Ded Reckoning said they should be over the LZ, they only had to turn and head INTO the wind to find the LZ.
Which suggests that you just fly magnetic, then after time to destination, you simply fly into the wind and you arrive at that point ? Is that true ? Intriguingly it would certainly work with a full head \ tail wind. Not sure if it would for a cross wind ?

Does that really work ? I may give it a go on Saturday (nowhere near CAS, on the South Coast so lots of visual clues)

Golf Alpha Whisky

15th Oct 2007, 07:45

In my line of business (Reservoir Engineering) we have two skill sets. Those of us who learnt the job in the oilfield, in the text books, understood the theory then along came PC's, spreadsheets, simulators which were a fantastic aid and a superior tool in terms of speed and accuracy.

There are also those who have learnt exclusively over the last 5-10 years through PC technology and some have never even seen an oil rig in the flesh.

We both do the same job and use the same resources but only one set knows what is REALLY going on inside the boxes of tricks and is easily able to spot anomalies, miscalculations, errors and can still do a days work when Big Brother decides we have no computers and email for a day!

Whirlybird

15th Oct 2007, 07:54

Ok, let's try to summarise what we've got so far...

Stik and several others - what's wrong with the present system?

BEagle, FFF et all - present system (but maybe do it better) plus navaids (though they are in the PPL course already) plus GPS.

Nipper (and maybe one or two others) - basically GPS, with a bit of the basic theory thrown in. Great idea, but I suspect the student would call Mayday if the GPS failed - I couldn't follow your basic theory bit, and I knew what you were saying!

IO540 - the present system is crap, but I can't come up with a better one. So I'll carry on telling you all ad infinitum that the present system is crap.

I have a couple of questions/thoughts, that have been touched on, but not really covered...

Doesn't it matter to a certain extent what aircraft you fly, and where?
I confess to being one of those track crawlers -- put a line on the map and stay on it. Works just fine in Southern Ontario and NE USA during the day.
It also works well in much of the UK. I'm still wondering why track crawling is universally knocked. :confused: You won't bust Stansted and Luton when flying between them if you recognise every town, every village, every main road. With practice, the ground looks like the map, so you know where you are. It also works well in small helicopters and microlights, or probably any other aircraft which flies at that kind of speed. And if you don't teach it, in my experience students carry on following a heading when a massive feature right on their track is a mile or so off to the side, and flying straight to it would be the obvious option. But in faster aircraft and another part of the world, eg the desert, this obviously won't work well.

Why the Plog/non-plog controversy? You either write on your map (plus a notpad, says BEagle) or you write on a form. You don't stare fixedly at either. It's a personal preference, surely.

I don't have an answer myself. I don't think I was taught nav very well initially, but I learned what works through experience. But I have difficulty teaching it in a way which students find really comprehensible. I'm not sure what would help.

BroomstickPilot

15th Oct 2007, 08:03

Hi Whirls,

Ooh I could say an awful lot about this subject. However, I shall confine myself to one area of comment, albeit a long one.

I think there is an elephant in the room that nobody is talking about perhaps because nobody has noticed him.

The key to his location is in IO540's comment that you are all like a bunch of engineers who think nobody could possibly not want their new invention. Combine this with er34790'scomment on off track navigation and FullyFlapped's comment about this approach leading to airspace busts, then er34790 saying he had forgotten he was speaking to a predominantly UK audience. (No criticism of any of these guys intended by the way: they're all right in their way).

The elephant's name, (topically enough,) is 'Fitness for Purpose'. But what purpose? The PPL is an ICAO licence and entitles you to fly worldwide. But most actual flying, and therefore instruction, taking place in the UK today is fit only for flying in UK airspace where most flight legs are under 100 nm (more like 50nm) and the pilot's biggest concern is remaining legal in VFR and clear of other traffic often in some of the busiest airspace in the world.
Let me give you a simple example. When revalidating my PPL recently, I was told to ignore deviation in my navigation calculations. This is fine in the UK. Here, when planning your flight you can even get away with guessing your track rather than measuring it. However, if I was going to fly a 600nm leg over featureless desert in Southern Africa, or over water, I feel I would be most unwise not to take deviation into account. We all know the 1:60 rule. One degree out for 60 miles puts you one mile off track. A deviation of 2 degrees, which is quite possible in many aircraft, over 600nm will put you 20 miles off track.

Some will say, don't worry, you have your GPS. But GPS cannot be relied upon the way DR can. Batteries fail, software crashes, signals cannot be guaranteed to be received. And in a lot of the kinds of places I refer to, there may be no VOR to fall back on. There are now perhaps thousands of PPLs and NPPLs in the UK who have never used Deviation and would not know how to use the deviation chart provided in every aeroplane. And at least some of these will go on a flying touring holiday to, say, South Africa, Canada, Australia etc.

What I wonder is whether we ought not to have a system like the yachting world has, with different qualifications for different levels of activity. Their system starts with 'day skipper' and then goes to 'coastal skipper', and then I suppose to other levels that I am not acquainted with. For example, I wonder if there is a case for a seperate nav rating for European touring requiring the pilot to know how to plan a flight using the local AIP in any EU country and knowing how to find and use local procedures for trips through France, Germany, etc.

Broomstick.

englishal

15th Oct 2007, 08:45

Regarding the US switching it off - it isn't going to happen. Virtually ALL shipping these days RELIES on GPS for their navigation. Nowadays no one is on the bridge ticking off DR positions routinely. GPS is used for surveying - building Wembly stadium, bridges, motorways, positioning oil rigs, sending divers down to the bottom of the North Sea, laying stuff highly accurately on the seabed, aeroplanes, helicopters etc....everyone uses it.

It is almost criminal that training aeroplanes don't have fitted even a basic moving map GPS, which costs sub £1000. Certainly a lot of airspace busts could have been avoided by use of a GPS and a GPS training syllabus.

Anyway my answer to the question would be:

1) Teach basic DR nav (but don't spend too long on it - they can explore this further once they have the PPL).
2) Teach pilotage and "map recognition"
3) Teach GPS usage and cross referencing to the map
4) Teach basic radio nav using onboard instruments (VOR / NDB - i.e. how to get a fix)
5) Teach proper pre-flight planning (even Google Earth has a role to play in pre-flight planning these days)

Change the PPL syllabus to include the nav element via GPS, followed by a simulated failure and "pilotage" (and / or radio nav) to an alternate, with partial recovery of the GPS after a time and expecting the student to draw a position fix from lat and long on the chart and to compare it to their estimated position. This sounds a reasonable syllabus which would properly prepare the candidate for 21st century flying....

homeguard

15th Oct 2007, 09:01

Broomstick
You make the valid point. Our job is to teach the prospective PPL holder the basics, the principles on which all things that follow are based. A technique usable anywhere at any time. The newcomer has a lot of mis-comprehensions to turn around and new concepts to overcome. Such as; when airborne they travel with the air - wind. When on the ground the air simply passes them by but now, airborne, they go with it. Obvious to the navigator but not always to them.
In my book it is important for the student to fully plan a flight and prepare a plog against which they can more clearly assess track errors and times (ground speed). Track errors should be allowed to develop until they can be measured (drift lines - like it or not are the simplest method) at a predetermined point (Pinpoint) and a reasoned calculation then made (so many techniques can be applied but not part of this arguement). It should be noted that the CAA Chief Examiner has put out a request that 'regain track' should be employed and I agree with him.
It should be remembered that the needle within a VOR display is a Course Deviation Indicator (CDI) not as some use it, something to follow, I hear some call the CDI a 'command indicator', but there is only one commander in an aircraft and that is the pilot - it can never be a needle. I, too many times, observe a technique, whether VOR or GPS, which includes continuesly rolling from side to side (often as not without rudder input) in an attempt to maintain track, the needle in the middle or the symbal on the line (GPS). I can only imagine they have many sick and dis-orientated passengers who never wish to go flying a second time.

IO540

15th Oct 2007, 09:19

IO540 - the present system is crap, but I can't come up with a better one. So I'll carry on telling you all ad infinitum that the present system is crap.

Not sure where that stupid comment came from. I explained what I should should go in, some out, and added that it ain't going to happen anyway due to vested interests.

WB if you want a detailed menu then you will need somebody who teaches the syllabus and who knows the content of each exercise. Then you could discuss the detail. It's no use asking here - you need to take this to the instructors forum and get a response from the half a dozen residents there.

I am with bookworm & englishal, and would reiterate that the system has to above all deliver something useful to the pilot. Otherwise, we are running nothing more than a sausage machine where you feed the meat in at one end, the sausages drop out the other, and nearly all of them are left to go rotten without being eaten.

It's a fun debate on how to improve the sausage machine (and, to be somewhat cynical, the flight training business mandate ends there) but unless one does something to deliver a more usable end product, it's like rearranging the chairs on the Titanic.

I am trying to avoid going over the same old ground again: DR versus radio nav. Sure, DR will never go wrong unless the pilot has suffered a massive blood clot in his brain or something similarly incapacitating. Whereas radio nav can go wrong due to factors not related to human physiology, so lots of people have a dig at it. In reality, DR goes wrong regularly and there is absolutely nothing that can be done about this - the pilots are the same and their currency is the same (poor). Whereas radio nav (of which GPS is the best form by far) provides a means of making a dent in this, by using methods which make a gross error obvious.

Just been reading a book on the WW2 campaign in Crete; the bit where the British ships got bombed out of the water by the Luftwaffe because the RAF could not find them......... :ugh:

foxmoth

15th Oct 2007, 09:27

All this talk of Radio Nav and GPS is great - what about the poor guy who does his PPL like this then goes and buys a PFA basic machine to hour build? Teach basic nav techniques for PPL then do an add on for radio nav and GPS (unless you are going to make it compulsory to carry radio nav gear/GPS). Basic techniques are the grounding for all the rest - but I do agree with getting rid of the whizz wheel.:8

Contacttower

15th Oct 2007, 09:52

What is it that everyone seems to have against the whizz wheel? It's a very useful bit of kit. As an aside I think navigation by stars should be on the night rating ;).

IO540

15th Oct 2007, 11:20

All this talk of Radio Nav and GPS is great - what about the poor guy who does his PPL like this then goes and buys a PFA basic machine to hour build?

Why would one hour build? What is the point in flying around to build hours? Presumably it is towards the ATPL. As such it is an inherently pointless exercise, so you may as well buy the cheapest thing that flies, put in a GPS, and autopilot which can track the GPS, program in a grid pattern, and fly it until the fuel is used up, then land, refuel, and repeat.

Looking at what is variously called the "sports" market, many of these supposedly basic "VFR-only" ;) ;) machines are fully IFR equipped - better equipped than most certified spamcans. There is no prize for guessing how these will be flown.

The whole scene is moving forward. Unfortunately, it is up to the pilot to make the leap in knowledge. The training sausage machine doesn't deliver him far enough.

Fuji Abound

15th Oct 2007, 11:39

Here is the problem.

The vast proportion of the aircraft fleet is not equipped with GPS. That means navigation must be taught on the assumption that GPS is not available.

In time all aircraft will be fitted panel mounted GPS, and the training will need to change fundamentally - but that is some way off.

Until then there is little alternative but to teach traditional navigation.

However, most new pilots will more than likely experiment with using GPS after they qualify. The existing syllabus equips them to do this poorly.

A solution would be to include more training on the use of GPS in the syllabus. Detractors highlight the variety of GPSs available and argue this would make teaching difficult. This view point is naive. Training should focus on the generic issues concerned with GPS navigation.

Detractors will also argue that there is insufficient time within the syllabus - no one wants a longer PPL. They are correct, but the solution can be found in what can removed from the syllabus.

In terms of the theory, far too much time is spent on aircraft systems. The detail for example devoted to the workings of the internal combustion engine is bizarre in the extreme - it is difficult to understand what the average PPL has to gain form this..

In terms of the practice, very little air born time requires to be devoted to the use of GPS - after all it is so simple and everyone is using in car systems these days - aren’t they? A typical hand held moving map system should be demonstrated by the instructor during one of the flights so the student is aware of the advantages of using a decent moving map GPS.

I would also prefer to see more time spent on radio navigation and less on pen and paper techniques. In my view one of the hardest skills to perfect is the latter. Too many pilots rely on these techniques to get lost or infringe. In my view most pilots need an alternative and reliable backup. When all the electronics fail they need to know enough about how to get themselves out of trouble (such as a call to D and D) for steerage.

How many instructors for example ask the student to make a practice call to D and D, allowing two way communications to be established and with D and D not only providing a fix but steerage en route?

Contacttower

15th Oct 2007, 11:43

Why would one hour build? What is the point in flying around to build hours? Presumably it is towards the ATPL. As such it is an inherently pointless exercise, so you may as well buy the cheapest thing that flies, put in a GPS, and autopilot which can track the GPS, program in a grid pattern, and fly it until the fuel is used up, then land, refuel, and repeat.

Believe it or not it is possible to 'hour build' and enjoy flying at the same time and most people who are hour building are not in a position to install a GPS and autopilot...and wouldn't want to because it would rather take the fun out of it.

I think proper use of the Whiskey compass should be taught at PPL level. I was never actually shown how to and throughout training it was simply a means to align the DI. When I got into a plane without a DI I actually found it quite hard...and it wasn't until IMC training that I actually learnt how to do 'compass turns' (over and under shooting etc) properly.

Whirlybird

15th Oct 2007, 12:31

How many instructors for example ask the student to make a practice call to D and D, allowing two way communications to be established and with D and D not only providing a fix but steerage en route?

The last time I told a student that I was going to call D & D and he should listen, they had a real emergency and wouldn't take a practice one! And come on now, I know they want more calls, but I can't really see them being over-enthusiastic about, "Mayday, Mayday, Mayday, my GPS won't work".

IO540
I explained what I should should go in, come out, and added that it ain't going to happen anyway due to vested interests.

You did? Where? I was really hoping you would, but I didn't think you had. I don't think Bravo73 thought so either, judging by his posts. So please tell us again.

Fuji Abound

15th Oct 2007, 14:06

The last time I told a student that I was going to call D & D and he should listen, they had a real emergency and wouldn't take a practice one! And come on now, I know they want more calls, but I can't really see them being over-enthusiastic about, "Mayday, Mayday, Mayday, my GPS won't work".

I'm not getting at anyone; I'm genuinely interested.

Hmm, well I doubt that Whirly.

You ask for constructive comments and profess to not having an agenda, but when you get some constructive comments cynically dismiss them.

As it so happens you obviously chose a bad moment with D and D. The fact is D and D are on record as encouraging exactly this sort of call.

One also wonder why you made the call - that is for the student to do - or perhaps you are one of those instructors who likes to interfere?

You should also consider that I suspect just about everyone but you would far rather your fledgling PPL owned up to D and D with exactly the call you so cynically dismiss, rather than end up infringing or getting himself into real problems.

Of course if the student had been properly instructed I don’t suppose he would have declared a Mayday.

The reason I raised this was because what ever means of navigation you use the evidence is that many fledgling PPLs end up lost at some point. It has NOTHING to do with being overly reliant on GPS or paper and pencil for that matter so get off the anti GPS hobby horse. In fact it is far more likely to happen to those without a GPS!

Now as it happens I fly with quite a lot of other pilots. I find it surprising how few have ever made a real call to D and D, and for how few it comes to mind as being in their armory as a means of getting out of trouble. Moreover, it is all very well to read about it, but in my opinion quite a useful exercise to do for “real”.

Take it to extremes and I personally reckon if you taught every PPL how to use a moving map GPS and how to install it properly in the cockpit and how to ensure the batteries did not run out in flight combined with a very light sprinkle of radio nav. hardly anyone would ever get lost or infringe and if those that did (get lost) knew how to get straight on to D and D and receive a steer the world would be a much happy place!

Anyway, I tried to give you my honest response to what I assumed was a sincere question - I am sorry you did not like the reply, and I shall not bother again.

IO540

15th Oct 2007, 14:34

How about this: Cut out the slide rule, bring in PC based flight planning (say Navbox), cut out map reading nav to the minimum, introduce GPS nav and VOR/DME. Do some serious cross country flights.

I would also cut out the silly scramble to go solo ASAP. That doesn't teach anybody anything, and wastes a lot of time getting ready to go solo.

Mad Girl

15th Oct 2007, 14:46

Fuji Abound
How many instructors for example ask the student to make a practice call to D and D, allowing two way communications to be established and with D and D not only providing a fix but steerage en route?

All instructors at my school :p

And....I've been signed out solo by instructors other than my usual guy and have always been asked - "Have you done a practice Pan" before they sign me out.

The reason I raised this was because what ever means of navigation you use the evidence is that many fledgling PPLs end up lost at some point. It has NOTHING to do with being overly reliant on GPS or paper and pencil for that matter so get off the anti GPS hobby horse. In fact it is far more likely to happen to those without a GPS!

I wasn't going to post this on Pprune..... but.... I did a solo navex two weeks ago and became "uncertain of position". I couldn't get 3 identifying references at my turning point so I orbited my position, looked harder, and still couldn't be sure (And I was totally and utterly terrified :eek:).

I was on a FIS with Bournemouth, so I just told them what had happened, and asked them to give me a bearing & distance to my "land away" airfield.

They did so, and came back to me again a few miles later to see if I was OK, but I still wasn't visual, so they gave me another bearing and distance AND they came back again to remind me that I was very close to the ATZ and did I want to change frequency.

I landed successfully, and chilled for a bit, before making the return journey with no problems.

All of the instructors have been very encouraging towards me and were GLAD that I did something about it rather than blundering on. "Some" other pilots however have seen it as a good opportunity to take the mickey out of a stude.

I personally feel that a lot of infringements are caused because Pilots see calling for help as a point of failure, rather than a positive step for getting yourself out of the :mad:.

Addressing THAT little "EGO/testosterone/perception" (delete as appropriate) issue would probably be of MORE benefit to GA than wondering if the Navigation syllabus should be changed.

But I'm only a student who got lost - and got myself out of it :p - so who am I to judge?

MG

Fuji Abound

15th Oct 2007, 15:00

Mad Girl - what a good, honest and refreshing post to see on here. Well done you!

I am also glad your instructor did some D and D work with you - there are some that do.

If you are not using a GPS moving map AND you are going places as a newish PPL chances are you will become "unsure of your position" at some point in time.

There is no shame owning up.

The trouble is heli pilots spend most of their lives reading the road signs anyway so they do their nav with a copy of the AAs first edition road atlas on their laps - they expect a steer to be a right turn at the next large blue sign saying "Watford Gap". Of course they should be "restricted" to only teaching other heli pilots nav.

Contacttower

15th Oct 2007, 15:06

Looking at what is variously called the "sports" market, many of these supposedly basic "VFR-only" ;) ;) machines are fully IFR equipped - better equipped than most certified spamcans.

Yes there are lots like that, but there are also plenty of planes flying around with nothing more than a W compass inside them. To an extent if you are going to have a uniform training syllabus for all group A aircraft you have to teach to the lowest common denominator in terms of equipment and at the moment that is DR and map reading.

IO540

15th Oct 2007, 15:37

Yes there are lots like that, but there are also plenty of planes flying around with nothing more than a W compass inside them. To an extent if you are going to have a uniform training syllabus for all group A aircraft you have to teach to the lowest common denominator in terms of equipment and at the moment that is DR and map reading

OK, so you do a bit of that.

But somebody doing a PPL in a plane with just a compass will never be able to get a PPL, because the PPL syllabus has some instrument flight. So, right away, we have an example where the desire of a pilot to only ever fly really simple stuff cannot be fulfilled.

The real Q is how far you want to allow this lowest common denominator in GA to drag everything down, to the point where a PP license is virtually useless after the initial novelty of being in the air has worn off.

Incidentally, one cannot do DR with just a compass, if there is any turbulence around. The thing wobbles around too much. So you can fly on really nice days only, or stick to visually familiar territory.

foxmoth

15th Oct 2007, 15:46

Incidentally, one cannot do DR with just a compass, if there is any turbulence around. The thing wobbles around too much. So you can fly on really nice days only, or stick to visually familiar territory.
What absolute rot, I have many hours just flying on a P2 compass (You should actually be using a watch as well:}) and the aircraft I have a part share in has no DI or Navaids other than a compass(OK it has a VOR on the Icom but that is more hassle than it is worth to use unless you realy need to) I have no problem flying it anywhere VFR in turbulence or not - but maybe that is because I was taught to fly properly without all the electronic gear to begin with.:8

BroomstickPilot

15th Oct 2007, 15:59

Hi IO540,

Incidentally, one cannot do DR with just a compass, if there is any turbulence around. The thing wobbles around too much. So you can fly on really nice days only, or stick to visually familiar territory.

Actually, if you have an aircraft with the old 'P Type' grid ring compass (about 5" in diameter) you can. When I did my PPL in 1960 all my nav was compass only DR; this was the usual method. I found the 'P Type' to be much more stable than the modern compass+DI combination.

Sadly, nowadays the 'P Type' will only be found in vintage aircraft.

'Nice meeting you last Saturday by the way.

Broomstick.

FullyFlapped

15th Oct 2007, 16:18

Well, I'd teach NAV and flight planning like this. I'd do the "draw the line on the map and work out your timings at speed X. Now find out what the wind's supposed to be at whatever height you're planning to fly. Now work out what heading you actually need to fly to stay on track given the wind."

Then I'd take Student X flying, along with a moving map GPS. By this I mean one which can be loaded with the electronic version of the CAA half (or quarter) mill charts, eg the Memory Map stuff on a tablet PC, as opposed to a "proper" GPS (eg 430 etc).

Now we set off, and the stude can see (and be shown) all sorts at a glance. What the wind speed and direction actually are, as opposed to what they were supposed to be. What's happening to his groundspeed and therefore timings. What's happening to his track, given the real wind, and what the effect is of applying various WCAs to regain track. Brilliant visual assistance.

Added to this, a great tool for teaching "ground to map" cross-referencing, how easy it is to bust airspace if you're not properly planned, UNOS effects, how bloody impossible some VRPs are to see and find etc etc etc.

Even great for initial instrument training. Hey look, you can see where we are in relation to that beacon : that's why the CDI is doing this ...

And the best bit : when you get back to debrief, actual performance can be reviewed on the screen against the PLOG/map/whatever, and any misunderstanding sorted out sharpish.:ok:

The planes don't have to be equipped with anything : these toys are portable, so there's no reason why every FI couldn't use one.

Just a better way to teach the common-sense stuff we all need, IMHO.

Personally, I'd make it mandatory ...
FF :ok:

Crash one

15th Oct 2007, 16:20

My opinion on this subject, for what it's worth is. If you teach GPS nav exclusively & to the nth degree, no reference to the outside world is required. The GPS will tell you where you are all the time, but you do not need to understand where that is, just "are we nearly there yet?" It would not be necessary to know which side of Manchester Liverpool is because all you want to know is "when are we going to reach Birmingham?".
So teaching an understanding of basic geography for the purpose of gross error checks for a start, Birmingham is north of London so the sun should be at our back most of the time, try to remember why that is, etc.
Shirley bog standard dead reckoning should come first, second & third, followed by anything the student may have a need for AFTER the GST at extra expense, at the student's discretion, equipment availability, etc.
If basic arithmetic were to be taught on a calculator to a five yr old, "you have four apples, two oranges & six bananas, is there the right number of bits of fruit in this basket?" If the kid hadn't been taught to count how would he know? Obviously talk to the appropriate ATC or call D&D if required but learn to be as independent as possible, just in case some plonker stuffs a missile into a satelite.
Just my opinion.

Contacttower

15th Oct 2007, 16:21

Incidentally, one cannot do DR with just a compass, if there is any turbulence around. The thing wobbles around too much. So you can fly on really nice days only, or stick to visually familiar territory.

There is some truth in that but hundreds of planes have successfully flow for many years without DIs and many continue to do so. There's a Super Cub that I fly from time to time and in it it has just a compass, nothing else and I manage. Granted it's a pain in turbulence (both the plane and the compass) but then I won't go flying in a plane like that when its bumpy anyway...I simply don't enjoy it.

I know this sounds silly and I think its probably related to what Mad Girl was alluding to earlier but I feel slightly insecure using GPS...it somehow seems like 'cheating', it seems to undermine my skill to navigate, I get more satisfaction from nav if I don't use it and inside I feel slightly proud that I don't usually use it. All completely unfounded of course...but I can't help feel it.

I agree though that well taught GPS has the potential to dramatically cut the number of CAS busts in this country and more should be on the PPL training.

high-hopes

15th Oct 2007, 16:37

I personally enjoyed my nav trips when training for my PPL. Going from A to B (usually overflying an area I had never been to) gave me some sense of achievement.

I don't understand what the problem is. On my PPL test I flew a leg of 63nm in light turbulence to an area I had never been before, got there within a minute of ETA and all thanks to a simple pen, ruler and watch exercise. I think it's fun, why would you want to take that away from pilots ?

I can learn how to use a Garmin at home for free on my PC, why would I want to spend hundreds of quid in the air using a GPS which teaches me nothing while I could be improving other skills, like handling, cockpit management and learning how to cope with the workload of navigating around weather and so ?

Contacttower

15th Oct 2007, 16:46

A thought has just struck me...if GPS is taught as the main navigation method then the number of PPLs will almost certainly decrease; modern spamcans are so easy to fly that DR is just about the only 'hard' aspect of light aircraft flying left (its certainly the only bit I found hard) and a major source of satisfaction in flying. Take that away and light aircraft flying really will become like Jeremy Clarkson described.

Crash one

15th Oct 2007, 16:58

It would also increase the cost of any subsequent flying post PPL as the pilot would REQUIRE an aircraft suitably equipped with an expensive piece of kit.
Edit: perhaps differences training (Limited panel) could be added later.

foxmoth

15th Oct 2007, 17:16

I agree though that well taught GPS has the potential to dramatically cut the number of CAS busts in this country and more should be on the PPL training.
I would agree with the first bit of this but think it should be taught as an optional extra either during the PPL or as an add on immediately after the PPL, but basic nav should be the compulsory bit during the PPL course, I even have no problem with allowing (but not compulsory) Radio nav/GPS in the nav test etc. provided the candidate does have to show he understands the basics.

Fuji Abound

15th Oct 2007, 17:32

I don't understand what the problem is. On my PPL test I flew a leg of 63nm in light turbulence to an area I had never been before, got there within a minute of ETA and all thanks to a simple pen, ruler and watch exercise. I think it's fun, why would you want to take that away from pilots ?

I can learn how to use a Garmin at home for free on my PC, why would I want to spend hundreds of quid in the air using a GPS which teaches me nothing while I could be improving other skills, like handling, cockpit management and learning how to cope with the workload of navigating around weather and so ?

Well I suppose you could learn DR at home on MFS just as well as the Garmin.
(although I agree there is a greater practical component in DR).

The "problem" with DR is that "newish" PPLs use DR to fly a series of straight and relatively short legs usually on routes where some inaccuracy is not going to cause a problem.

However, if you use your PPL to really go places you might find yourself flying far more complex routes between CAS where small errors become much more critical. That is not to say for one moment that it cant be done, but I suspect that is one of the occasions when infringements can so easily occur.

DR is certainly an enjoyable skill (for some) and if it is for you, you should go and join in one of the precision nav competitions. They are really good fun.

However, equally it is not something that interests everyone. Moreover on long trips personally I find it just become a complete pain. Why would I want to put effort into navigating when I simply want to get from A to B? More to the point I can guarantee you if you fly with others their interest will very quickly vanish if you spend "hours" planning every trip.

I suppose it is for this reason that so many people TomTom their way around the country now - you could argue map reading is enjoyable, but clearly most would not agree with you.

In short horses .. .. .. I suppose.

bjornhall

15th Oct 2007, 18:08

One could easily stand this on its head... If PPLs keep getting lost and end up busting Class !G when using DR and pilotage, wouldn't that be an indication that they need more and better training on that aspect, rather than less?

Secondly, do we really want to have a bunch of PPL students and PPLs flying around heads-down tinkering with their GPS rather than looking out the window? A fancy piece of kit like a KLN94 or GNS430 is way more complex than everything else on the panel combined, approaching an airliner FMC in user-complexity, too small in size to have a very ergonomical user interface, and IMHO drastically increases pilot workload. Maybe such gadgets are better left to learn after you already know how to fly... Provided "using the GPS" amounts to more than peeking occasionally at the moving map, if such is available in useable form (KLN89, anyone?).

Thirdly, the idea that using the GPS more would reduce airspace infringements seems perfectly obvious at first glance, but is there any data to suggest that is the case? Here in Sweden at least, such gadgets are quite common by now, with no noticable reduction in Class C busts... "No way, I can't have flown through the CTR; I was right on the magenta line the whole time!".

Also, considering the cost of keeping the database updated, the airspace data will usually be out of date anyway, still requiring you to cross check with your paper charts... A tad easier doing that if you're actually trained to use those!

Maybe the ideal amount of training for the GPS consists in learning how to switch it on, and how to make it show some sort of map view for use as a backup... Then, spend the effort on more worthwhile tasks: Flight planning (including weather, W&B and performance!), pilotage and DR. Using the GPS for airliner-style navigation, using leg modes and flight plans and what not, makes for an excellent optional post-PPL course at the flying club!

TheOddOne

15th Oct 2007, 18:35

Fuji Abound said:
One also wonder why you made the call - that is for the student to do - or perhaps you are one of those instructors who likes to interfere?

Fuji,
Having recently completed the Flight Instructor course, I can assure you that it is a part of that syllabus to learn how to teach making a call to D&D. A demonstration is given during a lesson, then the student will make the call on the next lesson, so it is perfectly correct for Whirly to make the call as a demo first.

Now, the subject in hand...
On the above mentioned course, I was told that the CAA are concerned that NAV isn't very well taught at the moment; whether or not they think this because of the number of CAS busts or because of feedback from examiners, I don't know.

The current thinking is:
1) work out your ded reckoning (incidentally, the CORRECT spelling is ded, not dead. It's derived from the word 'deduced', i.e. worked out in advance)
2) Write down your findings for referring to later, but not on the map, for reasons explained below
3) once airborne, over your local reference point (or overhead the aerodrome if that's what you do locally), set off on your first heading, noting the time. Use the map briefly for a gross error check (i.e. big town to the left, noth the right). Incidentally, the sun would have been completely useless for this purpose today, far too grey and gloomy when I was airborne, anyway.
4) FLY THE HEADING as accurately as possible, PUT THE MAP AWAY!!! I say again, PUT THE MAP AWAY.
5) When the time on your piece of paper says you might have reached a significant point, get the map out again and see how far away from that point you are. BTW, calling it a PLOG is only semantics, BEagle, it's only a notepad with nice lines printed on it to keep the info in order.
6) Work out your drift and time arror.
7) apply 1:60 corrections to either a) regain track or b) calculate new track and ETA for destination. I note above that the current thinking is now tending towards a). This I guess is to reduce CAS bust potential that larger errors might induce.

I personally think that this is a good way of teaching people the principles of navigation. I also think you need to learn this stuff in real-time whilst struggling to fly the a/c, to really bring it home in a way you can't in a ground classroom or in front of MFS.

Now, with my own personal flying, if on my own, I confess that I do use the GPS with cross-check to the map. Maybe the suggestion that an early post-PPL course should show how to do this is an idea, though I do find the conversion to GPS so bone-simple that almost the only things you need to learn are how to switch it on and which button brings up the map, how to enter waypoints etc; stuff you can pick up in moments yourself.

Whirly,
Goodness knows how you cope teaching all this stuff in a helicopter, when your fillings are being shaken out of your head (sounds like it on the radio, anyway). :}

Cheers,
TheOddOne

Contacttower

15th Oct 2007, 19:08

However, if you use your PPL to really go places you might find yourself flying far more complex routes between CAS where small errors become much more critical. That is not to say for one moment that it cant be done, but I suspect that is one of the occasions when infringements can so easily occur.

I think this is where GPS has its part to play...I remember trying to navigate around CAS using just the W compass and watch and getting frustrated that things weren't always spot on...OK I didn't infringe but it rather left me feeling; pilots in days gone by managed with just this why I am finding this so hard! but pilots of days gone day didn't have nearly as much CAS to deal with and if you got really lost you could just land in a field and ask for directions. The modern open FIR has so much stuff in it that really if you want to be sure of getting round drop zones, avoiding Danger areas etc etc without fail all the time then you need GPS.

Fuji Abound

15th Oct 2007, 21:03

To a degree this also boils down to what you are trying to teach pilots to do.

There was a debate on here about whether a new PPL should be able to fly to France, and then onto the south of France. My view is the training currently given would prove inadequate.

Consider another scenario.

Could a new pilot navigate himself down mig alley, take a left turn at Biggin, route his way around City, overhead Panshanger and through the Stansted, Luton gap to Duxford? Could he reliably do this using DR?

I use that route because to a new PPL it is a daunting prospect. Actually, there are loads of very clear ground features to cross check against and each leg is relatively short. However for a new PPL there is also plenty of other things requiring his attention through a very busy airspace sector. Add a busy Saturday, some haze and plenty of traffic to work the mark one eyeball and all sorts of opportunities for things to go wrong.

Teach the pilot to work that route using a moving map GPS and radio nav and he has a vital backup to DR at his disposal. Teach him to be prepared to ask D and D or Farnborough radar for help if need be and that is one more infringement avoided.

There are many reasons why PPLs quit. Two of these reasons are recognising they do not have the navigational skills to be confident to go anywhere far and the hassle associated with planning to go anywhere.

I recall when I started flying spending “hours” preparing plogs, drawing lines on maps, planning for every navigational contingency until one day I went flying with a BA chap, erstwhile RAF fast jet instructor. “Where do you want to go for lunch” he asked. I chose somewhere a couple of hours away. “I will go and do the plog” said I. “No time for all that” said he “we will be late for lunch”, and off we went.

So to get back to the question asked at the start of my post - can you teach the average person to become a pilot who is able to competently go places at the end of a PPL syllabus whilst also ensuring he can fly the aircraft safely? I think you can, but not if you expect him to rely on entirely DR for navigation.

That is why the syllabus needs changing.

timzsta

15th Oct 2007, 21:07

I have yet to come accross a Garmin equipped Cessna 150/152 at any flying club/school. Discuss.

Islander2

15th Oct 2007, 21:10

The OddOne said:
work out your ded reckoning (incidentally, the CORRECT spelling is ded, not dead. It's derived from the word 'deduced', i.e. worked out in advance)From the earliest days of our nautical past, you may or may not be correct, but a little more recent aeronautical context is good enough for me:

From 'Navigation for Pilots' by J.E. Hitchcock, 1997 (CPL Nav textbook): "Dead Reckoning"

From 'Air Navigation' by W.H.P. Canner, 1976 (GCE O-level Nav textbook - yes, really!): "Dead Reckoning"

From 'The Complete Air Navigator' by D.C.T. Bennett, 1936 (he of Pathfinder fame): "Dead Reckoning"

From 'Air Navigation' by P.V.H. Weems, 1931 (probably the pre-war text on aeroplane navigation): "Dead Reckoning"

Contacttower

15th Oct 2007, 21:13

But its difficult without making the course longer, as it is not that many manage it in 45hrs and I suspect that for the vast majority nav is the hang up...centainly for me it was. I don't know this but I suspect that many flying schools would object to DR being drastically reduced...GPS would be a welcome addition but I doubt clubs would want that to be at the expense of DR.

To an extent though GPS will force its way in...as the PA28s that have for so long been the backbone of the GA training scene in this country are slowly retired glass will start taking over...and GPS will simply have to be on the PPL syllabus.

High Wing Drifter

15th Oct 2007, 21:22

Fuji,

Could a new pilot navigate himself down mig alley, take a left turn at Biggin, route his way around City, overhead Panshanger and through the Stansted, Luton gap to Duxford? Could he reliably do this using DR?Errr, yes. No problem at all. I did the Circuit of London as a reasonably new PPL (36hrs P1 time). I am not trying to be smart, smug or a t*$$er, but they don't get any easier. Just look at what you have to use: contour that runs north of the Gatwick zone, the M25, Gravesend, the stacks over the Thames, Brentwood/Billericay, Stapleford, Potters Bar, the contours leading to Lewknor tower, Henley on Thames, Reading, etc.

As for your valid comment on spending ages doing PLOGs and stuff, the magic ingredient is mental dead(ded whatever) reckoning. The ability to wangle up numbers that work in minutes just with the old noodle can be quicker than fumbling with a device. Although, I would be the first to admit that a decent device like a 496 are bloody amazing pieces of kit. Not essential for what you value though. Is that the nav training gap!

Fuji Abound

15th Oct 2007, 21:38

Errr, yes. No problem at all. I did the Circuit of London as a reasonably new PPL (36hrs P1 time).

So let me see - 36 hours after your PPL - for some that is six month flying, for many even longer.

You are also exceptional - there are many PPLs who would not take on that route after 36 hours - believe me.

Just look at what you have to use: contour that runs north of the Gatwick zone, the M25, Gravesend, the stacks over the Thames, Brentwood/Billericay, Stapleford, Potters Bar, the contours leading to Lewknor tower, Henley on Thames, Reading, etc.

Yes it is -very easy - but if it were that easy Gatwick and City and Stansted would not suffer all the infringements they do - they dont make them up you know.

As for your valid comment on spending ages doing PLOGs and stuff, the magic ingredient is mental dead(ded whatever) reckoning.

Hmm, the problem is the syllabus has to accomodate the average person. Seems to me the average person cant read a map in their car these days hence all the Tomtoms hanging from rubber stickers

TheOddOne

15th Oct 2007, 22:03

Islander2
Have a look here

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mdeadreckoning.html

for further discussion and a reference to other textbooks giving 'ded' reckoning, including another also dated 1931...

Apparently this term dates back to the 17th century and the truth is lost in the mists of time. 'Ded' sounds more plausible to me; 'dead' just doesn't make as much sense.

Cheers,
TheOddOne

ps,
Thought I'd add this last sentence from the link above, in case you don't get that far down the page; maybe it sums up everything in this thread!

I feel compelled to note that in addition to dead reckoning there's also dud reckoning, the system I used that enabled me to get lost

foxmoth

15th Oct 2007, 22:14

Take a new (or even high hour) PPL trained to nav by VOR and GPS and put him in a Jodel with no navaids and he is F$*%^£D. Take a new PPL trained to nav by map, compass and stopwatch, put him in a fully equipped 172 - no problem, and there is nothing to stop him then learning to use all the kit to back up his basic skills - 10 hours later who will be the better at nav? Nothing wrong with all the gear but learn to navigate first:hmm:

LH2

15th Oct 2007, 22:39

Hmm, the problem is the syllabus has to accomodate the average person

No it doesn't. It has to teach prospective pilots to fly the airplane without major loss of life or equipment :uhoh:

Islander2

15th Oct 2007, 22:53

TheOddOne

Interesting link, many thanks.

My interpretation, though, would suggest that it's at least three-to-one in favour (or is that favor?) of 'dead'! :)

Saab Dastard

16th Oct 2007, 01:02

Could a new pilot navigate himself down mig alley, take a left turn at Biggin, route his way around City, overhead Panshanger and through the Stansted, Luton gap to Duxford? Could he reliably do this using DR?

Like HWD, I too did this - as an even lower hours new PPL! But then I had done some of it for my QXC.

So let me see - 36 hours after your PPL - for some that is six month flying, for many even longer. You are also exceptional - there are many PPLs who would not take on that route after 36 hours - believe me.

Thanks for the compliment, but it really isn't that difficult.

Difficult is finding Compton bleeding Abbas on a hazy day or with a low overcast without a GPS!! Done both, and it is SO much easier with GPS!

I like having the backup of a moving-map GPS, but my primary nav is still a map (with lines!) and a notepad / plog. I am sure that I will want to move on from that when I get to fly better-equipped and faster aeroplanes over longer distances. But at least I'll have had a solid foundation in de(a)d reckoning nav. for when the GPS goes blank!

SD

DFC

16th Oct 2007, 01:29

The problem with navigation is that one size does not fit all.

Line on paper map, line on electronic map, line over the ground given by a VOR..........they are all track lines and one still needs to navigate in a reasonable manner using the informnation provided and correct errors in an appropriate manner also.

I was amazed that the reference to one pilot navigation method "used in Vietnam" (and elsewhere) was dismissed or misunderstood when it is a perfectly valid and useful method of navigation known as "aiming off". Every navigator from orienteering runners to yacht sailors will have learned what aiming off is used for and more importantly - when it is usefull.

We teach pilots how the altimeter works because they need a basic understanding of that subject matter in order to navigate in a vertical sense.

We don't teach how lateral navigation works. Is that the problem?

Student pilots only get some scant information on "this is how it is done" and neither the trainer or the student have much knowledge of why it is done that way or if there are any alternatives.

I am amazed at how few pilots when posed with the following question can not instantly give the answer -

You start over point A and fly the following headings for various times as follows:

357 for 10minutes
276 for 10 minutes
163 for 10 minutes

If when the wind is calm you arrive over point B, what direction and distance will you be from B of the wind is 090/30?

Obvously everyone here will instantly give the answer. ;) However, the fact that many new PPLs would resort to plotting, the whizz wheel, or some PC spreadsheet which in part demonstrates where training is failing.

How many people are taught to calculate the safe height to fly at as 1000ft above everything within 5nm each side of track. Some are taught within 10nm each side. The problem is that no one can answer where the 5nm or 10 nm comes from or provide any justification for the figure they use.

Few pilots seem to realise that with most methods of navigation taught the need to have a position check every 6 minutes (for several reasons) and not at some 1/4 or 1/2 or so on fraction of the way along track.

The "you must fly accurate headings and times and never track crawl" is perfectly correct.

Track crawling and following a line feature are not the same.

How many pilots where taught that in some cases following a line feature will have many safety and workload limitations and also in other cases make the navigation more efficient?

If your rule is 1000ft above everything within 10nm, do you really have to be at 4000ft minimum when following the coast on the seaward side just because there is a 3000ft obstacle some 5nm inland? Does not keeping the coast on your (legal) left hand side not ensure that you will never hit the mountain?

If using DR to avoid some airspace, what is the margin you must use? 5nm would be sensible with 6 minute fixes and ICAO standard winds. However, with that nice Motorway to use as a handrail, one can fly closer to the boundary and still guarantee that one does not infringe?

All the above will no doubt be well known to experienced aviators here who also know that when one is lost over the South of France D+D will struggle to hear you so your "practice pan" won't be relevant but the ICAO (and UK) standard procedure is!

The question is why are the above not well understood by the PPL test candidate? or even the CPL test candidate in my experience!?

So more basic relevant navigation training is what I would require.

Please note that I have made no mention of where the information to fix the positionon of the aircraft is obtained (Visual, Radio, Satellite, Radar) because we do not teach altimetery by simply saying wind in the number that ATC gives you and read what the thing says (if no ATC to give a setting then call D+D).

Regards,

DFC

Miraz

16th Oct 2007, 02:16

For the pedants:-
The popular etymology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_etymology) from deduced is not documented in the Oxford English Dictionary or any other historical dictionary. Dead reckoning is navigation without stellar observation. With stellar observation, you are "live," working with the stars and the movement of the planet. With logs, compasses, clocks, but no sky, you are working "dead."

I'm currently working through my ppl nav as a student - should be doing my first solo nav this weekend.

I have a lot of experience (30,000+ miles under sail) with nautical nav ranging from modern fully automated systems through to celestial nav using nothing more sophisticated than a sextant and a timesource - the basic DR nav components of the ppl nav course are no different, probably simpler given that you are only correcting for wind instead of wind/current.

I've been flying a variety of aircraft ranging from the standard aging basic trainers 7GCBC/PA28/PA38/C152/C172 to a shiny whizbang G1000 fully integrated/automated C182T. (timzsta - so it's not a c15x....but close :-) )

My expectation is that I need to be able to navigate with the minimal amount of reliance on the aircraft's systems this effectively means map, compass, ASI, timesource.

I've been at sea several times when all the electronics have gone awol....in one case I was 1000nm offshore...it was essential to be able to do without the gizmo's. Having the same capability in the air increases the options that are open to me in extremis.

In my view the training is as much about developing an appropriate decision/thought process as it about the mechanics of performing the task.
I want to complete the training with a thorough understanding of the rationale behind the process along with some practical experience of implementing it.

I'd like to be able to make use of electronic facilities where they are available as mechanism for validating visual fixes, and/or re-establishing visual references if I've screwed up or I'm operating in areas where decent visual references are hard to come by. More points of reference at your command are rarely a bad thing provided you understand the limitations of the source.

DFC's post seems to line up pretty well with my views on teaching nautical nav too...the skills required for successful pilotage (navigation by visual ref) or dead reckoning should not rely on external assistance.

foxmoth

16th Oct 2007, 07:11

If your rule is 1000ft above everything within 10nm, do you really have to be at 4000ft minimum when following the coast on the seaward side just because there is a 3000ft obstacle some 5nm inland?

The 1,000' bit is really if you end up in IMC, if you can see your obstacle or have a marker such as the coast or a Motorway then there is no problem (except if it is terrain you need to think turbulence and downdrafts) in passing it a mile or less away at an even lower altitude than the obstacle itself. I have flown past the Membury mast (1200') at 600' before with a low cloudbase, no problem when following the motorway East.:ok:

IO540

16th Oct 2007, 08:03

I bet there have been lots of cases of flight into terrain in what would have been legal VMC, 3000m or 1500m (take your pick of the particular license privileges).

The most common fatal scud running situation probably is an entry into IMC but it's equally easy to get snookered into a no-way-out situation where there are hills all around. Add heavy rain or dense drizzle and there is little or no forward visibility, and bang! I guess this is why the FAA have the chandelle in the CPL - it's the ultimate way out of something like that.

The other day I flew a circling approach into a south coast airport, perfectly accurately I reckon, but with the GPWS going berserk (at least "she" has a nice voice) due to proximity of terrain, and I would never want to do this in rain.

Nice to have met you too Broomstick :)

On the main subject, this one will run and run.

At one end, we have the usual suspects, intimately familiar with their local area right down to knowing every sheep by her first name, and they can't see any reason for teaching anything beyond DR. Most of them never go very far. A few (very few) highly motivated (and I dare say way above average experienced and skilled) specimens have managed some really epic trips, and this is repeatedly used to support the argument that "you can go around the world with just a compass" etc.

At the other end, we have hundreds of major CAS busts every year, done by a fair cross-section of pilots. On top of that, we have many more pilots getting lost in a pretty decisive manner. Given that most new PPL holders chuck it in right more or less away, the cross-section of these people will include both newbies and old timers and everything in between. The fact is that DR fails to deliver the goods for the average pilot. Unfortunately this cannot be ignored because it is driving the regulatory pressure (mandatory Mode S etc).

In between the two, we have the average new PPL who is holding his piece of paper and is wondering what the hell he can do with it. It's a bit of a scary prospect. Stories of Euro 10,000 fines in France... He will have heard of GPS but doesn't dare use the 3-letter word in front of his instructor. GPS usage remains a mystery for many, with bollox scare stories about how you can get lost by pressing the wrong button, etc.

I don't see how GPS can be incorporated into PPL training without making installation mandatory in at least one plane per school, which they will resist fiercely.

My guess is that say 10-20 years hence, when most of today's spamcan fleet has been scrapped, GPS will be common in the training fleet and this will enable the modernisation.

Fuji Abound

16th Oct 2007, 09:53

I've been flying a variety of aircraft ranging from the standard aging basic trainers 7GCBC/PA28/PA38/C152/C172 to a shiny whizbang G1000 fully integrated/automated C182T. (timzsta - so it's not a c15x....but close :-) )

My expectation is that I need to be able to navigate with the minimal amount of reliance on the aircraft's systems this effectively means map, compass, ASI, timesource.

Why, oh why. I just don’t get to grips with this. However I accept it may be because you are new to aviation.

Aviation and sailing are completely different worlds in some ways. (Very similar in others).

In both yachts and aircraft GPS systems have improved enormously in terms of reliability. The Garmin unit I use has worked faultlessly for over 1,000 hours. If you follow certain basic rules concerning installation the kit is more reliable than most panel mounted stuff.

You should also appreciate that many panel mounted GPS are fully certified for en route navigation and for approaches. That sort of certification does not readily come about in aviation (:)) unless the powers that be are really satisfied that the kit is reliable.

With a G1000 I have two independent certified panel mount GPS systems and as it happens I have two handheld GPSs in my flying bag. That is one hell of a lot of redundancy. I can only imagine a loss of GPS navigation if the signal is corrupted in some way.

In that event I still have two VORs receiver, and NDB receiver, and a DME.

When all of that fails I have two radios and one hand held to provide steers from whatever D and D, FIS, or RIS service that might be available.

.. .. .. and if all of that fails I suppose I could get our my pen, paper and map.

Compare that level of fit and redundancy with a typical yacht.

Moreover, and importantly whilst accepting that most of the GA fleet is not where near as well equipped, when you are 1,000 miles offshore en route to Barbados with the rally fleet you have no way of calling up for a fix and a steer.

Your expectation of having to navigate with minimal reliance on the aircraft systems is unrealistic in anything with a reasonable fit of navigational equipment - in 1,000s of hours flying it will not happen.

Saab Dastard

16th Oct 2007, 10:13

I don't see how GPS can be incorporated into PPL training without making installation mandatory in at least one plane per school, which they will resist fiercely.

Have to agree with that! Nail, head etc.

My guess is that say 10-20 years hence, when most of today's spamcan fleet has been scrapped, GPS will be common in the training fleet and this will enable the modernisation.

Not so sure here, though - it is entirely possible that even with glass cockpits, the student will be told to "ignore all that pretty stuff in the middle, all you need to look at is these old instruments around the edges..." :hmm: :rolleyes:

SD

DFC

16th Oct 2007, 10:14

foxmoth,

I agree that you are totally correct in saying that at an appropriate speed in VMC i.e. a speed that permits you to see atleast 2 minutes ahead and be in a positon that you do not need to look inside for very long, visually avoiding obstacles is no problem and you can quite safely fly below the level of the mast top in your example.

However, your answer straight away shows one of the most common areas of ppl VFR navigation that is misunderstood or not taught correctly and needs more standardisation and guidance from the CAA. The CAA has issued some guidance in that it reminded everyone that for VFR flights it is not a minimum safe level (something for IMC) but the minimum safe level to fly at.

Why? - Well as IO540 quite correctly pointed out, the basic PPL going IMC enroute is the quickest way (seconds the experts who have measured the average say) to loss of control and likely death.

What the level is used for is a line beyond which you will not normally go i.e. if you are forced to fly lower and lower by the weather in order to remain within your VFR weather minima then finding that you are being forced below the pre-planned minimum safe level is a great indication that it is now time to turn back / divert. If this is complied with promptly then (in the UK atleast) it is unlikely that you will be forced to fly lower than 500ft AGL while diverting to a suitable enroute alternate and thus be forced into a precautionary landing.

Coupled with this is the rather silly situation that many students present a navigation log (plog) that is very nicely planned and everything is there with one glaring problem (again not properly taught / understood by many of the trainers) - an alternate which requires one to fly past the destination!!!.................so I say "OK, you have C as your alternate because if the weather is less than VMC and you can not land at B, you will divert to C?" and the answer is a confident "Yes and I have the fuel required". Sorry but if the weather is below VMC in the area round B, please explain how you will pass it in VMC and get to C. (Yes I know there are circumstances when it is required - wind being a good one) but overall, the theory behind diversion planning is not taught correctly.

How many PPLs mark the half way mark on a 100nm flight from A to B at the 50nm mark? What use is that? if there is a head or tailwind component, at 50nm you are not equal time from A and B....thus faced with a diversion for say sick passenger or a slightly rough engine may not be made to the closest in terms of time aerodrome. Ask them if the aerodrome 50nm to the side of track is quicker in time terms than continuing to B or returning to A and most PPLs will have to resort to the wizz wheel whn a bit of simple chart marking would give an instant answer!

How many PPLs understand why there is no requirment for an alternate aerodrome on a VFR flight and how this works?

All these things are simple basic navigation issues that are usefull when properly used. But they are not covered in PPL training.

-------

IO540,

I agree with your point saying that navigation training needs to be more relevant. The UK must be one of the few places that every bit of the navigation training (with the exception of 1 exercise which is completed solo) is based on taking off from and landing back at the aerodrome of departure!!!

The Skill test requires the student to plan a basic triangular flight (two legs and at some stage expect a diversion) and off we go. This does not check the pilots planning at all and is of little value in checking pre-flight planning and execution of a normal flight from A (aerodrome) to B (aerodrome) that at some stage has to divert to C (suitable aerodrome). Sad thing is that the CPL is no better!!!

Is it no wonder then that the new PPL has not got a clue about how to actually complete a flight from A to B?

---------

Someone above asked that foreign AIPs be included in the training so that a pilot can use the French AIP or the German AIP when planning a trip abroad. Well once again we have highlighted another failing - Everyone who has passed Air Law and the Navigation exams (theory and practical) should know that every country's AIP is laid out in a standard format and if you find the information for XYZ in ENR 5.1 of the UK AIP then the same info for Germany will be in ENR 5.1 of the German AIP................but of course when most PPLs are using a Pooleys, AFE, Bottlang or other third party guide with probably never looking at the AIP in planning, one can see that many PPLs are straight away limited to the Pooleys coverage!

If you can navigate to a point over the horizon then in navigation terms there is noting to stop you repeating that as often as it takes to fly round the world. However, the Navigation subject is not simply about pointing the nose in the right direction, checking the time and after a quick correction, arriving at the point that was previously over the horizon.

Someone else mentioned that dreaded word - Lost!!

Define "lost".

I only know of 2 or 3 pilots that were lost and in all cases they were IMC or VMC with no ground contact.

If you are flying VFR in ground contact over Britain, unless you cross a large bit of water, you are still over Britain. Since you know you are over Britain then you are not lost since you know where you are. You may not be able to ensure that you are keeping within your planned limit of 5nm or 10nm of track and you may not be able to update your eta to within 3 minutes but you can quite quickly reduce the area from Britain to England to within a few counties.

Again how many PPLs are shown that if the wind is 30Kt or less and one flies at say 120Kt, even if you never look out the window, the most you can be off track is 30nm after 1 hour.........check where you are after 6 minutes and the most you can be off track is?

Navigation is taught as 90% practice (of limited skill sets) and 10% theory. It is actually 40% theory/ ground work/ practice, 40% confidence and 20% practice.

Could it be that the 90% / 10% system is more profitable for the schools?

The FAA did (perhaps they still do) require a PPL test candidate to plan a VFR flight from departure to a destination close to the endurance limit of the aircraft in 45 minutes. Great idea. Pitty, many PPLs on this side get through training with hours of "planning" for a 1 hour triangular flight in the local area.

Finally, I have heard several mantions of a 45 hour PPL course? No such thing under EASA / or JAR. The training sylabus for the PPL is far less - one simply needs 45 hours to get the licence. What is not often quantified is the amount of ground training required and as I said above "Navigation" should be mostly ground training.

Regards,

DFC

DFC

16th Oct 2007, 10:47

Fuji,

Are you saying that the method you use to determine the position of the aircraft (visual, radio, radar or satellite) is the only issue in Navigation?

Or are you saying that Navigation is different if you know you are over "Small Town" because you loked at the Map and identified it as "Small Town" or you see that the GPS says you are .0000001nm from "STOWN" or that you are on the 270 radial at 5nm from the Big VOR which puts you over Small Town or that the Radar unit you are talking to says you are over "Small Town".

I think all you are saying is that GPS will in the majority of cases be correct. But so will a well trained and well practiced map reader.

The GPS will not tell you that heading to fly to get to the next turn point over the horizon.

The GPS will never (well almost never) tell you if it is quicker to divert to the aerodrome ahead, or the one behind or the one to the side.

The GPS will not give you an accurate ETA at your destination unless you are flying directly to it.

GPS is a source of (very usefull) infornation. It is not a "Navigator" and can not replace Navigation Skills.

The GPS is included in the PPL course. However, it has to be very generic because of the variety of units and methods of display etc.

DR and Visual Navigation are not the same thing. DR is something you rely on between fixes (seeing where you actually are). GPS, VOR/DME, the Map and Ground all give a constant indication of where you are. The amount of DR required depends on how long the time periods are between using the GPS or VOR/DME or Map and Ground to determine actual position. Following on from that, one can see that one can constantly check (look at) the source and have no DR or one can infrequently check the source and have a long period of DR. The balance has to be on how much DR is used to keep one self within the desired distance from track and how much time one spends "head inside" i.e. not looking out!

Regards,

DFC

High Wing Drifter

16th Oct 2007, 10:47

Fuji,

Thanks also for the complement, but I can assure you that compared to the people I have flown and trained with, I am not in any way exceptional. Just properly trained, which is the theme of this thread. Therefore, there is something wrong with the training given elsewhere.

IO,

I suspect the vast majority of CAS busts are down to planning. I'm not talking about three hours of intense study. I just mean sufficient consideration of chart, terrain, weather and operational considerations (just remember "C-TWO or C2"). This is the basic stuff that was mentioned earlier in the thread as lacking during training, such as how to use AIS, get an efficient PIB, know where to find information in the AIP/SUP, the relevance of the AICs, etc.

DFC,

I think you've identified a valid issue, which is lack of explanation as to why certain techniques are adopted. The ongoing confusion over VFR MSA is one such. Let it be said that in legal terms there is no such thing, so this is going to be somebodies hobby horse at the end of the day and judging by the frequent references to it on PPRUNE, many do not understand why they have that number. There is however, an objective description of the use of a notional MSA explained in the Safety Sense leaflets.

So can we add "Planning Resources" and "Technique Rationale" to the new PPRuNE certified syllabus?

Contacttower

16th Oct 2007, 10:48

Perhaps nav training should include much longer flights, some clubs offer closs channel check outs for PPLs, but why not include these in the intial training? It may seem excessive but if many people are stopping flying just because they haven't the confidence to go anywhere then they should be shown that actually long distance flying is not as daunting as it sounds. GPS would have to come into this.

Not so sure here, though - it is entirely possible that even with glass cockpits, the student will be told to "ignore all that pretty stuff in the middle, all you need to look at is these old instruments around the edges..." :hmm: :rolleyes:

I recently took a flight in a DA40 in California...full glass. People doing the PPL skills test in it are expected to use the GPS (it may fail though during the test ;)) with the assumption being that students must be taught how to make full use of everything in the cockpit. As long as they know how to deal with a failure its maddness to ignore GPS if you have it in the plane.

foxmoth

16th Oct 2007, 10:49

The CAA has issued some guidance in that it reminded everyone that for VFR flights it is not a minimum safe level (something for IMC) but the minimum safe level to fly at.
Quite agree, but this is not the 1,000 ft within 10nmls. I would agree totally with having a minimum height that you use as a nudge to decide to go on or not but the IMC minima is too often used instead of looking at things sensibly and can vary on situation - 800' cloudbase as you go over hills with 5 miles before destination that you have called up and is giving clear wx - no problem, same base but 30 miles to go and higher ground all the way ahead - maybe time to turn back. Many will also have a leg minimum height that is based on an obstacle near the start of the leg, IMC you need to do this, but VFR is it always sensible to use this (Sometimes it is in case you do need to turn back) They used to call this airmanship!:cool:

AfricanEagle

16th Oct 2007, 11:00

My two cents worth.

I may be living "out of time" but for me training should be good detailed basic dead reckoning training (compass, watch & map) and then how to use a gps as a back up.

I 've been all over southern Europe, from the Black Sea to Spain, using only maps, compass and watch, with the occasional ndb and vor for cross check. Never had a problem and have never busted any airspace (fellow flyers with gps often have on the same routing).

Regarding flying computed track @ the appropriate speed and ignoring the WCA and then turning over expected target and heading into the wind to find the target it is easly done and very effective (not useful though in cluttered airspace). Used it to get to Sarajevo once when sent up to FL105 on top in a C152 and the vor wasn't working and I didn't have a gps.

But my first instructor was a ex WWII bomber pilot and I was taught to feel the aeroplane, taste the wind, always be aware of my position, and to keep looking outside.

Fuji Abound

16th Oct 2007, 11:09

I think all you are saying is that GPS will in the majority of cases be correct. But so will a well trained and well practiced map reader.

Exactly, but note my emphasis.

The fact that so many infringements occur is because ground features are misidentified.

We have to be realistic.

How many hours does the average PPL fly a year?

How many of those hours are outside the local cabbage patch where, as IO said, they know every sheep personally?

The fact is GPS used correctly tells you 99.99% of the time precisely where you are and for that reason alone a generic appreciation of its use and the associated pitfalls should be in the syllabus.

Contacttower

16th Oct 2007, 11:14

should be in the syllabus.

I think we all pretty much agree on that...but as you've said earlier not all clubs have the equipment and what about those who still want to do their PPLs on Tiger Months and Super Cubs (which a few clubs still offer).

IO540

16th Oct 2007, 11:18

DFC wrote:

The GPS will never (well almost never) tell you if it is quicker to divert to the aerodrome ahead, or the one behind or the one to the side.

The GPS will not give you an accurate ETA at your destination unless you are flying directly to it.

The above bits, DFC, show that you do not fly a plane. Maybe you used to (you once wrote you used to be a CAA examiner, which I can well believe) but you don't in the current model aircraft/equipment GA scene.

Any moving map GPS will show the airfields around you. The indication will not be wind corrected but for short distances this doesn't matter. The good ones, with an air data computer coupled, will show a wind corrected glide range perimeter, too.

Every GPS I have ever flown with which had a facility for loading a route into it (which was all of them - not the camping-shop junk which some pilots fly with) would show the ETA at destination, based on the programmed route ahead. The weakness there is that the projected ETA is based on the current GS but again that is immaterial for most UK flying. It matters on long legs across Europe, but few people will push their endurance that close to the line. The most I have ever seen was a change of ETA of about 20 mins due to the wind change over a 600nm route.

HWD - I agree re planning. I suspect most busts happen when somebody is either well lost or have departed from the planned route to look at something interesting...

Contacttower - how can you do a PPL on a tiger moth and still meet the instrument flight requirements of the PPL syllabus?

Contacttower

16th Oct 2007, 11:28

Contacttower - how can you do a PPL on a tiger moth and still meet the instrument flight requirements of the PPL syllabus?

I was wondering that myself...but Clacton Aero club offers PPL on the Super Cub and Cambridge on the Tiger Moth. Maybe they do the instrument flight on another plane or in the sim, I don't know? It is possible to do a 180 turn using just the slip and turn, clock and the compass so maybe thats how its done :E.

foxmoth

16th Oct 2007, 11:57

Certainly used to teach IF on Tiger Moths - they even had a hood that went right over the rear cockpit so you could not see out!

Miraz

16th Oct 2007, 12:15

Why, oh why. I just don’t get to grips with this.

1. Many of the aircraft I'm likely to fly are not kitted out with modern navaids - in theory at the completion of the ppl I'm qualified to set off cross country in them....so I'd like to be comfortable with the lowest common denominator.
2. Even if the kit is fitted, it still might break ;)

In the event of a primary electrical failure then I've got 20-30 mins of standby power before losing everything except A/H, altimeter, airspeed and compass including all the radios. The avionics components themselves are pretty reliable, but it's still more difficult to guarantee power supply. It's not sufficiently unlikely that it's worth betting against is it?

Even if I'm lucky enough never to have anything critical go astray with the equipment, I'm still left with #1 - maybe there will come a point where it is just an intellectual exercise with little practical benefit, but I don't think we are there yet.

A fool with a tool is still a fool....

Fuji Abound

16th Oct 2007, 13:21

In the event of a primary electrical failure then I've got 20-30 mins of standby power before losing everything except A/H, altimeter, airspeed and compass including all the radios. The avionics components themselves are pretty reliable, but it's still more difficult to guarantee power supply. It's not sufficiently unlikely that it's worth betting against is it?

Yes, but analyse the scenario.

If you are flying with a G1000 you are probably left with an AI, a magnetic compass and an altimeter.

If you are in IMC that is an emergency, pure and simple. You would establish visual if you could, and if you couldn’t there are alternatives not relevant to this discussion.

Having got yourself visual, as you have indicated you have some standby power. You know where you are and will presumably divert to your nearest.

Whilst I would agree that would involve a modicum of very simple DR and visual navigation it is hardly difficult.

2wit I am not suggesting these basic skills should not be taught, more than the syllabus seeks to deliver a pilot that has been persuaded he is competent to set off on complex cross countries relying on DR and VN and not get "lost" and yet he is not equipped to use a GPS because its generic application has not been taught as part of the syllabus.

Of course I could add that you would whip out your spare GPS from your flight bag purchased on eBay for less than the cost of an hours flying :).

homeguard

16th Oct 2007, 13:25

I'm old enough to carry a certain amount of paranoia with regard to being slow to appreciate new technology and ideas. When challenged on threads such as these I give the arguements considerable thought. I have no wish to become a dyed in the wool philistine.
I understand the pro reasoning toward more emphasis on such as GPS. However, marvelous as GPS and the like are these tools are simply that, that is a tool for carrying out standard navigation more simply (perhaps) with all the data that you need at hand in the box. GPS is in many ways a convenience that does much of the work for you and why not, I agree.
Those of you who are disparaging of Dead Reckoning let me ask you this. If you delegate a task to another to do your work for you, do you - then not bother to have any knowledge of what is being done in your name? Or do you ensure that you have at least some basic knowledge of what is being done in your name? I would hope the later.
The basics of navigation must be taught and proven to a student by discovery - the definition of the the word 'discovery is the; gaining of knowledge from endeavor. From the knowledge which is practised comes true understanding and confidence in what you are undertaking.
The pitfuls and the benefits of VOR/ADF/GPS and Loran are with good basic grounding easily taught. How the individual box of GPS tricks work will vary until standardisation and each pilot, must to put simply, read the instruction manual. The owner will then know it as well as any instructor may.
My conclusion then is that basic navigation training must continue and therefore GPS etc could only be part of the additional navigation training already currently undertaken in Ex18-Radio Navigation.

IO540

16th Oct 2007, 13:33

My conclusion then is that basic navigation training must continue and therefore GPS etc could only be part of the additional navigation training already currently undertaken in Ex18-Radio Navigation.

I don't think anybody disagrees!

Miraz - this is not a problem. You either have a vacuum powered AI or an AI powered by a second alternator or something like that. So, with a handheld radio, and a handheld GPS, you have all you need to fly, navigate and communicate. IF somebody is flying IFR in actual IMC they must be appropriately prepared. Anyway, comms is not essential - that is what the lost comms procedure is for.

If one was flying a plane with an electric AI which is powered from the one and only bus (are there any like that???) and you were in IMC and you lost the electrics you would be stuffed - but that is not a realistic scenario. And if you lost the lot, in IMC, you would not be dead reckoning ;)

foxmoth

16th Oct 2007, 14:09

If one was flying a plane with an electric AI which is powered from the one and only bus (are there any like that???) and you were in IMC and you lost the electrics you would be stuffed - but that is not a realistic scenario.

Yes there are actually many aircraft like that - but you are not "stuffed" because that is why you have a vacuum driven Turn indicator - you may then want to use your compass and stopwatch to get yourself to a safe area (e.g. over the sea) to let down.:hmm:

IO540

16th Oct 2007, 14:23

Yes there are actually many aircraft like that - but you are not "stuffed" because that is why you have a vacuum driven Turn indicator

OK, but that's obviously the same scenario I described - one electric and one vac, and either is good enough to keep wings level.

One doesn't need a horizon - the altimeter or the ASI are each good enough for level flight.

Fuji Abound

16th Oct 2007, 14:24

How the individual box of GPS tricks work will vary until standardisation and each pilot, must to put simply, read the instruction manual. The owner will then know it as well as any instructor may.

I dont agree.

There are many features regarding the use of a GPS which are generic.

It is not complicated but should never the less be covered.

DFC

16th Oct 2007, 14:43

IO540,

I find it amusing that you throw out your regular attack when you have no real way of rebutting a comment made.

More amusing is that while you say;

DFC wrote:

The GPS will never (well almost never) tell you if it is quicker to divert to the aerodrome ahead, or the one behind or the one to the side.

The GPS will not give you an accurate ETA at your destination unless you are flying directly to it.

The above bits, DFC, show that you do not fly a plane. Maybe you used to (you once wrote you used to be a CAA examiner, which I can well believe) but you don't in the current model aircraft/equipment GA scene.

You then go on to contradict yourself and agree with what I said;

The indication will not be wind corrected .....The weakness there is that the projected ETA is based on the current GS

Most of the GPs units that PPLs use are handheld. That is going to continue for quite a period unless vast amounts are going to be paid on modifications. Unless you expect PPLs to spend even more time in the cockpit putting in the heading and TAS (or IAS, QNH and altitude in some cases) the most common GPS that a PPL is going to use is not going to have a clue what the wind is.

Why do you argue that people should get out more and do longer flights (like great aviators such as you do) and not simply stick in the old back yard (like the other soon to give up pilots do)....but when it suits your agrument, you will dismiss a point because it is not applicable to flying round your back yard.

Finally, remember that your epic journeys are hardly past the back door step of other pilot's back yard :D

Regards,

DFC

micromalc

16th Oct 2007, 15:31

hi,
hate to be over simplistic here, but,surely the more system and methods one knows the less chance of a mishap.

Contacttower

16th Oct 2007, 18:09

Of course, but as always with these discussions the devil is in the detail. :E

AfricanEagle

16th Oct 2007, 18:31

Long thread. Original question was "what nav to teach a PPL".

Maybe we should define who is a PPL pilot and what is the majority of the type of flying that is done.

If we are talking of a youngster getting a licence to become an airline pilot I'd say to definitely emphasize the use of systems (gps).

If we are talking of someone interested in getting a licence for the fun of flying VFR, with an occasional long flight, definitely map, compass and watch, gps as a backup.

If we are talking about someone getting a licence to fly himself on business trips in ernest, that type of person will probably get to know how to use a gps better than the instructor.

Basic navigation, once learnt properly, stays with you.

Using a gps means you have to stay current on the equipment, just like on the aeroplane. If you fly little and far between, you forget the menus and which buttons to push.

IO540

16th Oct 2007, 20:58

If you fly little and far between, you forget the menus and which buttons to push.

I think most pilots would forget how to fly the plane, before they would forget how to read the text on the GPS moving map.

Pressing the ON button, and looking at a picture, is a skill which most people get plenty of practice in outside of aviation.

Visual navigation is a skill too; a considerable skill. There are lots of things to do right: picking waypoints which are unambiguous, not getting distracted (forget to reset the stopwatch and you have probably lost the plot), flying an accurate heading.

And these debates are always distorted by those who know their local area, and/or who are old experienced pilots flying slow planes at low level.

Gertrude the Wombat

16th Oct 2007, 21:05

I think most pilots would forget how to fly the plane, before they would forget how to read the text on the GPS moving map.

Pressing the ON button, and looking at a picture, is a skill which most people get plenty of practice in outside of aviation.

Well, on good days I can remember how to fly the plane, but I haven't a hope of getting anything useful out of the GPS without re-reading the manual before the flight. And even then it was several minutes of pushing buttons and twiddling knobs at random before I could get it to let me fly "same route, in reverse" last time I bothered to switch the thing on. I suppose I'd better take the manual into the aircraft next time, bit boring for passengers though.

These things have the most horrible user interface ever invented. (And I speak as one who has descended to programming in XSLT on occasion, so I know what I'm talking about.) Good thing I plan with map, with VORs and NDBs as backup, so it doesn't matter when I can't get the GPS to behave itself.

EvilKitty

16th Oct 2007, 22:44

IO540 said:
Visual navigation is a skill too; a considerable skill. There are lots of things to do right: <snipped for brevity/> flying an accurate heading.

I'm fairly sure you didn't mean it to come across this way, but it does sound awfully close to "you don't need to fly accurately with a GPS, just follow the white rabbit".

Gertrude the Wombat said:
descended to programming in XSLT on occasion

Well done that man! Dried frog pill anybody?

FullyFlapped

16th Oct 2007, 22:52

DFC :

The GPS will not tell you that heading to fly to get to the next turn point over the horizon.

The GPS will never (well almost never) tell you if it is quicker to divert to the aerodrome ahead, or the one behind or the one to the side.

The GPS will not give you an accurate ETA at your destination unless you are flying directly to it.

I believe that you are wrong on all of the above counts, but perhaps I misunderstand your meaning. I have portable equipment which provides me with all of the above, as well as panel-mounted gear.

Would you care to expand ?

FF :confused:

bjornhall

17th Oct 2007, 05:45

I believe that you are wrong on all of the above counts, but perhaps I misunderstand your meaning. I have portable equipment which provides me with all of the above, as well as panel-mounted gear.

Would you care to expand ?

He means that most GPS units don't know about the wind, since nobody has told them the airspeed. So they can give you track, but not an accurate heading; distance, but not an accurate time.

IO540

17th Oct 2007, 06:56

The most charitable explanation is perhaps this:

If say the GPS map shows two airports which are both at the same radius on the GPS map, the time to fly to each of them will likely differ - obviously - according to the wind direction. In practice this difference is not significant unless one is looking at a huge diversion, say 200nm, or a very slow aircraft.

The more subtle one is the way a GPS calculates the ETA to the destination. And, if a fuel flowmeter is connected to it, the way it calculates the FOB (fuel on board) at destination. It assumes that your current GS will be maintained for the rest of the route. For typical UK flights, say under 200nm, this is a fairly good assumption partly because the wind isn't going to change that much and partly because one (obviously) tends to fly the whole route in the same direction! If however you flew a route with some drastic track changes, perhaps even folding back onto itself, and it passed through different weather systems, then the ETA will be less accurate. Whether this matters depends on how close to the line you do your fuel planning, and how much you rely on your fuel totaliser :) The longest leg I have flown was about 900nm and it wasn't relevant (to safety) even then.

So, a GPS will never give you an accurate ETA to destination, even if you are flying directly to it - because it doesn't know the wind enroute ahead of you. That is surely obvious. But neither will DR, which relies on the figures in F214 which are not normally accurate, potentially corrected by timing the last leg(s) flown. Nobody knows the wind ahead.

A somewhat suprising thing is that the above operation is what you get even if you have an air data computer. With an ADC, the GPS could work out a more accurate ETA, by assuming the current wind will be maintained for the remainder of the flight, which is generally a better bet than assuming the current GS will be maintained. But the manufacturers have chosen to not implement this feature; perhaps because it makes so little difference in practice (because most of any given flight is in the same direction, assuming constant GS approximates to assuming constant wind).

FullyFlapped

17th Oct 2007, 07:21

He means that most GPS units don't know about the wind, since nobody has told them the airspeed. So they can give you track, but not an accurate heading; distance, but not an accurate time.
Hmm. Seems to me that you need to look more closely at the track projection facilities available with several systems : using this it's been my experience that it's possible to very accurately assess the wind direction, and wind speed can then be calculated easily enough using indicated GS and calculated TAS. Stick these two facts into (for example) Flitemap (which you're also using as your moving map GPS) and it will very accurately dynamically adjust ETAs for leg and whole trip.

As to nearest diversion airport, the "nearest" function (strangely!) gives you a list with distances : and since you already know the wind ...

Was that what you meant, DFC ?

FF :ok:

High Wing Drifter

17th Oct 2007, 08:45

I really think this should be a thread about the PPL syllabus and not just about navigation.

IO540

17th Oct 2007, 09:30

This comes down to politics, which as they say is the art of the possible :)

In Europe everything gets gold plated, hence we have the 6 or 7 JAA exams, which are mostly irrelevant crap.

One could start with ICAO requirements and then look at how the required level of competence (a trendy word these days) can be delivered (another trendy word) without breaching ICAO.

One problem is that even the few regulars here cannot agree on what sort of competence is required. Some think that being able to fly a plane and do simple DR is enough. Others (like me) think the pilot should be able to do that and also be able to confidently go somewhere cross-country, using radio navigation.

Let me suggest a starting point: the FAA approach evidently works, so why not adopt that?

FF - interesting you use Flitemap too :) I haven't used the moving map feature for a long time. I used it to run the raster charts when I used to fly VFR around Europe.

Contacttower

17th Oct 2007, 09:59

Let me suggest a starting point: the FAA approach evidently works, so why not adopt that?

But does it really?...The average time to complete a PPL in the US is longer than it is in the UK, obviously it is bound to be considering the extra bits in the course and most people here seem against the idea of making the course any longer than it already is. Also I don't think the standard of flying in the US is actually that high, they still have plenty of CAS busts and accidents.

The General Aviation industry in America actually has some political power and the flying enviroment over there is much more GA friendly, lack of landing fees, cheap fuel etc etc and I think that explains why the FAA approach appears to 'work' rather than what is actually on the PPL course. (Although I admit you could turn that on its head)

foxmoth

17th Oct 2007, 10:04

I really think this should be a thread about the PPL syllabus and not just about navigation.

Quite agree, IMHO the Nav in the PPL should be taught as is (though maybe better than some instructors seem to manage) i.e. Map, watch and compass, the GPS (which properly used is a great tool) can be taught during the PPL, but should only be done once a student has shown a proper understanding of the basics and should not actually be part of the syllabus. Schools should offer a short GPS and/or radio nav course and encourage people to do this ASAP after completing their PPL. :8

Contacttower

17th Oct 2007, 11:11

I really think this should be a thread about the PPL syllabus and not just about navigation.

So what else should we add or take away? Many would argue that there is nothing wrong with the syllabus but simply that it is not aways well taught. :E

High Wing Drifter

17th Oct 2007, 12:19

I've already taken the floor and mentioned a more explicit training on Planning Resources and Technique Rationale. They directly affect the quality of nav to a far greater degree than the use of GPS/DR/Pilotage/radnav/etc. :}

Droopystop

17th Oct 2007, 14:36

In my opinion, the most important factor must be to teach the instructors to navigate properly. Then teach them to teach it properly. It is a subject which wasn't adequately covered when I did my instructors course, and I think I did a pretty poor job of teaching it.

I think the real reason why people give up flying is the fact it doesn't offer the level of freedom that we all dreamt of before we started. Those of us who stuck with it know that the level of freedom increases with experience and more particularly when we get better at navigating.

I think a creative instructor could rearrange the way a ppl is taught to increase the amount of cross country and therefore nav that is done prior to the LPC. As IO said an eon ago, the rush to solo should be tempered somewhat - the confidence gained in going solo is important but should not be rushed at.

All the traditional stuff should still be taught in class, there should be more practical work done in the air and should include some very basic Radio nav tracking (ie RMI/ADF). The use of GPS should also be covered in a basic generic way.

But I think it would be wrong to make the jump to teaching the use of fancy moving maps. To do so would make students feel they need to spend 4 hours worth of flying on a black box, when a 1 hour basic hand held can obtain most of the work load reduction that a moving map does. After all, if one has planned the route properly and input the waypoints properly, all you need in the air is a check that your actual track matches your track on the chart.

Oh and most of all use a decent chart. A well folded quarter mil is infinitely superior to a half mil for VFR nav at spam can speeds.

gasax

17th Oct 2007, 15:38

I think droopy is on the right track, the last couple of instructors I have flown with have barely left the local area and the concept of a light aircraft wandering (I know, I know - I mean not being pressured to met a schedule!) to southern Europe is completely outwith their experience, ability and imagination.

I fly largely to look out the window and so whilst I have a line, I use 'pilotage' a technique often sniffily dismissed as 'track crawling'. Well it may be to an extent, but I know where I am, where I'm going, how long it will take and with the addition of a GPS then gives me a smug feeling when I read these threads.

Basic pilotage and DR will prety much always work and are a very necessary basis. GPS is a near magicval machine when you have a good one and I can easily see the concern that relying upon it means all the rest decays, how true that is I don't know after a while it is pretty easy to find landmarks which in a particular environment are still reliable (ie don't use lakes in Canada or villages or disused airfields in East Anglia).

Certainly I think being able to use the functionality of an advanced GPS is handy - but is determining the windspeed aloft really that important? I've done it for academic interest but realistically it makes no difference.

Being able to recognise where you are is however pretty much essential.

Contacttower

19th Oct 2007, 16:01

On a slightly different note....has anyone ever been taught a formula of rule of thumb for how far something is an (airfield for example) from the aircraft if it's sitting on the wingtip/half way down the wing? (considering height and wing length). I'm not aware of one but it struck me while flying today that if you were keen on some super accurate dead reckoning then it might be useful.

DFC

19th Oct 2007, 21:09

The sight angle would work and could be used if you "calibrated" your aircraft references.

However, it gets a bit more complicated because for a certain position sighted on the wing, you have a variable distance depending on height above the point you want the distance to.

Far easier to see where you are over and use your calibrated thumb on the map.

Regards,

DFC

Andy_RR

20th Oct 2007, 06:17

By the time I finished my skills test for my JAR-PPL, I had learned a whole lot about RNAV, discovered that my cockpit housekeeping was dire and learned that I knew about 10% of the nav techniques that I really needed to know.

Then someone pinched my whizzwheel, so I sat down and figured out an automated PLOG in Excel, complete with TAS calculations track and heading information. I determined the heading correction algorithm from first principles and subsequently discovered it was all in Wikipedia. Now, I can input waypoint lat/long, weather info and altitude on Excel (using my smartphone if necessary) and generate a printable PLOG within minutes.

OK, so I'm sure you can buy this software ready-made, but the point is the whole thing was a learning exercise. I knew from the very start of my PPL flying that I didn't have a good method yet and it needed more work, so I worked on it - and still am.

Now, I haven't flown as much as I'd like since due being stuck in India too much of the time, but I have subsequently converted my JAR to an Austalian PPL. I did two navex's before my Aus flight test using this - planning is quick and effective and I can validate the numbers on my chart with my thumb and eyeball.

What's my point? I guess it is that if you are really committed to flying post-GST, you will find methods that work for you. The basics will still start from dead reckoning. I still haven't bought a GPS but I guess I will one day - hopefully a panel mount for an RV-8! :) Till then, the methods that I use now will continue to be refined as and when I find the time to use them.

I have already learned a few more things to consider from reading this thread, but isn't that a (PPL) pilot's life? Continuously learning and updating skills?

A

IO540

20th Oct 2007, 06:34

If I was teaching the PPL I would get everybody to have a copy of Navbox.

One still uses the printed chart for the planning w.r.t. airspace and obstacles/terrain but would use Navbox to generate the plog, w&b, etc.

Today's new pilots are mostly very adept with technology.

Bravo73

20th Oct 2007, 06:42

If I was teaching the PPL I would get everybody to have a copy of Navbox.

And for those PPLs who don't have, or don't want to have, access to a PC? :confused:

Andy_RR

20th Oct 2007, 06:55

And for those PPLs who don't have, or don't want to have, access to a PC? :confused:

They can do all their calculations long hand.

Bravo73

20th Oct 2007, 06:58

Exactly, Andy.

Although my question was directed towards IO540 who thinks that everyone should use a piece of software for planning (hence needing access to a PC...)

Andy_RR

20th Oct 2007, 07:06

although I think the point that both IO540 and myself were making very badly is that you can do it this way, but since it takes you 10 hours of planning to fly 1 hour, you will soon discover the merits of getting the electrons to do the number-crunching...

Bravo73

20th Oct 2007, 07:23

Andy,

I don't dispute that for a second. I am fully aware of how you can use technology to help speed up your planning (as I do most days for work.)

However, what IO540 seems to fail to appreciate (again) is the need for the PPL training syllabus to cater for the lowest common dominator ie those who don't have access to a PC! Or, indeed, those who don't have access to a GPS.

IO540

20th Oct 2007, 08:14

However, what IO540 seems to fail to appreciate (again) is the need for the PPL training syllabus to cater for the lowest common dominator

Why should PPL training cater for the lowest common denominator?

Like it or not, we already have to accept - in many walks of life - that catering for the lowest common denominator is simply not possible.

Let's say you need an IQ of 100 to pass the exams and get a PPL.

What is the lowest common denominator in IQ? 30? You might have to go to some medical lab to find one, and (as per the old joke) he would probably be preserved in a jamjar, but objectively why doesn't the PPL syllabus cater for that one?

Much time - many hours - is wasted teaching people how to use the circular slide rule. I know for a fact that most of them never develop an understanding of how it actually works; they just go through the motions. Particularly when using it for multiplication and division; 99% of people never used a slide rule for real (calculators came in c. 1970 and nobody used a slide rule for calculation after that; I used one at school in the late 1960s but that was in the former Soviet Bloc) and they never realise that the thing is no more than a multiplication/division device which happens to have marks in common places like 2.2 and 3.78... All that time wasted which could be put to better use.

Still, it depends on your objective. The current objective in PPL training is to take people through the prescribed syllabus, no more. And for as long as the punter continues to pay you continue to feed him. If he's got to 100hrs (i.e. over £10,000) and hasn't gone solo yet you rub your hands in glee and off you go for another flight. It's like a nursing home, keeping residents just alive by feeding them strawberry sandwiches. There is no measure of performance. A better system would be one where there is an objective to teach pilots to fly usefully.

Anyway, this discussion is pointless because anytime anybody suggests modernisation, a dozen jump in saying they don't want it.

Anybody who can learn the slide rule would be up with Navbox in a fraction of the time, and every school needs a PC anyway to get weather, notams, etc. A pilot needs a PC somewhere, how can he get notams otherwise? Does he phone up NATS every time? Yeah, right, as they say...

In fact every airfield should have public internet access for this purpose; it's very much of a double standard to have notams and weather on the internet and not mandate this. If I was in the CAA I would mandate every school/club to have internet access for all pilots, not only based but also visiting.

Times have changed, in the last few years, but many people have not noticed.

Fright Level

20th Oct 2007, 08:41

99% of people never used a slide rule for real

Fond memories of trading mine in at Smiths in the mid 70's when they had an offer on the new Sinclair Scientific (http://www.vintagecalculators.com/html/scientific___giant_scientific.html) kit. Not only built it myself, but had to use reverse polish notation to get the answers out of it too!

I never had a problem with the calculator side of the wizz wheel but took a little while to get the hang of taking the drift back off on the wind arm. Once I started flying for real it made sense. Even BA's old flight planning system failed to take into account the drift angle, so a 150 knot (jetstream) crosswind would still show the same TAS/GS because it failed to allow for the (now) head/tail component with the a/c laying off the drift!

bjornhall

20th Oct 2007, 09:08

What's wrong with the whizzwheel?

I had never even seen a slide rule before I got introduced to the Flite Computer, so I was certainly (like everyone else!) used to using calculators...

Now, after minimum training, I find it to be faster and much less error-prone to use the whizzwheel than a calculator.

At least that is one thing they have got right in the current PPL syllabus! :ok:

Gertrude the Wombat

20th Oct 2007, 09:53

99% of people never used a slide rule for real

C'mon, not everybody here is only just out of nappies.

There must be plenty who, like me, were taught the use of slide rules as a compulsory part of the O level maths course. And I even had a circular one, so it was instantly obvious to me that the whizz wheel was simply a bog standard circular slide rule with some useful constants on it.

[But, it's still outdated and should be scrapped, of course.]

Bravo73

20th Oct 2007, 10:45

IO540,

Once again, you seem to be struggling to see outside of your own tiny, little 'box'.

As has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions already in this forum, not everyone wants to use their PPLs to fly across Europe in a TBwhatever using airways and multiple GPSs. Not everyone surrounds themselves with multiple PCs and internet access.

There are plenty of aircraft which only have the most basic of navigation equipment ie magnetic compass, stopwatch and window. There are plenty of pilots who do their planning using a whizzwheel, a protractor and a chart.

You might see this as antiquated and resistant to change. For plenty of pilots, this is just reality.

As such, the PPL syllabus needs to cater for these people as well. So, this is what I'm talking about when I refer to 'lowest common denominator', not the IQ of the student. :ugh:

IO540

20th Oct 2007, 11:08

It's always rewarding to drop a cat among the pigeons here :) :)

Btw even if flying a rag & tube type, you still need a PC with internet to get notams if you are going somewhere. OK, I know a lot of pilots never get notams but that's another story.

Bravo73

20th Oct 2007, 11:19

Oh, now you're just claiming to be a 'wind up merchant', eh? :hmm:

How did people get notams in the days before the internet? Morse code from the Home Office? Or maybe just smoke signals? :rolleyes:

High Wing Drifter

20th Oct 2007, 12:08

There are plenty of aircraft which only have the most basic of navigation equipment ie magnetic compass, stopwatch and window. There are plenty of pilots who do their planning using a whizzwheel, a protractor and a chart.

You might see this as antiquated and resistant to change. For plenty of pilots, this is just reality.
.Errm, an enjoyable option in my case :D
What's wrong with the whizzwheel? Quite so. There is nothing wrong with a whiz wheel, in fact there are many things right about it :)

EvilKitty

20th Oct 2007, 14:05

Where to get NOTAMs?

Simple:

phone NATS (or relevant national service)
internet from fixed pc
internet from mobile device
flying school/club office (possibly via internet), or promolgated from
airfield flight planning office (which should also have up to data AIP entries)Ok, so there might be opther options, but 1 and 5 should always be available

Weather: same as above but swap 1 for met office or other weather service

As for lowest common denominator, thats ICAO. Unless you are only talking about a national license, but I don't think we are here. And ICAO lets you fly anywhere on the planet, not only those places with radio, radar and radio-nav and good GPS. Whilst GPS is global, it is under the control of a single government. And yes, whilst they have stated that they wont "turn it off", it is subject to local degredation and blocking (and trials of both are usually NOTAM'd during peace time at least in the UK). When all else fails, all you have left is dead reckoning and celestial navigation (on a clear night anyhow).

If you want something thats good for the UK, have a UK license. If you want something thats good for europe, have a european licence. If you want something thats good worldwide, have an ICAO licence.

And no, I'm not a high hours pilot. I'm a student with 38 hours and 55 minutes total time. I've done 6 hours at night, and 7 hours P1. And for various reasons I havent flown for 2 years. BUt I want a licence that lets me fly anywhere, and I want to be sure I can do so safely and expediently if and when all the extras stop working (I'm going to the US early next year to get the FAA certificate and IR). That doesnt mean i don't want the extras - I do, but I want to be damn sure i can do without them if they stop working (or they just arent there).

Whats the answer? I don't know. Possibly have courses that add value to the PPL, maybe counting towards the AOPA Wings system. A good grounding in the basics and an introduction to more advanced systems during the PPL itself. Remember the 45 hours is minimum flying time - not groundschool. MAybe there are areas of groundschool that should be mandated to ensure all aspects of nav are properly taught and not the current haphazard system we seem to have at the moment where your mileage varies from school to school.

Whirlybird

20th Oct 2007, 16:54

IO540,

Still, it depends on your objective. The current objective in PPL training is to take people through the prescribed syllabus, no more. And for as long as the punter continues to pay you continue to feed him. If he's got to 100hrs (i.e. over £10,000) and hasn't gone solo yet you rub your hands in glee and off you go for another flight. It's like a nursing home, keeping residents just alive by feeding them strawberry sandwiches. There is no measure of performance. A better system would be one where there is an objective to teach pilots to fly usefully.

I object to that kind of insulting statement!!!! How the hell would you know? Every single career instructor I know took a cut in pay in order to do something he/she loves. We try and teach people to fly and navigate - in all ways uisng all means and techniques. That means that we try to teach them the traditional ways of navigating plus all the newer ones, pointing them in the right direction to learn it themselves when they can since many of them can't afford any extra hours, unlike you. This means we show them the traditional nav, and point out all the other options available so that they can learn by themselves. Unlike you, I and my students can use a whizzwheel to work out a route in a few minutes, fly using a basic compass even in turbulence, find out way with radio navaids, AND use a GPS. I make sure my students have a CHOICE!!! Or, like me, that they adopt a belt and braces approach. Something which your way of doing things wouldn't do, since you'd insist on everyone doing it Your Way.

Your comments about compasses, whizzwheels, and traditional nav in general suggest to me that actually you're not very good at this stuff, and probably never were. That's the only reason I can now see for your constant never-ending insistence, like a broken record, on everyone flying in the same way you do. :=

IO540

20th Oct 2007, 18:03

WB

How the hell would you know?

By looking around :)

Every single career instructor I know took a cut in pay in order to do something he/she loves.

Perhaps in some cases, but the vast majority of instructors took the pay cut because hanging around a flying school, getting paid peanuts, is the only way they can get their 1500hrs or whatever towards the frozen ATPL.

Your comments about compasses, whizzwheels, and traditional nav in general suggest to me that actually you're not very good at this stuff,

You are absolutely right, and the same applies to most pilots (not your students, perhaps). I believe in using the most reliable and most accurate methods, consistent with very low cockpit workload.

Actually I can do DR and had no probs in my PPL, but it's awfully hard work and it's easy to get lost with it.

your constant never-ending insistence, like a broken record, on everyone flying in the same way you do

When did I say anybody should fly the way I do?

Calm down. You asked for opinions and you got some you didn't like.

EvilKitty

In theory you are right about #1 but there are two problems with this: (a) nobody is going to want to read a long briefing to you on the phone (in fact (IME) NATS tend to ask for a fax # to which they can immediately fax the whole briefing) and (b) if every pilot did that, the system would immediately collapse. Nowadays, the system does fully rely on the internet.

#5 is a bit of a problem. Many longer term pilots haven't been members of a club for ages and while sometimes one can use the facilities of some club, this isn't generally available. Also, while a club/school should have the local FIR briefing printed out and pinned on the wall (as was the case when I was doing my PPL) if you want a narror route briefing (essential for any longer flight) you are back to internet access... And finally, at many airports around Europe, there is simply no briefing facility available.

I agree that add-on modules is a great idea, but I recall this has been tried and there was no take-up. Most likely, few pilots will bother to do extra training unless they get new privileges, and what would those be? The IMCR and Night are the only two really, and the IMCR is a lot of extra work. If you can think up some tangible privileges, I am sure people would go for it.

It's different in say gliding, where (AIUI) there are no new legal privileges to be gained anyway, so it's all about self improvement within a rather tightly knit club atmosphere from which there is no escape even if one wanted to. There, a system of grading works well. But in normal fixed wing GA, there are too many lone operators who think they already know what they need to know (sometimes they do, sometimes not) and they won't move unless they get something tangible in return.

englishal

20th Oct 2007, 18:27

DFC

20th Oct 2007, 21:39

With IO540's position, one has to remember some very important things-

They fly with GPS under BRNAV in controlled airspace with ATC service.

If the GPS fails they are entitled to radar vectors or there is guaranteed to be appropriate along track navigation aids which can be tracked.

If the Navbox has put out some weird heading or for whatever reason the GPS does not take them the right way, ATC will notice and will offer assistance.

Now look at he average PPL with or without GPS. Who is going to notice for them that they are unknowingly about to leave Class G airspace due to an error and who is going to steer them in the right direction if they rely on GPS and it fails?

They are two different operations entirely and it is like comparing how much BA pilots are aware of the variation where they are to the PPL below the airway at the same place ploughing on with at best a FIS from somewhere.

People who can not navigate should get IR's to fly the airways always and an oxygen system so that one never has to drop out of the base on long flights and then they don't have to worry because if they can't find their way there will always be ATC to help. ;)

They are the ones who could be described as the lowest common denominator - the strugglers, those that simply will never more than plodders. Should they be chopped at the Nav stage?

That is the point - unless one operates a training system that weeds out those below a certain standard at various stages one will have no choice but to cope with the person with 500 hours and who can't navigate without a GPS.

Regards,

DFC

IO540

21st Oct 2007, 06:44

DFC, I normally ignore your posts but in this case I will make an exception.

With IO540's position, one has to remember some very important things-
They fly with GPS under BRNAV in controlled airspace with ATC service.
If the GPS fails they are entitled to radar vectors or there is guaranteed to be appropriate along track navigation aids which can be tracked.
If the Navbox has put out some weird heading or for whatever reason the GPS does not take them the right way, ATC will notice and will offer assistance

As you no longer fly aeroplanes, you don't know what "the Navbox" is, clearly. It's not a "box", it's a flight planning program. And it doesn't (usefully) support airways so is not useful for airways flights. One normally does airways flight planning with Flitestar or, possibly, with Jeppview 3.

And Navbox doesn't put out any "weird headings". It has a database of waypoints, navaids, airports, etc and you draw your route and it generates a wind corrected plog. It is used for VFR, and is used in conjunction with a printed chart for controlled airspace and terrain reference reasons. It covers Europe, as far as Crete, where I have incidentally been VFR. Unlike most VFR charts, it contains airways intersections which makes it much quicker to plan VFR flights because one is rarely short of a database waypoint where needed. I still use it for UK VFR and haven't had to make up a user waypoint for ages.

Navbox (http://www.navbox.nl) is updated monthly from any changes in the national AIPs and, on the scale of flying costs, costs almost nothing.

I am merely advocating the use of a modern method to generate a plog - something which is error free and would enable the slide rule to be discarded and the time saved spent on better things.

I taught my 11 year old to use Navbox in about 5 minutes.

If the "lowest common denominator" is to be a pilot not capable of interacting with any technology, then we better urgently find ways to keep all the decrepit old flying school junk flying for ever, because 10 years from now much of it will be scrapped and will be replaced with stuff with a modern instrument panel which the "lowest common denominator" will have to interact with whether he likes it or not.

There is only one way anything in GA will truly change, and that will be when the old geezers in regulation start drawing their pensions. Maybe that won't be so good though because they will be joining their old mates on pprune :)

BEagle

21st Oct 2007, 07:05

IO540, you may well be 'considerably richer than yow', but your continual bleating about basic navigation techniques and how your gucci little aeroplane is filled with whizzy GPS systems is wearing a little thin...

Of course new technology has its place. But many flying clubs are hanging on by a thin financial thread. Even the ludicrous FM-immunity nonsense strained the finances of many - do you really imagine that insisting that all your electric toys be fitted to every trainign aeroplane is in any way reasonable?

All driving school cars do NOT have 'COMAND' navigation systems fitted; likewise every C152 will never be required to have GPS.

I've provided Internet met and AIS information sysems at the Club where I teach - but few students want to sit in front of the PC to plan. Instead they just use the printed information and sit down with a UK 1/2 mill. It takes no time at all to measure track/distance and apply the wind - a ruler is quicker than mousing in waypoints or typing them for a basic triangular navex. But not UK-Crete, of course! I think that using an electronic nav computer is fine - but I find the whizz wheel a bit quicker than pressing buttons for a 3-leg trip. Chaq'un a son gout though. The distance/speed readout on the back is an excellent example of how an analogue computer still has some advantages over digital methods.

You are very welcome to having fun playing airliners, but pilots must learn basic navigation - using some recent tools to assist that process will help, but not replace, the basics.

All our aeroplanes have Garmin panel GPS - but few pilots are bothered to use them. That I find astonishing - used correctly the GPS is a superb tool and often a lot more accurate for basic day VFR navigation flying than clunky old VOR/VOR or VOR/DME at low levels on the boundaries of their DOC....

Whirlybird

21st Oct 2007, 07:07

I taught my 11 year old to use Navbox in about 5 minutes.

This has reminded me of a point I've been meaning to make for....several pages. :)

You can learn to use Navbox in 5 minutes - if you know it exists and what it is.
GPS doesn't take long to learn to use. You can stick with the moving map and "Go To" function until you need something else; then you simply look up what else you need.
Ditto, AFAIK, for most other modern technology related to PPL type flying.

Therefore, do we need to change the syllabus, so far as flying content goes, at all? We simply teach using DR, map and compass, navaids as usual. Then we have a bit of extra briefing, which doesn't add extra time or cost, explaining all the other ways of navigating - what they are, what they do, where to buy them, the advantages and disadvantages. Students don't exactly need an instructor sitting next to them in order to learn to follow a line on a GPS!

PPLs then have a choice...and as you might have gathered CHOICE is a word I like. They can fly old aircraft with minimal instrumentation, and navigate the old way. Or they can use modern technology. Or they can do both...belt and braces and all that.

I try to do this anyway, and I think most CAREER instructors do - I don't know about some of the hour builders. It seems to make most sense.

In which case, do we even have a problem?

BTW, IO540, starting a thread on PPRuNe doesn't mean that one is barred from commenting on it eight pages on. :=

IO540

21st Oct 2007, 08:25

All our aeroplanes have Garmin panel GPS - but few pilots are bothered to use them

That, Beagle, is because every PPL I have ever known feels guilty as hell at the mere mention of the 3-letter word when in proximity to an instructor :)

My experience is that the vast majority of PPLs would chuck in DR the moment they had the choice. A lot of them already have, and they aren't ranting on about it on pprune, but many can't due to poor equipment availability and not having the money to fly much let alone spend £1000 on a decent GPS. Many (probably more than 50%) also believe GPS is illegal, or illegal as "primary nav" - the result of all the disinformation that's been going around.

As regards changing the syllabus, I am not an instructor so I don't know what exactly is written down. It's a matter of how far one could push it and still meet the requirements. I believe the slide rule is absolutely prescribed so one can't play with that one.

Anyway, I've said all I can say on this subject now, and it's the same old crowd on here every time it comes up.

Bravo73

21st Oct 2007, 09:01

My experience is that ...

For someone who is so vocal, your range of experience seems to be so limited. Even when people such as High Wing Drifter tell you on this very thread about the traditional methods that they enjoy using, you still choose to ignore them.

Many (probably more than 50%) also believe GPS is illegal, or illegal as "primary nav" - the result of all the disinformation that's been going around.

Where on earth does that '50%' come from? The '89.3% of all statistics are made up on the spot' school?

Anyway, I've said all I can say on this subject now

But I bet it's not the last time you mention it... :ugh:

Gertrude the Wombat

21st Oct 2007, 09:18

All our aeroplanes have Garmin panel GPS - but few pilots are bothered to use them.

That will be because they have the worst user interface ever invented and are a right b****r to use. You can spend an hour or so re-reading the manual before flight, write down the set of button presses you need to achieve something, and you still can't get it to do anything useful.

And, if you are going to insist on spending minutes and minutes faffing around trying to programme the b****y thing you want to do this with the engine off, don't you, you don't want to be doing it at £2.50/minute. So by the time you've started the engine and remembered you haven't sorted out the GPS yet it's too late, so you don't even bother to turn it on.

Further, having drawn the line on the map and worked out the VORs and NDBs you're going to use, which you have to do anyway in case the GPS fails, you've got more than enough navigation information. Why spend extra eyes-in time on a third navigation system that you don't actually need? Wouldn't your eyes be better occupied looking out?

(If you own your own aircraft of course you have two advantages - one is that you've got a better chance of spending enough time with one particular GPS box to learn how to use it, as compared to a different box fitted to each of the school's fleet, and the other is that you can choose to keep the database up to date, which flying schools tend not always to do. So, unlike in a flying school aircraft, when your own GPS tells you you're going to miss that controlled airspace or danger area there's a fair chance of it telling the truth - in a flying school aircraft without an up to date database you always have to cross-check on the map.)

Fuji Abound

21st Oct 2007, 09:45

What a very strange thread.

Whirly asks:

What would you include/take out/put in?

And 8 pages, and 150+ posts later says:

In which case, do we even have a problem?

I find it bizarre that you can have so many good contributions (and granted some less good ones) and distill absolutely nothing form then.

Whirly - you should have been a politician - not a flying instructor.

Whirly also says:

PPLs then have a choice...and as you might have gathered CHOICE is a word I like.

I am not sure it really is a word you like - or many others for that matter.

Choice means having the ability to chose between one or more alternatives. Implied is also the ability to chose freely.

Therefore, whether you are pro or anti GPS lobby choice means giving the student the opportunity to make an informed choice between each. If his choice is to be informed then he needs to understand the advantages and disadvantages of each. For that reason, as I said before, the syllabus should include an introduction to the use of GPS.

IMO it shows a complete lack of understanding to suggest that the use of GPS does not need to be taught for two reasons. Firstly, if the student does not experience different systems of navigation he cannot make that choice that you hold so dear. (And sadly it is no good relying on mentoring post PPL because in a great many cases it does not happen). Secondly, it really isnt as simple as reading the manuals - it should be obvious from this thread and others that there is a great deal to teaching students how to use GPS systems correctly for navigation.

The debate has become polarised into the usual pro anti GPS camps. It is hugely disappointing that each camp cannot accommodate the other with each far more concerned with trying to prove theirs is the better camp.

The other component of navigation is planning. There has been relatively little discussion about how the syllabus teaches students to acquire the information they need to plan a safe flight. When I did my PPL, this aspect of navigation was hopeless. I had no idea where to find most of what I needed, other than the club notice board, which didn’t prove much help when I eventually started flying to more far flung destinations!

Come on, get off your hobby horses, listen to each other views and come up with some positive ways in which the syllabus could be improved for Whirly.

That is what you wanted Whirly - wasn’t it

High Wing Drifter

21st Oct 2007, 11:25

I agree Fuji, as I mentioned above (somewhere) sufficient planning has the single biggest affect on the outcome of a flight. It doesn't seem to be given the weight it should.

On a side note, I'm doing an instructor course at the moment and am learning that there are ways that I can make my life easier. The accent is on the broad view. Planning is the broad view, the big picture which is what situational awareness is too. Technique minutia (DR or GPS) are more about the narrow view. From the discussion we've had during the course so far (it is early days!), inappropriate reliance on the narrow view seems to be the thing that lands people in hock.

BEagle

21st Oct 2007, 11:30

Our Garmins are either GPS150 or GNC250, the GPS elements of which are very similar. They even have common user waypoints, whichare listed in the Club FOB.....

Moreover, we even ask that people don't fiddle with the 'standard' set up, just leave it with our aerodrome as the reference, so that brg/rng from home is always available, plus DTK, ETA, GS and XTK on the CDI. That way, a positive cross-check against ruler-measured track, plus computed GS and ETA is available.

But the number of times I've found TRK and DTK left displayed - and met people who think that if DTK = TRK, then they must be on track.... Clearly they've never heard of parallel lines!

However, much of the problem is indeed that many FIs don't understand the GPS!

jamestkirk

21st Oct 2007, 11:50

I teach students to fly VFR with foggles and use 'the force'.

It has worked very well for VFR nav but none of them have succeeded in destroying a death star.

walkabout

21st Oct 2007, 15:31

I agree with Droopystop, I think the quarter mill chart is a better chart for PPL training, but I only came across it when I converted from fixed wing to rotary. The detail means its much easier to determine your position esp in areas where on the half mill you just have a few yellow dots and there are enough features to help you determine where the controlled airspace is on the ground. At 100kts and the sort of navex involved in PPL training, the scale doesnt cause any cockpit managment problems.

Now I've been trained in both fw and rotary, I think there are other rotary nav practices - use of back stops and track crawling - which would help with people learning nav in fixed wing.

Having sat the ATPL exams and witnessed first hand how the CAA is educating future commercial pilots on GPS, I would not hold my breath waiting for GPS navigation to enter the PPL syllabus. But isn't it a bit of a red herring........post PPL I bought a hand held, read the manual and used it, then I rented planes with GPS and asked an instructor to demo it to me. Just how hard is it to do this?

W

(Before I get abused for being a neanderthal, post PPL(A) I went IMC, MEP, twin group share, Euro touring with GPSs and auto pilot and will leave my quarter mill at home next time I fly to the south of France).

Fuji Abound

21st Oct 2007, 19:49

Ok, following on from my earlier remarks here are my thoughts.

I should say at the outset it is a very long time since I did my PPL, and maybe there have been huge changes since then - if so please forgive me.

What’s in the name? Well the title sets the scene and I think the navigation module should be re-branded “flight planning and navigation”.

I think the way in which the theoretical components integrate with the practical components should be reviewed. I recall that AICs and NOTAMS et al were covered in air law, but there was very little integration between air law and the flying I did with my instructors. As a result their practical inclusion in flight planning largely passed me by. I had no idea where I could obtain this information (other than the club notice board) and nor what information I really need to know before embarking on a flight.

Navigating a route starts with checking the NOTAMS, reviewing the forecasts, and considering whether a flight plan might be required. It also comprises formulating an understanding of the route to be followed. This could include the impact of controlled airspace, gliding sites, terrain that may have some effect on the flight, as well as potential diversions. On a VFR flight an important element are the options that might be available when things go wrong - it could be with the weather or with the aircraft. Many PPLs I have flown with have little idea about their options en route, their focus is entirely on getting from point A to point B. Tell them before you go over a ridge line that there will probably be a few bumps and they are amazed, ask them where they are going to go if the engine quits over one of those huge forests in France or over some of the less hospitable terrain in the UK and they have no idea. Had they considered these elements in their route planning they might have considered a very small diversion to avoid these and other problems but it never crossed their minds. In short I would have liked to have spent more time with my instructors understanding what was practically involved in the planning phase of a route I intended to navigate. (Interestingly, exactly the same issues arise with IR and IMCRs, plenty of sound theory, but not much concern with the practical issues of actually flying an airways route sector).

The planning all pulls together with the cross country exercises. Diversions become a relevant tool to solve a potential problem that might have arisen rather than the instructor using the same diversion on the same cross country navex which he flies every time with every student. The instructor has ample opportunity to set off on a route sector in weather which is a mite marginal for the new PPL, point out the cloud base is descending somewhere along the route, even if it isnt by much, and put into practice a diversion. The instructor is equipped to demonstrate the use of a moving map GPS perhaps as part and parcel of the work required on radio navigation because after all each is surely as relevant an alternative navigational tool. The instructor now has an opportunity to fail the GPS or the VOR so the student has an appreciation that whatever kit is involved it might stop working. There is also an opportunity to look at how a practice call might be made to D and D or how a RIS service might be used to enable the student to get himself “out of trouble”.

In short these are all practical skills that come together to comprise more than blindly navigating a route from A to B and which comprise the foundations of airmanship.

Whirly if I were an instructor and wanted to know the answer to the question you pose I probably wouldn’t ask here.

Your audience are those PPLs who have just gone through the system. No one ever bothers to ask them. (And I appreciate there are a few on here). Once they have passed there PPL they are cast to the school rental market (some good, some less so).

If I were really interested I would prepare a questionnaire for every one of my students and “insist” they returned this to me a year later. I ask my school to do the same thing for every student that passed through. I would want to know where they felt the syllabus had been weak a year on. I would want to know if they were using GPS units, and if so what problems they had encountered and if not, why not. I would want to know how their flying aspirations had changed form starting their PPL to a point a year on because one of the reasons so many PPLs give up just might be because they finish their PPL without the confidence to go anywhere. If that is true it is partly because the navigational element of the syllabus has failed.

I finish with recounting a couple of pilots I met very recently. They had been flying for a couple of years. They didn’t stray too far from home but clearly very much enjoyed their flying. The one said to me I have always wanted to go to the West country - after all it is not too far away. So why don’t you said I - it’s a great trip. Ah well said the other there is that area of airspace to the west of Bournemouth - it looks very complicated and there doesn’t seem to be any easy way of transiting it - does there? It has always put us off.

They had no idea how to plan and navigate a route to the west country - hardly France or even Europe, not a drop of sea involved - not even Scotland or Wales - just a bit of good old England.

ariel

21st Oct 2007, 19:54

Interesting thread.

Personally, I think the old adage "a little bit of everything..." is quite a good analogy.

Myself, I enjoy working through the HDG, track, wind and drift triangle on paper, (have a quick method), then using the whizzwheel to see if it comes up with a similar answer. However, I accept that this probably wouldn't work too well in the air! I do like lines on the map, however, because it aids your eyes in looking at where you should be/are going quicker than if you didn't draw one on.

Personally, I put the wind and heading on the map, and other items on a bit of paper.

I also think that Navbox is a superb piece of software, and do not hesitate to use it if I want to, but not always.

Ditto for GPS. However, I learnt my lesson a long time ago about relying on it too much, when I lost the signal perilously close to controlled airspace, and hadn't been concentrating too much on other methods of navigation... A lesson well learned, and one which <hopefully> I won't make again.

Our cessnas are not fitted with GPS, but they do have VOR, ADF and DME, which I see absolutely nothing wrong with using when required.

Talking of GPS, my one BIG failure these days is relying on it too much in my car, but that's another story.

What I'd advocate, is to teach the basics, but not get snowed under with them, and also teach the newer stuff, such as GPS, and flight planning software, such as Navbox.

I think the more methods a person can call on, the better. What works for one person might not work for another, so it's good to have a choice.

It does appear that in aviation sometimes, when weighing up more traditional methods against newer technology, retroverted snobbery is occasionally at work. I'm as guilty as anyone regarding my last statement; What I'd like to be is a brilliant navigator, not needing to rely on anything modern, but getting by, thank you very much, on the good old basics.
BUT I'm not, unfortunately, and am not ashamed to say that sometimes, I need/am grateful for, the helping hand of VOR, ADF, DME and dare I say it, GPS

ariel

Contacttower

21st Oct 2007, 20:06

They didn’t stray too far from home but clearly very much enjoyed their flying. The one said to me I have always wanted to go to the West country - after all it is not too far away. So why don’t you said I - it’s a great trip. Ah well said the other there is that area of airspace to the west of Bournemouth - it looks very complicated and there doesn’t seem to be any easy way of transiting it - does there? It has always put us off.

A lot more should be taught on talking to ATC...the standard of VFR RT is often very poor and I think people's "fear" of ATC makes them naturally aviod CAS (which is stupid because the easiest way to aviod busting is to get a transit through). So slighty off the subject of GPS vs. DR I think more work in and around CAS should be done on the typical PPL course. It's not so much a problem with the syllabus but perhaps FTOs should teach it more.

There are no CTRs due West of Bournemouth....did the pilots mentioned know the difference between a MATZ, ATZ, AIAA, Danger Area etc? Perhaps not....:E

DFC

22nd Oct 2007, 08:44

BEagle,

But the number of times I've found TRK and DTK left displayed - and met people who think that if DTK = TRK, then they must be on track.... Clearly they've never heard of parallel lines!

Thank you for saying that because it has helped to show a very important point;

Many of those that advocate traditional methods for Visual Navigation do not understand navigation at all and also (since none of the GPS users here have picked you up) the GPS users are no better when it comes to GPS navigation.

Please ask yourself if at 0900 the DTK is 090 and the TRK is 090, where the aircraft can only be in relation to the waypoint and if DTK and TRK are the same, what will change other than distance to the waypoint.

PS - Also ask the DA40 IR initial candidates that fly super accurate NDB procedures (nothing to do with the constant GPS track readout of course) :)

There is a study in large aircraft circles to see if it would be better to go from magnetic heading as a reference to (as one option) track and ATC would issue track instructions as opposed to heading instructions.

Regards,

DFC

Islander2

22nd Oct 2007, 08:57

Please ask yourself if at 0900 the DTK is 090 and the TRK is 090, where the aircraft can only be in relation to the waypoint and if DTK and TRK are the same, what will change other than distance to the waypoint.DFC, maybe I'm missing your point, but could you perhaps be confusing DTK with BRG?

BEagle

22nd Oct 2007, 10:09

Islander 2, quite so!

This is the Garmin convention:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/Garminconventions.jpg

See the excellent product guides for discontinued items such as the GPS150 at: http://www8.garmin.com/support/userManual.jsp?market=1&subcategory=28&product=010-00062-00 for fuller details.

The GPS150 and GNC250 have a limited selection of fields, so we use:

dis - distance to next WPT
dtk - the track from one WPT to another.
gs - the groundspeed which should be about the same as pre-planned
eta - estimated time at the WPT

and CDI set to show cross-track errors.

IO540

22nd Oct 2007, 15:06

To be fair, Beagle, the GPS150 and GNC250 are so utterly ghastly that if I was presented with a plane with one of these in it, I wouldn't even bother switching it on.

The moving map alone on these is marginally better than a tuna sandwich :)

These are 1980s technology.

If I was going to the hassle of installing a GPS in a plane in a permanent manner, I would put in something with a decent usable map, and the KMD150 (http://www.bendixking.com/static/catalog/viewproductdetails.jsp?pid=115)is about the baseline there. The Skymap 3C is often panel mounted and is very similar. All of these are way better than the much more expensive Garmin 430, for non-airways usage.

BEagle

22nd Oct 2007, 15:51

bjornhall

22nd Oct 2007, 16:13

Neither the GPS150 nor the GNC250 has a moving map.....

Just the CDI bar - which is all we needed to use the device as a back-up to traditional methods.

I'd rather people look outside when flying under VFR than inside at all the gucci eye-candy provided by moving maps. However, for full-up IFR in regulated airspace, the more modern systems are vastly better.

Now there's an interesting point...!

My experience is certainly limited, but I would have thought it is the other way around?

Setting up a modern GPS to display a moving map can be done in no time, usually just switch it on and push ENT a few times... You can then throw a quick glance at that map every now and then and make sure it matches where you think you are on your real map, and that your track and groundspeed is as planned (i.e., wind is as you expected; does that ever happen tho'?). Easy as can be, nil learning curve, nil extra work load in the air or on the ground.

The non-map (or crappy-map, e. g. KLN89) variety on the other hand... To get something useful out of those, you pretty much have to enter a flightplan don't you? So then you have to deal with
a) Learning how to even do that...
b) Different types of GPS in different aircraft, all working in different ways...
c) The need to hook up a battery cart, sit on the ground with the engine running for a good while to enter the FP, or even trying to do it in the air...
d) Where you want to go when VFR is probably not in the database, and entering it by lat/long or place/bearing/distance is as error prone as it is time consuming
e) If, on the other hand, you use waypoints present in the GPS, those are usually invisible when looking out the window... How are you going to verify you're over one of those while in the air?
f) When done, all you have is a magenta/sepia/other line to follow, which will go to wherever you told it to go. That's not necessarily where you meant for it to go... Now you have one more thing that can be wrong (your DR/your GPS/your entered FP), and resolving a discrepancy in the air increases your workload and head-down time, and is possibly confusing.

I would imagine the first option, just using the moving map, would be a better idea for VFR flight... :confused:

IO540

22nd Oct 2007, 16:45

Neither the GPS150 nor the GNC250 has a moving map.....

Is this (http://www.alcyons.com/html/membres/ariane_membres/images-membres/gps150xl.jpg)not a GPS150?

Fuji Abound

22nd Oct 2007, 16:50

I'd rather people look outside when flying under VFR than inside at all the gucci eye-candy provided by moving maps. However, for full-up IFR in regulated airspace, the more modern systems are vastly better.

Oh well, I see we are back to the GPS or not campaign again.

It has been done to death and I think the views on here are so entrenched that I dont suppose many will shift.

However, since we are back to the same old arguments I couldnt resist the comment that I still dont understand why this popular myth does the round that with a moving map GPS and proper training the pilot's head is going to be more in than out the cockpit. It just isnt so - so there!

Of course if you dont understand the GPS and are attempting to learn how to use it whilst flying then dont be surprised if there is merit in the myth. However go put the average UK pilot in America with a sectional on his lap that he hasnt seen before and yet another myth will be debunked.

.. .. .. and while we are on the subject of myths, if you think see and avoid works - well it doesnt most of the time anyway so learn how to use the moving map, the sectional or whatever it is before you go flying and look out of the window to enjoy the scenery :D.

High Wing Drifter

22nd Oct 2007, 18:35

DFC,
Many of those that advocate traditional methods for Visual Navigation do not understand navigation at all and also (since none of the GPS users here have picked you up) the GPS users are no better when it comes to GPS navigation.

Please ask yourself if at 0900 the DTK is 090 and the TRK is 090, where the aircraft can only be in relation to the waypoint and if DTK and TRK are the same, what will change other than distance to the waypoint
Total toshness. What on Earth has this nerdified 'information' got to do with teaching PPL nav?

DFC

22nd Oct 2007, 19:35

Islander2,

To explain it a bit more accurately, I will refer to the nice diagram provided by BEagle.

If at the time the aircraft was over WPT1 the trk and the DTK are the same and remain so then the aircraft will reach WPT2.

In old speak - if overahead A enroute to B and Track Made Good always equals Track, how can you not end up at B?

Isn't that what we strive to do in navigation - make track made good equal the planned track?

For the aircraft to end up where it is shown in the diagram then when overhead WPT1 the DTK and TRK were not the same. Or the aircraft was never overhead WPT1 in the first place.

If that is the case, then there are a number of options-

As recomended by the US AOPA (who have been using GPS a lot longer than we have, the first thing to learn is the GOTO function or DIRECT TO as it may be called.

As every navigator will tell you, navigation is about getting from where you are now to where you want to be. i.e. from here to there. Not from there to there!

Using the nice diagram if the aircraft is as shown then it does not want to navigate from WPT1 to WPT2, it wants to navigate from present position to WPT2. Press GOTO and the DTK will be the track from present position to the waypoint. Now make TRK equal DTK and other then one will end up within the turn radius of WPT2.

Of course one will also cross check with another method and confirm that airspace will not be infringed.

Remember that in both the pre-GPS and the Anti GPS camps they will say that you must be overhead (or close to) WPT1 in order to fly the leg to WPT2. The pro GPS people will point out that the GPS will have you within .001nm of the WPT and the anti-GPS brigade will tell you that the eyeball will be more reliable and you will see WPT1 on the ground. However, if in either case they do not understand that when overhead WPT1 in order to get to WPT2 the track made good must equal the desired Track or in GPS terms, TRK must equal DTK.

Thus it is not pro or anti-GPS that is the issue it is simply lots of people who do not really underdstand the fundamentals and think that one method (their preferred) is their crutch. That is where nav training falls down

Does that explain my point?

Regards,

DFC

DFC

22nd Oct 2007, 19:43

HWD,

Did not think that desired track and track made good were "nerdified".

They are an important part of PPL (or any) navigation.

Regards,

DFC

foxmoth

22nd Oct 2007, 19:50

IO540 - re your
something which is error free
I am glad to see that the data base you use is better than the one the airlines use because, although errors are rare, they certainly still exist!
Perhaps we should teach GPS instead of traditional nav, the only thing I would ask is that if we go this route licences obtained like this are stamped "Only valid in GPS equipped aircraft".:}

High Wing Drifter

22nd Oct 2007, 20:36

DFC,

All this talk of DTK, BRG and wotnot has nothing to do with understanding how to plan and execute a visual navigation exercise. They are terms relevant to RNAV and teeny tiny character displays that don't have the room to display "Desired Track", "Bearing" and wotnot.

BEagle

22nd Oct 2007, 21:05

No, IO540, that's the later GPS150XL.... Whose map display is less than particularly useful, I would most certainly agree.

This is the 150XL,:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/GPS150XL.jpg

this is the earlier 150 (line drawing):

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/GPS150.jpg

and this is the GNC250:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/GNC250.jpg

All of which are just fine as back up VFR navaids!

Oh - and sorry, but "Now make TRK equal DTK and other then one will end up within the turn radius of WPT2" is complete and utter cock. If you must, then in that scenario make BRG the same as DTK if you are incapable of using the CDI information - then you might get somewhere close to the dest wpt.

Droopystop

22nd Oct 2007, 21:09

I am not sure that the anti gps, pro gps argument is as polarised as is made out. I think most people see it as a wonderful aid to navigation. It is just that people choose to use it in different ways.

Many, it seems, wouldn't use a non moving map at all, some choose not to use any GPS. Neither camp is wrong. As long as you can navigate successfully, it doesn't matter what kit you use.

Remember that private flying has possibly one of the greatest diversity of roles, personalities, aspirations, expectations etc etc of all types of flying. No where in commercial or military flying is there the opportunity to fly such a huge variety of types with varying instrumentation. Therefore we need a lowest common denominator. That should be basic nav techniques as they are in the current ppl. Then some form of GPS course is needed. The lowest common denominator here is a simple hand held machine, that can have a route put in, will show you current track made good, bearing to next waypoint, GS and ETA. Yes IO, I do mean the type of machine you can get at your local camping shop. All other GPS's can do these basic functions. It is enough information to get you accurately to where you want to go without busting anything provided of course the route is properly planned before hand. Oh and the best bit for those self fly hirers, you can program it in your own time at home with out worrying about running up the hours meter.

If at a later stage one wants to upgrade to an all singing all dancing bit of kit, you have a firm base of understanding to do so.

Don't get me wrong, I am not anti moving map displays - I would love to have one in the aircraft I fly. But I don't need one now, nor did I need one as a low time pilot.

A GPS is all about reducing pilot workload and is the one bit of kit that can make a huge difference to a low time pilot. A simple one acheives that adequately.

Remember, the key to successful teaching is to KISS.

IO540

22nd Oct 2007, 21:47

Beagle, those two units should be chucked in the skip.

They might give a CDI-like cross track error readout, relative to a preprogrammed track, but they give precisely zero (zero) situational awareness.

And if you programmed in a route to Mongolia instead of Manston nobody would notice until they ran out of fuel. Well you know what I mean :)

Funnily enough, much of the commercial world still runs on units such as these (Trimble seems to be a big presence) but they are flying on well worn airway tracks, under radar control, so this sort of works.

It's no wonder so much knocking of modern methods goes on when people are using this kind of junk.

Gertrude the Wombat

22nd Oct 2007, 21:56

Perhaps we should teach GPS instead of traditional nav, the only thing I would ask is that if we go this route licences obtained like this are stamped "Only valid in GPS equipped aircraft".
We have a driving licence like that in the UK, for people who are only allowed to drive cars with automatic gear boxes.

Contacttower

22nd Oct 2007, 22:20

for people who are only allowed to drive cars with automatic gear boxes.

Quite, but I think most would agree that the best solution would be to bring GPS into the course but not at the expense of DR.

Beagle, those two units should be chucked in the skip.

But those are the units in most of planes I've been in (out of those which had GPS at all...which were a minority). Not only that but a lot are mounted outside of the scan range and difficult to read in strong sunlight. Every plane has a compass...and although there are a few different ones, W, P2, Gyro DI etc they all work the same. Which isn't true of GPS...they're all slightly different. Maybe all PPLs should go through a mandatory GPS appreciation course after completion of the PPL?

Whirlybird

23rd Oct 2007, 07:07

I am not sure that the anti gps, pro gps argument is as polarised as is made out. I think most people see it as a wonderful aid to navigation. It is just that people choose to use it in different ways.

Quite. :ok:

I don't know anyone that's anti GPS. I don't think anyone has posted on here condemning it. Most of the instructors I know use GPS, and are happy to teach students to...but not before a flight when they're supposed to be navigating by traditional methods. And at the last CAA Safety Evening that I went to, a couple of years ago, they weren't at all against GPS, just suggested not using it as the only form of nav.

I think being anti-GPS went out several years ago. Certainly some people were when I did my PPL. But not now.

However, since reading this thread, I realise that some people are very definitely extremely anti more traditional forms of navigation!!!

BTW, I started this thread purely and simply because I thought it would be interesting and that people might have something to say on the subject. I think that's been proved to be the case. I started it on this forum because it was here that people seemed to have strong opinions on this topic. Anyway, I often tend to ask newish PPLs what they thought of the syllabus; after all, they're the ones who went through it and know whether they found it any good or not. Yes, if I wanted to design a new syllabus or similar, I'd ask on the Instructors Forum.

Right, that's got several questions answered all at once...been too busy to post as finally we have flying weather!

DFC

23rd Oct 2007, 08:35

Oh - and sorry, but "Now make TRK equal DTK and other then one will end up within the turn radius of WPT2" is complete and utter cock. If you must, then in that scenario make BRG the same as DTK if you are incapable of using the CDI information - then you might get somewhere close to the dest wpt.

One of the biggest problem with PPL navigation as I said earlier is that those teaching it struggle with the subject themselves.

Overhead WPT1 in your lovely diagram, DTK and BRG (to WPT2) are the same. If they were not then you would not be over the waypoint.

If TRK=DTK=BRG then one will follow the DTK from WPT1 to WPT2.

The only way to get BRG different from DTK is to make TRK different from DTK.

If you look at something like the GPS3 Pilot, it reads TRK info on the CDI and based on this gives you a TRK to fly in order to intercept of the DTK if you are not on it.

Thus having an indication of TRK along with the CDI showing DTK and nm left or right of track, it is very simple if one finds oneself 2nm right of track to adjust TRK to DTK-30deg and you get an exact 30deg intercept.

Thus your colleague is simply showing the same info that they would have with a CDI on a GARMIN 3.........Is GARMIN wrong to show that info?

Regards,

DFC

BEagle

23rd Oct 2007, 09:13

"The only way to get BRG different from DTK is to make TRK different from DTK."

Not so! In the diagram the aircraft is off the planned track. TRK and DTK are the same - the aircraft is parallel to, but not on, the planned track. BRG is the track the aircraft would need to fly from the point shown direct to the wpt without using the 'direct to' and effectively creating a new wpt at the present position.

Take a look at p99 of your Pilot III instructions and you'll find the exact same diagram (except that they use 'course' instead of the more correct DTK - and the 'North' is missing from the arrow:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/p3.jpg

Whereas it should be:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/p3N.jpg

So I can see that someone could be mislead into thinking that 'Track' somehow provides a corrective value to regain DTK (or 'course') - but it emphatically does nothing of the kind.

And I agree that the GPS150 and GNC250 do not provide much SA - they're not intended to. Neither does a conventional VOR display, whether OBS or RMI.

I use GPS for navigation, but a chart for airspace SA. If you want to use a panel mounted moving map GPS for both, then fine. But the cost of fitting standard panel mounted GPS to club aircraft and maintaining their databases cannot really be justified at PPL training school level - they simply wouldn't provide a significant benefit for UK day VFR work to be cost-effective.

Droopystop

23rd Oct 2007, 09:33

They might give a CDI-like cross track error readout, relative to a preprogrammed track, but they give precisely zero (zero) situational awareness

Quite, but we are not talking about using such units in isolation. The SA comes from using a paper chart, which has a much bigger "screen" than even the best moving map! We use a Trimble, its not great, but it works, our SA seems to be ok and no we are not flying airways. Besides, how much SA is needed when flying VFR? If you have planned your route properly before hand and your GPS tells you that you are sticking to it, is that not enough?

GPS cannot be used as a substitute for proper preplanning, although it is tempting with a moving map to jump in switch on and go, loading the plan on the first leg.

Also for someone who bangs on about SA, it is strange that IO540 doesn't use a whiz wheel which gives wonderful SA when it comes to understanding the effect of wind! :E

I've just looked at IO540 recommendation for a GPS, the KMD150. Yours for 2100 notes. What's that, a years worth of flying for an average ppl? Two years? I think you are in a different budget league to most ppls IO.

IO540

23rd Oct 2007, 09:44

I use GPS for navigation, but a chart for airspace SA.

Most people use the printed chart for airspace reference, because the GPS maps don't have clear labels. (Unless one is running the real VFR charts as a moving map). However, a chart is completely useless unless you are very sure of your position on it.

A GPS which delivers only a "CDI" function, like a VOR CDI, tells you the position relative to a preprogrammed track, which is fine if you stick totally to the preprogrammed track, but is useless if one is just bimbling around.

I reckon most CAS busts are done either during unplanned flight (bimbling) or during an ad hoc diversion from a preplanned flight.

That is where a moving map comes in. You can see where you are on the map. But you know this already..........

If you want to use a panel mounted moving map GPS for both, then fine. But the cost of fitting standard panel mounted GPS to club aircraft and maintaining their databases cannot really be justified at PPL training school level - they simply wouldn't provide a significant benefit for UK day VFR work to be cost-effective

Well that is true but that is a separate issue. I have already acknowledged that there is no chance of modernising the PPL nav, due to flying schools not wanting to spend the money. This will happen only over many years, as the current old fleet is scrapped.

The database update issue isn't such a big deal. How often does the average PPL update his chart? Once a year! The CAA churns out a chart only once a year (usually).

I update my VFR databases once a year, maybe. IFR is something else - every 14 or 28 days.

Mariner9

23rd Oct 2007, 09:45

Also for someone who bangs on about SA, it is strange that IO540 doesn't use a whiz wheel which gives wonderful SA when it comes to understanding the effect of wind!

IMHO, someone who can only visualise the effects of crosswind/headwind/tailwind/whatever on his track by use of a whiz wheel shouldn't be flying :rolleyes:

Fuji Abound

23rd Oct 2007, 09:52

I've just looked at IO540 recommendation for a GPS, the KMD150. Yours for 2100 notes. What's that, a years worth of flying for an average ppl? Two years? I think you are in a different budget league to most ppls IO.

Forget all that, the Garmin 195 - yours for less than a couple of hundred quid - even less on eBay. So thats a couple of hours flying or so.

It also has its own power supply so very easy to move between different club aircraft - a clear moving map and pretty much all the same functions as even the G1000 so far as the GPS component is concerned. In fact other than the procedural stuff I cant think of anything I do on the G1000 the 195 doesnt do.

Panel mounts are fine but the only things they really enable you to do that you cant with a hand held is use the GPS for flying a procedure (if it is so certified) and linking to an autopilot - in terms of reliability I doubt there is much between the two.

BEagle

23rd Oct 2007, 10:23

For a private aircraft, yes - of course it makes sense to use your own GPS.

But we did away with our little 'handheld' a while ago, due to the isue of power leads, antenna leads etc. We had external GPS antennae fitted, so that all pilots needed to do was to fit the yoke mount and plug in the 2 leads - one power, one antenna.

The problem was that people didn't fit the yoke mount properly and the cables could often foul the engine controls. So on purely safety issues we moved on to the GPS150. Then later to the GNC250 when we replaced the non-FM immune radios with new ones and fitted the GNC250 as Comm2 with a very similar GPS 'face' to the GPS150. Standardising on the GPS150/GNC250 mean that our FIs only had one 'system' to learn and should therefore be capable of teaching it.

Even so, we still get people who prefer to use their own handhelds....

Regarding the issue of airspace busts, I think perhaps there is another category. Those who don't really know exactly where they are, who then enter home aerodrome and press 'Direct To', cutting the corner through someone else's airspace. Which probably wouldn't happen with an up-to-date moving map display, I agree.

Finally, it's not a question of flyig clubs 'not wanting to spend the money' - they very probably just don't have 'the money' to splash out on smart new GPS systems. Particularly when they may (as we did) be required to spend money on the FM-immunity nonsense or, shortly perhaps, Mode S.

For the £17K it took to upgrade 4 aircraft to FM-immunity and panel GPS, we probably got a good deal overall. But we have no fundamental need to upgrade further, nor will we unless Mode S is forced on us.

DFC

23rd Oct 2007, 12:26

BEagle,

I don't think that you have read my post correctly.

In your diagram, if the TRK has remained constant, that aircraft was never overhead WPT1 and the CDI would never have centred.

TRK information is very useful when combined with DTK and the CDI. That is why GARMIN designed the CDI on their very popular units to show DTK, TRK and off track distance.

Having BRG is of limited usefulness since it requires some mental gymnastics and wind correction to be of use in regaining track.

Having TRK makes it simply a case of turning so that TRK is a value that will intercept track by the desired amount i.e........

We are here some 3nm right of desired track of 090. We need to intercept track at an angle of 60deg to avoid that zone. Simple - make TRK read 030 until the CDI centres.

Now try it your way -

We are some 3nm rignt of the desired track of 090. We need to intercept track at an angle of 60deg to avoid that zone. The BRG to WPT2 is 075 and the distance is 60nm.

Now do I go for the 1 in 60 rule or do I try double the error which is ? or do I try SCA but wil that avoid the zone OH heck I am not getting a lot of useful help from my GPS am I.

Do you understand the point I am making yet?

Regards,

DFC

BEagle

23rd Oct 2007, 12:45

"TRK information is very useful when combined with DTK and the CDI."

Perhaps - but that's rather different to your earlier comments.

If you're 3 miles off track and need to make a 60 deg avoidance turn to avoid airspace......:eek:

DFC

23rd Oct 2007, 15:35

My position has not changed but I detect from your "perhaps" that you may have seen the light. :OK:

The numbers are not significant, but the ease with which the DTK can be intercepted at any desired angle without any amount of calcualtion is.

It is very much an issue when dealing with PPL basic navigation. After all what we do is teach them to calculate a heading that should cause the aircraft track made good to equal the desired track and we put much store in being at the start fix acurately and if the wind is as calculated and they fly accurate heading and airspeed we tell them that they will end up at the point they are trying to get to.

Very confusing when an instructor then turns round and says that if you are at the start of your route and you keep track made good equal to desired track you may not end up at the destination.

Regards,

DFC

bookworm

23rd Oct 2007, 16:56

One can assess position against desired track using linear or angular measures:

To use linear measures, you need DTK and cross-track error (XTE). TRK can be varied with respect to DTK to increase or decrease XTE, with a target XTE of zero. This is a CDI mentality.

To use angular measures, you need DTK and BRG. TRK can be varied with respect to DTK to increase or decrease BRG, with a target BRG of DTK. This is an RMI mentality, and is my personal preference.

In both cases, the big bonus the GPS gives you is the TRK output, which in pre-GPS days was a question of heading and drift guesswork.

In both cases, DTK stays constant until you reach the next waypoint. To have it on-screen is a useful reminder but it's always the least important of the three fields to display whether TRK/XTE/DTK or TRK/BRG/DTK.

Having BRG is of limited usefulness since it requires some mental gymnastics and wind correction to be of use in regaining track.

Wind correction?!

DFC

23rd Oct 2007, 20:26

Yes wind correction -

You are 40nm from WPT2. The BRG is 070deg and the DTK is 075.

You want to make a 60deg intercept of the DTK but do not have TRK displayed.

What heading are you going use to do that fly if the wind is 140/30?

This whole idea is similar to the discussions one gets about the two methods one comes across for using the dreaded wizz wheel. the problem is that one method replicates the triangle of velocities while the other one requires much wiggle waggle waste of time. People are often limited to what they are taught during training and even if the instruction manual that they purchased with the device says to do things one way they wil persist with what they have learned i.e. primacy.

So it really is a question of training the trainers which is the priority rather than making any great change to the PPL VFR navigation sylabus is it not?

Regards,

DFC

Islander2

23rd Oct 2007, 21:00

"but do not have TRK displayed"Why? Why on earth would anyone configure their GPS display so as to 'hide' what is arguably its single MOST useful output? Why? Sorry to be repetitive but, as a fifteen year panel-mount GPs user, WHY? I'm truly confused!

BEagle

23rd Oct 2007, 21:04

Sorry, but I simply don't understand your preoccupation with specific track intercept angles.

You do seem to be making a simple navigation system designed for everyday PPL use into some arcane navigation art form.

Check the displayed leg DTK is the same as the one measured pre-flight and keep the CDI centred - what's so hard about that?

K I S S

Fuji Abound

23rd Oct 2007, 21:04

DFC and BEagle

I have followed with some interest.

I am confused where it is leading, not only so far as this thread is concerned but generally.

It doesnt seem to either relate to the thread or to the way most would use their GPS - please enlighten me.

DFC

23rd Oct 2007, 21:40

If you refer to post 153, you will see that BEagle took offence with some member of his club that dared to display TRK and DTK on one of the club GPS units.

I agree totally with Islander2 that it is one of the most useful pieces of info that one can have.

What it shows Fuji is that until the "teachers" have a thorough grasp of what is involved then navigation is not going to be taught very well and thus not very well practised or understood by the plot population.

Regards,

DFC

IO540

23rd Oct 2007, 22:03

I am confused too where this is leading.

When flying with a moving map GPS, navigation reduces to the trivial process of adjusting one's heading until the projected track passes through the place where one wants to go.

Normally, one flies so the track ahead (what the Americans sometimes call the "course") lines up with the programmed track; this is what happens if you fly with a GPS coupled autopilot. Or, one might just fly straight towards the next waypoint. Or in between some airport ATZs. Or to cut a corner off a VOR so one doesn't fly straight over it. Etc. Etc. It becomes so trivial it's hard to write about it.

High Wing Drifter

24th Oct 2007, 17:03

DFC,

Personally, I think it shows nothing more than it is possible to generate any amount of pointless waffle that inhibits any useful and practical discussion. In other words, bullsh*t baffles brains :}

tangovictor

24th Oct 2007, 17:32

I wonder, if, its a case of being able to understand and diseminate information, ie, when I was at school, I could never understand why we had to be taught applied maths ( x + y = z ) etc
eventually I asked the tutor, and he's reply stuck with me for years, its to see if you have a logical brain, so I wonder, if this is why ppl / nppl nav is taught this way, a way of, keeping people, with limited understanding from flying ? and killing themselves, JUST A THOUGHT

Viola

24th Oct 2007, 19:34

It seems to me it's sensible to make student PPLs use the whizwheel, map, lines, etc to make sure they understand what they are doing before they go onto anything else.

It's the same as making sure children can add up, etc on paper so they understand the basics before you let them loose with a calculator.

(I'm not an instructor, but I teach/have taught people from 8 years old up to 70+, but mostly late teens and adults).

By the way I love using 'traditional' navigation methods, even though I have a GPS. I suppose it's the same pleasure some people get from flying tailwheels.

Droopystop

24th Oct 2007, 21:55

Mariner9

I hoped that the :E would indicate that the tongue was firmly in cheek.

But joking aside, the whiz wheel does illustrate the effect of wind pictorially to the student, which will help the novice to visualise the problem helping it to become second nature as you correctly suggest it should be.

DFC,

I have not really followed you argument fully, but if you are three miles off track using a GPS when you trying to fly accurately down a track, it is pretty poor. The way I do it is to match BRG with TRK and if you are reasonably attentive, there is no reason why BRG shouldn't remain within a degree or two of DTK.

I accept the bimbling argument, but if as is suggested there is not much to change in the PPL syllabus in the short term at least, then map reading skills should be good enough to deviate from a track and revert back to the track using feature hopping/ track crawl or what ever you like to call it. These skills must be taught and practised. If traditional nav techniques are swept away for progress' sake, the next step is that a moving map GPS becomes a requirement more or less how a whiz wheel is now. Is that really what private flying wants?

I have to say I agree with the need for progress when progress is needed. But taking the progress argument forward, you end up with autopiloted private aircraft coupled to a GPS doing 3D nav, just the way the commercial world is going. You would just about eliminate airspace busts but talk about nanny state. That is not what private aviation is all about. Private aviation is about freedom.

One day soon, I am going to have to give up flying and become a systems manager. I suppose I will stay good at the first 50kts and last 50'. Maybe then I will take up private flying again to do some real flying.