IMC

[chris-h]

If i was to do the IMC rating in the next few months and then it was to be scrapped, would i still hold the rating or would i have wasted my money.

I understant the skills would be invaluable scrapped or unscrapped but the question has to be asked! 'sorry if its been coverd before'

[IO540]

The skills are priceless. Get it, definitely. But try to get a "modern" instructor; one who knows GPS. IFR is de facto GPS these days. The rest of the stuff one should know, for a backup and to pass the exam :)

IMHO the chance of it simply being banned is under 10%.

Plus the earliest "end" date is 2012. That's an awful long time in politics (and flying :) ) and this issue is going to become red hot nearer the time, not least because there is zero precedent in aviation for summarily stripping a few k pilots of a relevant privilege.

[chris-h]

I totaly agree with all of the above, Im going for this regardless
Fingers crossed tho hey..

Thanks

[julian_storey]

IO540 is I suspect correct.

Historically, I'm not aware of a situation where people have ever been stripped of an aviation privilege without being given something else to replace it.

If that were to happen with the IMC rating, it would unleash a minor sh*t storm.

[TurboJ]

But try to get a "modern" instructor; one who knows GPS. IFR is de facto GPS these days. The rest of the stuff one should know, for a backup and to pass the exam

Strange statement to make??

GPS shouldn't be used as a primary means of navigation anyway, so its irrelevant. I would get an instructor that can teach you the ground based navaids properly and use GPS as a backup; En route use of GPS requires additional certification as does using it for approaches.

There are also a limited number of places that use GPS approved approaches, so I would get to grips with ILS, NDB and VOR approaches and leave the GPS stuff until you've passed the skill test as its not a requirement.

TJ

[VMC-on-top]

TJ - I'd tend to agree. I finished my IMC at the end of last year and GPS wasn't discussed at point throughout the course. Perhaps that's because the instructor was not a "modern" instructor? Is it something that should have been touched on?

I tend to use both GPS and nav aids - GPS being much easier and nav aids being on the whole, more reliable.

[TurboJ]

The IMC course syllabus was written pre-GPS and hasn't, to my knowledge, been updated to incorporate GPS.

Having said that, if you were at a field e.g. Shoreham, that has a GPS approach and your aircraft is certified to fly GPS approaches, then it wouldn't be a 'modern' instructor that teaches an IMC course without incorporating some sort of training to enable you to fly the GPS approach.

Furthermore, GPS shouldn't be used as the primary means of navigation in non certified aircraft, and even if it is certified, I would still use cross cuts of radials and DME to confirm my position.

TJ

[BasicService]

Before doing my IMC rating towards the end of last year, I did quite a bit of research on this. The conclusion I came to was the same as IO540: the rating will continue to be valid until at least a date in 2012, still over 2 years away.

[S-Works]

GPS shouldn't be used as a primary means of navigation anyway, so its irrelevant.

What a load of uneducated tosh!!

GPS can and is used as a PRIMARY means of navigation. Above FL95 in a light aircraft it is pretty much the only means of meeting the BRNAV compliance.

NATS and the other European ATS providers are currently looking at turning of the conventional navigation aids in preference for BRNAV systems. Take a look at the current consultation that will see nearly half the VOR's and all of the enroute NDB's turned off in the next couple of years.

Whatever the old guard may think, GPS is here to stay and we will all have to come to grips with it as a primary means of navigation. Any Instrument pilot, IR or IMCr should be embracing current technology and any Instructor teaching for such ratings is doing the student a disservice by not teaching current technology.

The AOPA RNAV course is currently being updated to cover GPS and this can be linked to the IMCr for full credit. We tried to update the IMCr a couple of years ago but with the transition to EASA it was put on the back burner.

[englishal]

The problem is that obviously from the posts on PPrune many people in the UK don't understand GPS and its capabilities or limitations so it is very hard to get proper training to use it properly. Luckily I have done a lot of flying in the USA where GPS overlay approaches exist for nearly every instrument approach and standalone GPS approaches exist for nearly every airports with an IAP.

There is nothing wrong with using traditional instruments to back up the GPS but if they didn't agree I'd tend to follow the GPS for a number of reasons.

I still think it is nuts that the departure out of Gurnsey (if memory serves me right) has one dead reckoning a ground track to ORTAC. If one has a G430 fitted, why would one DR one's way there?!?!?!?!??!?!??!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!

[IO540]

GPS shouldn't be used as a primary means of navigation anyway, so its irrelevant.

Furthermore, GPS shouldn't be used as the primary means of navigation in non certified aircraft

AAAARRRRGGGGHHHHHH :ugh::ugh:

(as well as being totally wrong as any kind of a summary of the legal position)

The problem is that obviously from the posts on PPrune many people in the UK don't understand GPS and its capabilities or limitations so it is very hard to get proper training to use it properly.

How true.

[belowradar]

Not surprised with general negative attitude to GPS in UK given the fact that CAA have been casting GPS as the devil incarnate for the past decade !

We have some catching up to do so please listen carefully !

GPS Can be primary Nav above MSA and if you have the right GPS it can be primary for an approach as well. Unfortunately many of our new GPS approaches rely on conventional nav aids for the missed approach procedure (how daft) - so CAA must have decided that NDB must never be forgotten !!!

I teach IMC ratings and I teach use of GPS and if your aircraft has GPS approach capability then that as well. Call it a modern approach to IMC training for real world real aircraft operations. There are many instructors who are passing on a very rigid training syllabus that hasn't changed in donkeys years, yes pass on the old stuff but please get to grips with the new stuff as well.

[IO540]

Actually, there is no concept or definition of "primary nav" in the ANO.

The ANO specifies equipment to be carried. It does not specify equipment to be used.

The only time equipment usage may be specified is on AOC ops where you fly IAW a company ops manual.

The whole business of "primary nav" (GPS being good / no good etc) comes from various pompous leaflets emanating from the CAA, or the pompous GASIL/GASCO organs which are written to appear as if they are written by the CAA :)

In truth, a private pilot is free to navigate with any, or any combination of, navaids, and is 100% legit to do so. Above MSA or below MSA :)

Above FL095, Europe, IFR, the carriage of an IFR GPS is the only acceptable (GA context) means of compliance with the BRNAV equipment carriage requirement.

[Katamarino]

I seem to remember a previous IO540 post advocating navigating using a rubber duck in a bucket of water :ok:

GPS is a fantastic tool, and used properly just as safe as any other navaid. Particularly in the USA, given their WAAS network (and a capable receiver)!

[IO540]

I think a tuna sandwich (http://groups.google.co.uk/group/rec.aviation.ifr/browse_thread/thread/be2d5f1e3b1cf532/abfa3f33062ee23d?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=%22tuna+sandwich%22+aviation#abfa3f33062ee23d) (more here (http://groups.google.co.uk/group/rec.aviation.ifr/browse_thread/thread/dcbc4ba4f2b42090/c22de3af6b21b470?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=%22tuna+sandwich%22+aviation#c22de3af6b21b470)) is the more definitive version.

[chris-h]

GPS is something ill be investing in even if its just for the moving map purpose at the moment, Thanks for your shouts

[TurboJ]

bose-x - uneducated tosh - Really. Well I refer the honourable person to the CAA Safety Sense Leaflet entitled 'GPS' which in its opening paragraph states:

GPS must not be relied upon as a sole navigation reference in
flight-critical applications.

If you're using it at FL whatever it is in a light aircraft it should have been approved to BR-NAV standards which is the +/- 5nm 95% of the time. Instrument approaches require a higher standard of approval of GPS equipment.

Furthermore, my point is that a modern instructor who tells a student he can go and use his handheld GPS to fly an instrument approach or to use it as a primary means of navigation without it having been approved to do so, is not doing the student any favours.

[Katamarino]

If you're using it at FL whatever it is in a light aircraft it should have been approved to BR-NAV standards which is the +/- 5nm 95% of the time. Instrument approaches require a higher standard of approval of GPS equipment.

I understood it to be +/- 2nm?

[IO540]

I refer the honourable person to the CAA Safety Sense Leaflet entitled 'GPS'and the reference that this organ has the slightest legal significance is......... where?

This is the problem the CAA is now facing, when they try to drag themselves kicking and screaming into the late 20th century.

For as long as I've been flying (~ 10 years) they have had various staff members (both inside and outside CAA premises) emitting their personal opinions and prejudices, in various publications, and in CAA "safety" meetings, all dressed up to look very "official".

Together with the highly deferential climate which prevails in GA (a bit like our whole society was in the 1950s and before) and the almost totally opaque ANO, this stuff has been taken as gospel by many otherwise perfectly intelligent people.

Now the CAA has a double hill to climb on GPS approaches: these need full ATC, and way over 90% of private pilots are convinced GPS is illegal, the work of the devil, etc. Most of these are long-term PPL holders who are operating outside of the PPL training scene and there is no real way to re-educate them.

In the meantime, NATS (to their credit) has got fed up with the constant stream of major CAS busts (a few hundred per year) which only by sheer luck have not yet brought down an airliner, grabbed the bull by the horns and have sponsored the production of a £150 GPS (http://www.airspaceaware.com/) which runs a decent map.

[Whopity]

The IMC rating was designed to allow pilots to fly IFR outside controlled airspace in their own aircraft using whatever equipment it had fitted hence there is no specific requirement to do particular approaches other than one must be pilot interpreted.

Initially there were only a few civil airfields notified in Schedule 8 that you could make approaches to but that was scrapped in 1996.

There is nothing to prevent GPS approaches being conducted as part of an IMC course, if you have the appropriate equipment and can find one.

2/3 of the course is basic IF, the remainder is being able to fly two different approaches using whatever is fitted to the aircraft. It must however cover the basic IF and limited panel and the candidate should be able to use anything fitted to the aircraft so that leaves only a small proportion of the time to cover the GPS element.

There was a committee looking at revising the syllabus to include the GPS a couple of years ago but changes were inappropriate if the rating is to cease.

EASA have said that pilots holding IMC privileges will be afforded grandfather rights until alternative arrangements are put into place. The crackpot En-route IR appears to be the first step! EASA Flight Standards: Instrument Flying (http://www.easa.europa.eu/flightstandards/instrument_flying.html)

[W2k]

IMC is one thing, but GPS is greatly useful to pilots under VFR as well. I'm working on my PPL(A) right now and all the instructors I've flown with advocate using GPS for general navigation.

Of course I'm also learning to use the old nav aids as is required for the PPL, I can find my way using VOR, ADF or map-and-stopwatch no problem, but quite frankly, I consider those to be (cumbersome) backups for when the GPS fails, just as the turn indicator can be used as a substitute gyro horizon in a pinch.

GPS is here to stay. Possibly supplemented by other satnav systems to provide redundancy, but I for one won't be shedding tears when they turn the last power-hogging NDB off.

[TurboJ]

IO540

and the reference that this organ has the slightest legal significance is......... where?


Are you suggesting I teach the use of GPS contrary to a CAA safety publication?

I also refer you to CAP773: Flying RNAV GNSS Approaches in Private & GA Aircraft which states that the required approval of the GPS equipment to fly GNSS/RNAV approaches should be clearly stated in the AFM. This, I believe, is also true of en route GPS navigation.

I believe GPS is great, I use it every day, I am not stuck in the dark ages, or dragging myself kicking and screaming into 2010; I also don't believe GPS is evil or illegal;

However, if you are teaching GPS to students who fly GPS approaches or use GPS for en route navigation, then they should be taught that the equipment they intend to use is to be approved for its intended use or it should not be used as a primary means of navigation. I don't believe this is uneducated tosh -

En route nav: RNP is 5
Terminal nav: RNP is 1

[Katamarino]

I've been looking at FAA RNP. Guess it must be different...5nm seems pretty poor precision.

[Duchess_Driver]

The problem with GPS is the inherrent inability of MOST owners to keep the database up to date - and despite protestations to the contrary, things do change from time to time.

Gents, the truth of the matter should be that we use ALL available facilities to maintain our positional and situational awareness. Who really cares whether GPS is primary or not.

DD

[TurboJ]

Who really cares whether GPS is primary or not.


The CAA investigator when you're sat in front of him facing an infringment interview !!

When London City airspace changed a few years back it caught a lot of GPS happy PPL holders out who were flying fat dum and happy with their out of date databases, using GPS as sole means of nav.....cos their instructors probably told them it was such a great piece of kit....

[S-Works]

TurboJ, Do me a favour and show me where a Safety Sense leaflet is enshrined in law? I am struggling to reconcile your claim with the legal position and just want to make sure we are talking from the same book.

[IO540]

I've been looking at FAA RNP. Guess it must be different...5nm seems pretty poor precision.Yes... all that "RNP" stuff goes back to the goode olde days when pilots were real men with sextants, and a jet pilot coming off the oceanic route was doing damn well if his INS drifted off by just 5nm.

Today it is basically meaningless, because both INS with GPS or DME/DME fixing yields accuracies of a fraction of a nm (equivalent to RNP 0.3 or better).

A Garmin 496 is RNP0.0-something and that's before you get EGNOS..... :) The funniest thing being that a handheld is allowed to receive EGNOS whereas a certified unit isn't :yuk:

But there is such a huge army of assorted well paid hangers-on around the national regulators safeguarding "RNP" based performance specs, and all the associated avionics certification garbage, and turkeys have never voted for xmas.

BRNAV is RNP5 I think. PRNAV is RNP1, I think. GPS approaches are RNP0.3 or something like that, which is why PRNAV (which requires weird equipment and crew certification, despite being less accurate than GPS approaches for which even EASA has a straight path today) is now completely irrelevant. But does that stop the PRNAV machinery in its tracks? No way. It will be 10-20 years before they realise that the "RNP" boat has left the port (sunk, actually) a few years ago.

The problem with GPS is the inherrent inability of MOST owners to keep the database up to date - and despite protestations to the contrary, things do change from time to time.I am sure that's true but have not seen evidence that this statistically features in CAS busts. Let's face it, the CAA VFR charts update once a year, and they are as "official" as you can get... And the typical handheld, with its fairly hopeless Jeppesen mapping, needs to be used together with the printed chart anyway.

It's different and more critical for airways/IFR where all nav is 100% GPS and ATC are constantly feeding you waypoints. I should update the KLN94 database every 28 days but in practice I don't bother if I am not flying airways in those 28 days, so I skip that cycle and save myself a few bob. I did one airways flight 2 weeks or so ago and the next one will be to Germany on 9th April and I see there is a download becoming valid on 8th April so I will grab that one.

[Duchess_Driver]

Which is why we should have all available systems on and tracking.

I'm not pro GPS or anti it....I couldn't care less....but I do teach my students GPS/VOR/NDB/DME navigation and the use of an integrated approach to navigation. In VMC, I even advocate looking out of the window:ok:

DD

[mm_flynn]

BRNAV is RNP5 I think. PRNAV is RNP1, I think. GPS approaches are RNP0.3 or something like that, which is why PRNAV (which requires weird equipment and crew certification, despite being less accurate than GPS approaches for which even EASA has a straight path today) is now completely irrelevant. But does that stop the PRNAV machinery in its tracks? No way. It will be 10-20 years before they realise that the "RNP" boat has left the port (sunk, actually) a few years ago.




The RNP is about how close the aircraft is to where it is supposed to be, not about how accurately the nav kit measures the actual location.

So RNP 0.3 means you are within 0.3 nm 95% of the time and, I think, 'never' (ie. 99.999% sure) be more than 0.6 nm from your programmed track. This needs to be true for all of the supported profiles (turns, DME arcs, etc.) this is why there was the debate on PRNAV if autoslew HSI was requried

(How many people can make a 45 degree course change in IMC never moving more than 0.5 mile from the specified flight path using an NDB or VOR?)

The US version of PRNAV is called RNP xxx. It is on trial in Alaska with IMC approaches consisting of multiple fly past waypoints weaving up mountain gorges all below the mountain ridges.


The use of GPS ranges from the use RNP SAAAR approaches, through WAAS approaches, into normal GPS approaches, RNAV, GPS monitoring, VFR situational awareness with a quality aviation moving map (with up to date data) down through a hacked car GPS with a 5 year old map on down to a camping GPS with a lat lon display. So making any comment about Good/Bad on 'GPS' is not very illuminating with out contexting the type of equipment.

[IO540]

The RNP is about how close the aircraft is to where it is supposed to be, not about how accurately the nav kit measures the actual location.

Indeed; however one has the same issue with a standard T-shaped GPS approach, with a fly-through IAF and a fly-past later on. The accuracy required is pretty high.

America seems to be relaxed about it - for private GA in its own airspace.

[TurboJ]

I don't believe I have stated that a safety sense leaflet is a legal document.

Where does it say you can go and use a handheld GPS to fly an instrument approach?

Where would you stand at the board of enquiry when a person you have taught has crashed their plane because you didn't teach them the pitfalls of GPS and the need to have equipment approved and certified before use?

[IO540]

Where does it say you can go and use a handheld GPS to fly an instrument approach?

Where does it say you can't?

Of course only an idiot would fly an ILS using a GPS...

To fly a nonprecision approach (VOR or NDB) using a GPS, one really needs one with OBS mode and few handhelds have got that. Most modern pilots fly them with an IFR GPS's OBS mode.

Where would you stand at the board of enquiry when a person you have taught has crashed their plane because you didn't teach them the pitfalls of GPS and the need to have equipment approved and certified before use?

Nowhere. It would not arise. In the UK, there is no comeback on an instructor. If there was, many would be out of a job, following accidents of former students.

[TurboJ]

Where does it say you can't?

CAP 773

Legal document or not, its a reference document produced by the UK CAA.

I'm not going to ignore a UK CAA document cos some guy on pprune says so.

[S-Works]

I'm not going to ignore a UK CAA document cos some guy on PPRuNe says so.

Which is entirely your perogative, however your previous posts were ethusiastically trying to convince the rest of us that it was against the rules to use a GPS as primary navigation equipment when I clearly pointed out that in order to meet BRNAV and PRNAV in light aircraft a GPS is the only means of complying. Therefore it is somewhat at odds about your claim that you are not allowed to use GPS as primary navigation.

As IO540 quite rightly points it there is no legal requirement for any type of PRIMARY navigation. The CAA safety sense leaflet is primarily aimed at those who think it is a great idea to use a car or walking GPS or the in the bottom of the bag brigade who generally don't have a clue how to use them and when they actually need them do more harm than good.

The use of an aviation GPS even a handheld one for VFR flying if properly trained for and used is a huge benefit to situational awareness and safety. It can be used on its own or if the pilot is prudent as a part of blend of navigation tools.

For IFR cruise and approaches then an approved panel mount is the way to go and used by the majority of GA IFR traffic this day. Even our work Turbines are being fitted with Garmin stuff now to replace the old FMS. The FMS was also the PRIMARY means of navigation for us in the past, however it is not unknown for me to stick the 496 up on the dash to watch the world go by.

[TurboJ]

Maybe I should have phrased it slightly different.

GPS can only be used as a primary means of navigation if the equipment and installation is approved and certified and correctly indicated in the POH/AFM in accordance with EASA AMC 20-5. Otherwise it may be unsuitable for RNAV/GNSS operations.

I am not going to teach a student anything to the contrary.

In the UK, there is no comeback on an instructor.

So my FTO is paying a fortune for instructor liability insurance for......??

[IO540]

GPS can only be used as a primary means of navigation if the equipment and installation is approved and certified and correctly indicated in the POH/AFM in accordance with EASA AMC 20-5. Otherwise it may be unsuitable for RNAV/GNSS operations.

Correct for BRNAV, but not a lot of your students will be going IFR, FL095+ which in the UK is Class A anyway, and in virtually all cases an IR is needed :)

(I say "virtually" because there are a few places in the UK one could go IFR on the IMCR alone at FL095+ but one would be hard pushed to find non-Class A CAS :) )

Not applicable to normal private flight, however.

So my FTO is paying a fortune for instructor liability insurance for......??

You are paying that in case one of your instructors is involved in an accident, and the student (or his estate) sues, or there is a ground damage claim. Or some spurious personal assault claim which has to be defended... a possibility when one is spending a lot of time alone in a plane with the student.

There is no known case of a comeback (in the UK) against an instructor simply for poor teaching methods.

[mad_jock]

There is no known case of a comeback (in the UK) against an instructor simply for poor teaching methods.

Prestwick I forget the details but a student crashed after getting himself IMC and the instructor was sued by the arab parents and the instructor had to pay sizable damages. It wasn't just poor teaching methods (by teaching methods I also include the process of sending someone solo and the duty of care if the student isn't hitting the grades)

[IO540]

It wasn't just poor teaching methods (by teaching methods I also include the process of sending someone solo and the duty of care if the student isn't hitting the grades)

Exactly. If the instructor ticks all the boxes, there isn't going to be a comeback purely on bad teaching methods.

Anyway, we are talking about instructor being gone after after the punter is qualified. Establishing liability would be almost impossible - provided the paperwork was straight.

[Fuji Abound]

The FMS was also the PRIMARY means of navigation for us in the past, however it is not unknown for me to stick the 496 up on the dash to watch the world go by.


So how did the FMS derive position?

[mad_jock]

My FMS uses 6 DME/DME cross hatchs then down grades to VOR/DME then GPS . It throws up all sorts of warnings if it goes into GPS only mode.

yep agreed on that one IO

[S-Works]

So how did the FMS derive position?

Same answer as MJ. Old honeywell kit.

[IO540]

FMS.............???

Hmmm, I have an "FMS" too ;)

[Fuji Abound]

I was just wondering how you put a full flight plan into these old flight managment systems, how you specified an IFR weighpoint and how the system derived that weighpoint from the avionics? I cant imagine Dornier using multiples DMEs or having some sort of database to which these were cross referred.

[S-Works]

The FMS has a database that is updated using a Data card. The position is updated using a variety of methods, including DME fixes, GPS etc. Fairly old kit by modern standards but serviceable largely! Gx30 replacements going in along with Mode S is much easier to use and far more capable.

496 is much easier to use!!

[Gertrude the Wombat]

So my FTO is paying a fortune for instructor liability insurance for......??
One does wonder sometimes.

I pay a fortune for professional indemnity insurance because my client insists that I do so, but so far as I can tell no claim has ever been paid on such a policy.

[mad_jock]

Less of the old please. There are hellva alot of big tin quite happily trundling around with nothing more than a trimble onboard.

[chris-h]

Gps is so expensive,
Is there not software out their that updates a 'road' tomtom' etc into
aviation gps?

Surely the hardware is simlar as the all use the same satallites..

[IO540]

Flying is not a cheap hobby :)

But for VFR you don't need to update every month. Once a year is OK - same as the VFR charts are updated anyway.

One cannot compare aviation GPS with tomtom etc road nav. I have been driving with TT for years and while it is OK 95% of the time, the rest of the time it can be utter crap. TT buy in old road databases because they are a lot cheaper - about 3 years old. On the road, one gets away with it; it is just a nuisance when one enters a postcode for the University of Reading and it cannot find it :)

[BackPacker]

Chris, you're not paying as much for the hardware, but rather for the Jepp database.

Without the Jepp database, or without a road database for that matter, GPSs can be had for, oh, 50 pounds or so these days.

Personally I own a 99-euro Garmin eTrex Euro (although it was a bit more expensive when I bought it) interfaced to my laptop on which I'm running OziExplorer. In OziExplorer I use self-scanned aviation maps, or whatever map I come across and then cross-reference with an aviation map, click the route together, load it into the eTrex and off I go. I owned all this stuff well before I got into aviation, so the additional investment was time only.

[Fuji Abound]

Gps is so expensive,
Is there not software out their that updates a 'road' tomtom' etc into
aviation gps?

Yes! Better still it is updated at least monthly and costs less than the TomTom road updates.

Unfortunately it does not run on TomTom GPSs but it does run on most other makes of car GPS. TomTom use a somewhat "strange" platform.

Have a look at PocketFms.

I reckon PocketFms should be more widely recognised. While I dont use it in the aircraft (although I did for many years) it is also excellent to run on your PC for planning and well worth the annual subscription.

(I have no commercial or other interest in PocketFms).

[mm_flynn]

It is worth remembering most of the GPS advocates posting here (of which I am one) are flying behind a panel mounted RNAV approved (and in many cases approach approved) moving map GPS, or are using a quite slick aviation GPS. Additionally, of the ones I know personally, I believe all of them have subscriptions for updated data on every ARINC cycle.

From this perspective it is almost inconceivable that you would want to use something else as your primary method of navigating under IFR (unless you have a DME/DME FMS as well ;) ).

I have never found the DIY solutions sufficiently robust to be comfortable using them for anything more than additional data. Yes I do have a bluetooth GPS I can chuck on the dash and feed data to my tablet running other mapping products. Would I choose to use this as my primary nav system? No.

[IO540]

Yes I do have a bluetooth GPS I can chuck on the dash and feed data to my tablet running other mapping products. Would I choose to use this as my primary nav system? No.I wonder why not?

It's miles less error prone and more accurate than map reading.

The only other option is pure VOR tracking but that often results in a somewhat cramped routing style :) And not a lot of accuracy, once close to the VOR or too far away to pick it up (which at GA levels, say 2400ft, is not all that far at all).

[mm_flynn]

I wonder why not?


Because I have had occassional issues with loosing the signal or the bluetooth stack acting up, sometimes strugle to read the screen in the wrong light, find it difficult to amend the flightplan on the fly or lookup a new waypoint sequence it into my flight plan and plot a direct from my current location (which may just be the software I have).

But most importantly, because I fly F100+ and have an approach approved GNS530 coupled to the autopilot - so that is my primary nav already!

I would be happy using a 396/496 with current data and a proper antena as the primary enroute nav system below FL095.

[IO540]

I agree; I fly with decent panel kit also.

I was asking the Q from the POV of a pilot who has nothing at all. IMHO, a bluetooth GPS receiver stuck somewhere high with a good sky view, and some kind of computer running a decent big VFR chart, is a whole lot better than map reading, or radio nav with the typical dodgy rental spamcan nav gear.

Bluetooth is indeed "a technology with a great future" ;) but if one sets it up and never messes with it (at either end) it should keep working (under windoze, pocket/pc is something else......). And if the connection fails, it is generally obvious on the display device.

I've been flying around with a BT GPS and a tablet computer for about 6 years, and I would happily use it as my only nav method, VFR UK and Europe. I went all the way to Crete with that kit, and sure as hell I was not doing any map reading, especially when VMC on top ;)

[VMC-on-top]

I would be happy using a 396/496 with current data and a proper antena as the primary enroute nav system below FL095.

A "proper" antenna being .... the extension cord to stick on the windscreen - or an external antenna?

[mm_flynn]

A "proper" antenna being .... the extension cord to stick on the windscreen - or an external antenna?
Depends on the aircraft. But generally the extension cord seems to work. It is some of the lower end kit with integral antenna that seems to suffer from signal loss.

[chris-h]

Just been looking at the gps systems on Flightstore.com and its
difficult to choose between them.
Any sugestions on what is best for around 600 quid?

The thing id want is full VFR charts with a moving map, And alerts for
terrain, airspace etc

This may be a silly request as maybe they all have these features but the website doesnt compare to real people experiances :ok:

[IO540]

UK only or Europe?

[chris-h]

Just uk for now

[Fuji Abound]

I would take a look at PocketFms - at least you can add charts as you need them, keep it up to date and for all intensive purposes the various platforms available are nearly as good as the dedicated Garmins style GPS units.

The fact that you also get weather and can add traffic are worth while.

[englishal]

I have a Garmin 496 and Garmin Aera 550. They are both great, with the Aera being better in my opinion. Certainly clever devices and of course covers the "western hemisphere" and so good for Europe too. I have the 550 due to the higher resolution TAWS but the 500 should be good too.

[mikehallam]

This has excellent reviews -various fora. For a basic £159 delivered & free NATS updates on 1/2 mill UK charts included. [1/4 mill also available].

AWARE - POWERED BY AIRBOX IN ASSOCIATION WITH NATS (http://www.airspaceaware.com/)

mikehallam - about to recieve one

[flybymike]

I have used GPS since it first became available for aircraft and am a great believer in it. However I am a complete computer technophobe and ignoramus (ancient man) and have no idea what the content of this thread is about when it talks about Blue tooth, tablet computers, PDAs, Iphones, memory maps, etc etc.

I have been bought a netbook computer for my birthday. What exactly would I need to do to get CAA moving maps with if possible flight planning to run on it? I understand that one can get GPS dongles and buy software mapping but doesn't this have to be loaded by disc (my netbook [eepc] has no CD aperture) and would I need to use my home computer to set it up? what leads connections etc would I need? I know what a USB connector is but I read things about blue teeth ( mine are like that anyway) ethernet connections and goodness knows what all . I am quite happy indeed delighted with my present GPS ( garmin aera) but I thought a large scale moving map if cheap and easy to set up may be a worthwhile second option, (using a second GPS receiver just as a redundancy back up rather than my existing one) . Any help in simple childish terms much appreciated....!

[chris-h]

AWARE - POWERED BY AIRBOX IN ASSOCIATION WITH NATS (http://redirectingat.com/?id=42X487496&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.airspaceaware.com%2F)

Seems quite cheap & it does most things the expensive ones do.
Can you buy a northern England 1:500.000 tho?

Does anybody out their allready own 1 of these?

[mikehallam]

Price includes the whole of GB charts.

Plenty of reviews out, try Google or the Flyer form, the LAA forum, even the BMAA: plus some specialist magazines on the web.

It's switch on and wait 1/2 minute & that's it - so the reviews say.

mikehallam

[p.s use the earlier above posted link to read what they offer if you're seriously searching for a device.]

[IO540]

I have used GPS since it first became available for aircraft and am a great believer in it. However I am a complete computer technophobe and ignoramus (ancient man) and have no idea what the content of this thread is about when it talks about Blue tooth, tablet computers, PDAs, Iphones, memory maps, etc etc.

I have been bought a netbook computer for my birthday. What exactly would I need to do to get CAA moving maps with if possible flight planning to run on it? I understand that one can get GPS dongles and buy software mapping but doesn't this have to be loaded by disc (my netbook [eepc] has no CD aperture) and would I need to use my home computer to set it up? what leads connections etc would I need? I know what a USB connector is but I read things about blue teeth ( mine are like that anyway) ethernet connections and goodness knows what all . I am quite happy indeed delighted with my present GPS ( garmin aera) but I thought a large scale moving map if cheap and easy to set up may be a worthwhile second option, (using a second GPS receiver just as a redundancy back up rather than my existing one) .There are two principal moving map applications under Windoze which will deliver a moving map over an electronic version of the real "printed" VFR chart:

Oziexplorer (http://www.oziexplorer.com)

This runs any map as a GPS moving map. You need to get it in one of the common graphical image formats e.g. TIFF, JPEG etc. You also need a separate .map file which contains georeferencing data - this enables the computer to position the map correctly, with your present location in the middle.

There is a huge range of maps available, especially ones distributed by underground networks, and these include current aviation charts for all of Europe and beyond. You get topo maps, city maps, road maps, the lot, and most of it is free. The old U.S. ONC charts (which can be bought online) run straight off under Ozi.

This program is the "standard" for GPS moving maps. The maps are "open", not copy protected etc.

Memory Map (http://www.memory-map.co.uk/)

This is a UK product which has made its name reselling Ordnance Survey 1:25k and 1:50k land maps, and later branched out into the UK CAA VFR maps. They do very little outside the UK. I have seen French IGN (non-aviation) maps from them.

MM uses a closed map format - QCT. However they are now moving to a "digital rights managed" format - QC3 - which locks each map to the computer it is on and it cannot be moved elsewhere. I hope everybody boycotts MM from now on. Unfortunately, those who want an electronic version of the latest southern UK chart may not have an option...

When running the UK CAA VFR charts, MM provides a moving map product which is very similar to Ozi.


As regards connecting a GPS to a laptop/netbook (netbook is just a name for a cheap laptop), you need a laptop with bluetooth. This is a low power radio link for connecting various devices to it. If your laptop doesn't have BT then forget it. If it has BT then any BT GPS should work e.g. this one (http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/EMTAC-MINI-S3-COPILOT-BLUETOOTH-GPS-RECEIVER-NEW_W0QQitemZ320447237277QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUK_CE_GPS_Access ories_Software_ET?hash=item4a9c24cc9d).

However, connecting a BT device to a laptop does require a bit of computer knowledge so getting help from a friend may be a good idea. The BT connection is easy to set up (normally) but then you need to go into Control Panel and find out which COM port number the GPS appears under, and configure that COM port number in the moving map application (Ozi/MM etc).


As regards flight planning software, there are two reasonably tested applications which cover Europe: Navbox (http://www.navbox.nl)and PocketFMS (http://www.pocketfms.com/). I have used Navbox Pro around Europe and it is pretty good.

Both of these needs to be used in conjunction with the printed VFR charts (terrain clearance, etc).

Both will also provide a moving map function (with a BT GPS) but you don't get the "proper" VFR chart.

There is also Jeppesen Flitestar VFR but I can't recommend this to a technophobe. It is full of features but is a clunky bit of software. I use it for IFR/airways and for that it is the only game in town, but it has so many quirks...


There are other more esoteric options for a GPS moving map e.g. a Flitestar sister product called Flitemap. It is identical to Flitestar but has a moving map function. The moving map can be the basic Jeppesen map (no good for flying with) or it can be an electronic version of their "1:500k VFR/GPS" charts; this is sold as their Raster Charts product for about £200 for most of Europe. IMHO, for the UK, the CAA charts are clearer than the Jepp Raster Charts, but if MM tighten up their "digital rights management" :yuk: UK pilots won't have an option there. I have flown as far as Crete, VFR, running Flitemap. Jepp have discontinued Flitemap but one can still get hold of it.


The "holy grail" which is a decent flight planning program that uses proper "printed" VFR charts, and support a GPS moving map over the same charts, exists only as Jeppesen Flitemap (which no longer officially exists). This is thanks to VFR maps being profit centres ;) Safety doesn't come into any of this of course. Someone like Navbox could do it but instead of costing under £100 it would cost about £300 - due to the cost of licensing the Jepp raster charts.

[BackPacker]

IO, your post is not complete. If you mention PocketFMS, you should also mention SkyDemon (SkyDemon Plan, flight planning software for desktop PCs (http://www.skydemon.aero/plan/)) which has more or less the same capabilities but is a far more recent product.

What would be very nice if either PocketFMS or SkyDemon would allow you to import your own maps & calibrate them, OziExplorer style, and then use this as the basemap on which all airspace features are drawn. (Or not, at your option.)

That way you would be able to get hold of said "Underground" maps and import them into PocketFMS or SkyDemon, to get your route overlaid on a map with familiar color coding etc., but you also get the intelligence of a program that understands airspace, can warn for imminent CAS busts, knows how to handle TAFs, METARs, NOTAMs, fuel flow, alternates and so forth.

[IO540]

I did not mention Skydemon because it doesn't have European coverage; only bits. I also think it needs some more market exposure, to iron out various things (according to reports). When they are done, and if they are committed to a constant update schedule, it will be a far better product than Navbox.

What would be very nice if either PocketFMS or SkyDemon would allow you to import your own maps & calibrate them, OziExplorer style, and then use this as the basemap on which all airspace features are drawn

I couldn't agree more :)

[mmgreve]

Do you mind if we get back to the original question for a while....

Having a PPL and realising that you can't go anywhere because of weather - or at least that you will be nervously flying below lowering clouds to stay VMC, some form of IR quickly come into mind

In my book, there is always gonig to be a trade-off, and I am not sure where to put my money and time down.

IMC: "Easy" to get, cost efficient and probably(?) learnes you 95% of what you will ever need in real life as a PPL. But you still can't go anywhere because it is UK only and I can't imaging myself going fo a leasure flight round the flagpole in IMC - I am like to need the IR when going cross country, and that is likely to be across the channel

FAA IR: Probably the next best in my book. Appears to be more targeted towards the PPL pilot than the JAA version. I will however need to (ideally) get a full stand alone FAA PPL, spend time in the states flying and get an N-reg plane (again, I need to be able to cross the channel). It seems counter-intuitive for me to be going for an FAA IR when I am likely to do 99% of my IR flying in Europe and as such need to know how things work here. I have also heard some talk about limiting the ability to operate foreign reg aircrafts permanently in Europe (I believe Denmark has imposed such a rule - probably mostly because they didn't want people to pay their fees to the FAA)

JAA IR: It will be interesting to see what they come up with to make it more FAA-like (not sure why they don't just copy). At the moment it seems to me a bit OTT in terms of what you need to go through to fly a small SEP through a cloud. Part of me feels however that the curriculum might be perceived to be worse than it is. I know piltos with JAA IR who I wouldn't consider to be overly strong academically.


Any advice?

[Fuji Abound]

PocketFms

I think there is some confusion here which I would like to correct.

PocketFms is primarily NOT a flight planning product but is very much designed to run in the cockpit. The software can be installed on a very wide range of platforms including most touch screen car GPS, notepads and notebooks and other portable PCs. The maps cover the whole of Europe and in fact most of the world. The software works very very well in the cockpit, and the charts are as good as the printed versions.

Personally I think the holy grail is someone producing a platform on which software of this sort will operate which is comparable with the best panel displays. For a long time screens that could be viewed in bright light were few and far between. For this reason PocketFms was usually run on an iPaq. Cheap in car GPS have provided a good alternative. However, in the perfect world these screens are too small. The ideal screen size would IMO be around A5 size. Get the screen size right and then you need to provide a three hour plus run time on batteries, sunlight readability, touch screen and reasonable storage. All of that can be done except perhaps the run time aspect on batteries but tapping into the ships power is not the end of the world. The probelm is that by the time you have purchased PocketFms and a platform that meets my criteria to be fair you might just as well buy one of the very good units from Mr Garmin.

However PocketFms does work really well on in car type GPS which are a far less expensive solution.

[W2k]

JAA IR: It will be interesting to see what they come up with to make it more FAA-like (not sure why they don't just copy). At the moment it seems to me a bit OTT in terms of what you need to go through to fly a small SEP through a cloud. Part of me feels however that the curriculum might be perceived to be worse than it is. I know piltos with JAA IR who I wouldn't consider to be overly strong academically.

Being a low-hour PPL student this certainly matches my view of the IR so far. Being potentially grounded by a few rainclouds seems like it's going to be an awful inconvenience once I get my PPL and start using it to fly places. OTOH the IR seems to be an awfully big step over just PPL+NQ in terms of the time and money required to attain one and keep it current.

Having not really researched the subject in depth yet (a bit early for me to care about such things until I have my PPL!), I'm left wondering "what the hell have they put in there to make the course so darn long, just so I can fly through a few clouds?!"

There's a good answer to this I'm sure - perhaps "they" simply don't WANT too many low hour SEP guys flying around in IFR? :eek:

That said I'm still committed to getting an IR one day, perhaps a few years after the PPL if I find myself using it enough to warrant spending the time and money.

[IO540]

IMC: "Easy" to get, cost efficient and probably(?) learnes you 95% of what you will ever need in real life as a PPL. But you still can't go anywhere because it is UK only and I can't imaging myself going fo a leasure flight round the flagpole in IMC - I am like to need the IR when going cross country, and that is likely to be across the channelThe general idea in European touring on the IMCR (which I did for a few years) is that one departs the UK is less than great weather, climb to VMC on top before the airspace boundary, continues VMC to say La Rochelle and lands in VFR conditions. And the reverse going back. It tends to work quite well in the sense that it is a lot better than being legit VFR-only which is pretty limiting.

And the IMCR training, used together with 100% radio navigation (GPS/VOR/DME) enables one to cope with the, shall we say, occassional less than quite VFR conditions encountered enroute ;) I don't think I have ever done a long VFR trip on which such "conditions" were never encountered ;) But if you have no instrument capability, you can't do that else you kill yourself.

The full IR takes you into a different kind of flying. Sure enough you can still go drilling holes in clouds, and some do, but an IR gives you an implied whole-route IFR clearance which means controlled airspace falls away, so you climb to VMC, sit there the whole enroute bit, and then descend. The weather you are exposed to is different from that a PPL/IMCR is exposed to - it is high altitude weather, cloud tops, etc. You generally need a better machine than a Warrior, too, and many/most IR holders carry oxygen (I would never even depart on an IFR flight without sufficient oxygen). It's a great way to go places, but tough to do on the bottom end of the rental-wreckage scene. One still picks the weather; nobody wants to sit in muck for hours. On a nice day, one can fly IFR at FL100 for hundreds of miles, with a clearance all the way and nobody bothering you and dropping spanners in the works. In fact on any half decent day, if the European airspace owners operated their airspace according to ICAO (anything below Class A is fine for VFR) one would not need an IR half as much.

The FAA IR is nowadays not meaningful unless you are going to own your own plane, because it has to be N-reg.

A cut-down EASA IR is being promised but is at best 2-3 years away, and there have been so many false horizons on the IR front that I don't believe anything will happen.

The JAA IR syllabus is not intellectually hard. Most airline pilots are not intellectually that sharp. Anybody who could scrape an o-level pass in maths and science could easily pass all the exams. I know a bloke who can barely count and he has passed all 14 CPL/IR exams, on a very part-time basis (over years). It is just a huge memory exercise because so much of it is bullsh*t which doesn't relate to the real world. I have never done the JAA IR exams but have seen the material. There is a time/effort tradeoff in that you can spread them out if you are not too bothered about when you get there, but there is an overall time limit and if you don't complete the IR flight training itself in time (and that does cost serious money - it's currently 50hrs dual training, with no credit for anything previous short of another ICAO IR) then you have to either do it all again, or find a country which lets you do the flying while accepting your expired exam passes.

As I say, the way one has to play the "IR" game is backwards: can you afford a decent plane. If not, forget the IR. If so, then you can start throwing some options about... but I would not wait for an easier European IR.

[VMC-on-top]

IMC: "Easy" to get, cost efficient and probably(?) learnes you 95% of what you will ever need in real life as a PPL. But you still can't go anywhere because it is UK only and I can't imaging myself going fo a leasure flight round the flagpole in IMC - I am like to need the IR when going cross country, and that is likely to be across the channel

IO540 beat me to it!

The idea of getting the IMCr (as so many have said on here before) is not to go round in IMC all day. I did my IMCr last year and I've climbed / descended through clouds dozens of times. Do I have any intention of flying a relatively long route (300+ miles) in solid IMC? Not a chance, I can tell you.

As IO said, if you have the money, then do the IR and buy an N reg to sit in airways on AP drinking coffee all day. For me, I'm in a Warrior group and plan to do much more European touring, which technically I can do VFR on top (in sight of the ground) and that's plenty enough for me. I suspect the sort of flying you want to do is very similar to me and on that basis, I would say do the IMCr.

[mmgreve]

The general idea in European touring on the IMCR (which I did for a few years) is that one departs the UK is less than great weather, climb to VMC on top before the airspace boundary, continues VMC to say La Rochelle and lands in VFR conditions. And the reverse going back. It tends to work quite well in the sense that it is a lot better than being legit VFR-only which is pretty limiting

Shall I understand that so that you made use of the French rules allowing you to fly VMC on top (if I am not mistaking) and "hoped" for a hole in the clouds before destination?

My flying will be towards Northern Europe where the weather possibly is more rubbish than in the UK, so that would be quite a gamble for me. I can of course make an ILS approach based on what I will learn on the IMC course and hope that they are not checking....but I am not sure of the (legal) risks I would be running, and seems not to be something you would plan for (emergencies are different, of course)

The FAA IR is nowadays not meaningful unless you are going to own your own plane, because it has to be N-reg.

I am not so concerned about having to have an N-reg plane available, there seems to be plenty available for purchase and hire. I am more concerned about the EU ni their visdom deciding to ban N-regs to be permanently based in Europe or something, which could leave you with an FAA PPL and IR that are useless and an JAA PPL that has lapsed?

Thanks for gettnig back on subject :ok:

[flybymike]

IO540 and others many thanks for the technological pointers.

IO you have a reply to your email.

[IO540]

Shall I understand that so that you made use of the French rules allowing you to fly VMC on top (if I am not mistaking) and "hoped" for a hole in the clouds before destination?It's not a "french rule".

Every PPL can fly VFR without sight of surface, worldwide.

Unless his license says he cannot (and UK issued ones do). No other European country AFAIK has such a limitation on its PPLs.

However if the UK PPL gets an IMCR or an IR, this restriction falls away and he can now fly VFR without sight of surface worldwide.

(The IMCR IFR privileges are a different thing; they are limited to UK only).

Correct about the hole in the cloud :) There are various ways to deal with this ;)

My flying will be towards Northern Europe where the weather possibly is more rubbish than in the UK, so that would be quite a gamble for me. I can of course make an ILS approach based on what I will learn on the IMC course and hope that they are not checking....but I am not sure of the (legal) risks I would be running, and seems not to be something you would plan for (emergencies are different, of course)I would never do that.

To even get away with it practically, you would need the "IR lingo" which admittedly you could pick up by flying with a real IR pilot.

N of the UK (Sweden, Norway etc) is really tricky, VFR or IFR. Much of the time Norway is so covered in fronts you cannot see its outline on the pressure chart :)

It is the province of either waiting for good weather (for both out and back legs), or having seriously capable (de-iced, etc) hardware.

I keep half an eye on a trip to Trondheim (ENVA), which I can nonstop (900nm or so) from southern UK, and being able to go nonstop dramatically reduces the weather risk, but at least 90% of the time the flight is not flyable on any assesment of risk I am willing to do (icing conditions, cloud tops, etc).

I am not so concerned about having to have an N-reg plane available, there seems to be plenty available for purchase and hire. Sure, but the hourly rate of the N-reg Cirrus SR22 groups is "interesting" ;) And for real IFR you don't want some old dog. You need something in which everything works, and the owner has a policy of close to zero defects.

I am more concerned about the EU ni their visdom deciding to ban N-regs to be permanently based in Europe or something, which could leave you with an FAA PPL and IR that are useless and an JAA PPL that has lapsed?There is no indication of a ban on N-reg airframes parking here long term. That was tried in 2005 or so and dropped. There would be various work-arounds, as well as a total lack of enforceability within the current aviation framework.

EASA's present tack is to ban European residents from flying in EU airspace on foreign licenses. The rather badly worded proposal is here (http://www.easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/r/doc/NPA/NPA%202008-17b.pdf)(pages 159-161). IMHO, they won't be able to pull off something this aggressive.

The worst case, if EASA gets everything, gets the backing of the EC for this, and gets EC's backing to stick a finger up to the USA with total disregard for the wider political fallout, appears to be that you will need to do a JAA/EASA IR, but the conversion route from an FAA IR is not onerous - especially if done in some countries other than the UK :) It's a perfectly reasonable risk management option. Obviously, you would do it only if EASA's proposal does not melt down. I am keeping half an eye on this too, but have better things to do than the 7 PPL/IR exams.

IMHO, there will either be a total meltdown of all anti N-reg initiatives (and some press consensus seems to support this of late; I hope they are right), or there will be a compromise, with generous transition routes for FAA IR holders. There is simply too much sh*t which will hit the fan otherwise, with jet operators who are politically immensely powerful and were prob99 almost solely responsible for killing the 2005 DfT (and the 2004 French) proposal to kick out N-reg and other foreign airframes.

But if you can't get an N-reg plane of a suitable spec, forget the FAA route.

[VMC-on-top]

Every PPL can fly VFR without sight of surface, worldwide.

Unless his license says he cannot (and UK issued ones do). No other European country AFAIK has such a limitation on its PPLs.

However if the UK PPL gets an IMCR or an IR, this restriction falls away and he can now fly VFR without sight of surface worldwide.

My understanding is that the UK PPL holder can still fly VFR on top - if he / she "has sight of the ground" - and that could well be a mountain or hill, or hole in the cloud which is 100 miles away.

[IO540]

Yes.

All unenforceable, obviously.

[Islander2]

My understanding is that the UK PPL holder can still fly VFR on top - if he / she "has sight of the ground" - and that could well be a mountain or hill, or hole in the cloud which is 100 miles away.I think a court could well beg to differ with your interpretation.

Given the ANO says with the surface in sight means with the flight crew being able to see sufficient surface features or surface illumination to enable the flight crew to maintain the aircraft in a desired attitude without reference to any flight instrument and when the surface is not in sight is to be construed accordingly ....

..... it seems unlikely that not fly out of sight of the surface would be interpreted differently.

Of course, as IO540 observes, this is largely unenforceable. Perhaps a case could be mounted if you've lost control of the aeroplane and crashed from the ensuing spiral dive ... but it's a little academic at that stage!

[VMC-on-top]

You're right, I'm sure we could argue for ever and a day on that. My point being that if you have sight of the surface, you have a fixed feature to navigate to, or with - and therefore to retain that desired attitude without reference to the instruments.

The inference that a subsequent spiral dives ensues is that i am in solid IMC with no IMCr / IR? I do have an IMCr and wouldn't go off into solid IMC with it anyway (not for long journeys anyway) and certainly, I wouldn't advocate going pure VFR on top with masses of cloud around with sight of a solitary ground feature many, many miles away. It was just a technicality really.

[mmgreve]

However if the UK PPL gets an IMCR or an IR, this restriction falls away and he can now fly VFR without sight of surface worldwide.

AHA - that makes a lot of sense. Get a night rating and an IMC and you will be able to do the same stuff as PPL holders in the rest of JAA (plus IMC landings)

I agree that Norway is difficult with high and steep(ish) ground and low cloud base, but my territory is more the low lands of Denmark


My understanding is that the UK PPL holder can still fly VFR on top - if he / she "has sight of the ground" - and that could well be a mountain or hill, or hole in the cloud which is 100 miles away

Isn't there some definition of minimum octas somewhere in the Air Law curriculum?


Anyway, sounds like IMC is a very good starting point, not least for the VMC reason IO540 states above, and if you can deal with IMC conditions in one end of the journey I guess you'll half the number of times you can't go because of weather.

Many thanks

[BackPacker]

However if the UK PPL gets an IMCR or an IR, this restriction falls away and he can now fly VFR without sight of surface worldwide.

Do bear in mind that "in sight surface" can be an airspace restriction in addition to a license restriction. For instance the Netherlands requires that in class F and G airspace, below 3000' you have to be in sight of the surface to be considered VFR.

[chris-h]

If you can deal with IMC conditions in one end of the journey I guess you'll half the number of times you can't go because of weather.

I agree with that! Many thanks everybody :-)

Chris

[mm_flynn]

with the surface in sight means with the flight crew being able to see sufficient surface features or surface illumination to enable the flight crew to maintain the aircraft in a desired attitude without reference to any flight instrument

At FL100 over a 3000 ft overcast, how much surface do you need to have visible to maintain attitude without reference to instruments?

Conversely are UK PPLs prohibited from night flying on long over water crossings or remote terrain (i.e. where you have no visible horizon or surface below you)?

[SARCASM OFF]

[IO540]

One can do all kinds of stuff and get away with it.

The #1 job is to be safe. This needs instrument skills, and a suitably equipped plane. Note that one can be legal VFR yet need to be a good instrument pilot e.g. 3000m vis, summer haze, over the sea. No horizon; it's like in a fishbowl. Night flight (on a real night) is also 100% instrument flight; Kennedy Jr found out the hard way.

The #2 job is to not get into trouble. This needs good knowledge of weather planning e.g. no good turning up above Biarritz at FL100, when the place is OVC002 and has been for days, and call up "G-XXXX inbound" off a VFR flight plan :) Anyway, airports in CAS (which is the majority of European airports with Customs i.e. those one is going to be flying to from the UK) all have VFR minima, ~ 1200-1500ft min cloudbases. None of the UK business of departing say Goodwood "VFR" under OVC005 ;) There are specific "VFR" arrival tricks for coastal airports in plausible VFR conditions e.g. OVC015, from a flight which is above a solid thick overcast (basically, you descend offshore and break cloud OCAS, before calling up the airport, and then no questions asked = no lies told) but you can't do that in Switzerland :)

Enroute, it is not an issue. It's funny sometimes to realise that with the IR I fly the same way I used to fly VFR in the past. VMC on top. But now I can cross the Alps at FL160 or whatever; previously it would be FL129 because Zurich would not let me into their precious (and totally empty) Class C with a FL130 base. Why do ATC care about VFR transits when there is nothing there? That's the big question... and it's a big part of why pilots sweat to get the IR. It gets ATC working for you (as a default position), not against you (as a default position in so many places).

[flybymike]

That defintion of "in sight of the surface" seems barmy to me. As has been pointed out in this and other threads, one can use an overcast itself for attitude control without any sight of the surface, and night flying may not in any event mean in sight of the surface even on a gin clear night. Not to mention attitude risks associated with sloping ground or sloping cloud layers etc.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

once I get my PPL and start using it to fly places
I admit that I don't actually try very hard, but only once in around twenty years have I succeeded in using my PPL to "fly places", by which I mean turn up more or less on time at a pre-planned appointment on a specific day.

[steveking]

I recently completed the IMCR and thought it was a great course. I mainly fly a permit aircraft so for me to be VFR on top I need holes both ends of the journey but netherless the additional VFR privilages are well worth having.

[Fuji Abound]

I agree very strongly with IO - I think you are wasting your time flying airways unless you have a suitable aircraft. It really is no fun being at FL 120 without an autopilot, the speed and performance relevant to legs in the lower airways, reasonable systems redundancy, oxygen and some means of dealing with limited but unexpected ice.

Of course it can be done, but that doesnt mean you should want to do it.

[Droopystop]

With regards to VFR on top......

Standard PPL privileges site VFR ie maintain clear of cloud by the margin appropriate to airspace, speed, type etc and viz requirements. So therefore VFR on top to me (and I interpret as legal requirement, but sensible also) means that you are able remain clear of cloud in the event of an engine failure. Whether legal requirement or not, pilot with no IMC training/experience since PPL course + engine failure + IMC is not a great scenario. I am no legal eagle so would not pretend my interpretation would stand in court.

[mm_flynn]

With regards to VFR on top......

Standard PPL privileges site VFR ie maintain clear of cloud by the margin appropriate to airspace, speed, type etc and viz requirements. So therefore VFR on top to me (and I interpret as legal requirement, but sensible also) means that you are able remain clear of cloud in the event of an engine failure. Whether legal requirement or not, pilot with no IMC training/experience since PPL course + engine failure + IMC is not a great scenario. I am no legal eagle so would not pretend my interpretation would stand in court.
A sensible view for a VFR only pilot, but not the actual law.

Remember VFR is just a set of flight rules. These flight rules are predominantly designed to minimise collision risk (with the ground and other aircraft) not to match a specific pilot's capability. It would be quite reasonable for an IR rated pilot to fly VFR over an overcast , on the other hand if the overcast is actually low very dense fog over rocky terrain it probably doesn't matter that much if you have an IR or not if you need to make an emergency landing!

[mikehallam]

FWIW.

My own Airbox 'Aware' ordered Wednesday 17th March & arrived by post this Saturday 20th morning.

No hassle, just switch on, accept usual warning by pressing the 'globe' and it finds where you are, reference the appropriate U.K. 1/2 mill. chart & simply works as promised.

Too much rain to try out in the plane today, but Spring can't be long (?).

mikehallam.

[GreenMamba]

The combination of Pocket FMS on an HTC HD2 stuck on the dash (all up cost: £400 for the hardware +£100 a year including monthly updates) and a Garmin 430 built into the dash is about as foolproof as anyone needs. Pocket FMS even gives you geolocated approach plates so you can fly perfect holds without all that wobbly stuff in the wind you do with an NDB hold. Then off down the proceedure following the GPS needle on the 430, make the 180, switch to the ILS and down the crossed needles you go, with the Pocket FMS giving reassuring aditional spatial awareness along the way.

So it's horses for courses, really.