EASA Part FCL

[Whopity]

For those interested the latest NPA is available re EASA Part FCL

Please note that CRD of NPA-2008-17b "Implementing Rules for Pilot Licensing - Part-FCL" is now open for consultation on EASA website.

See: http://hub.easa.europa.eu/crt/docs/viewcrdpdf/id_44

To place reactions please logon at EASA CRT application (http://hub.easa.europa.eu/crt/)

[BEagle]

And I was infuriated to read (concerning Flight Instructor requirements):

However, based on the comments received and after careful consideration the Agency has decided to re-introduce the CPL theoretical knowledge requirement. This decision is based on the fact that it was decided to stay as close as possible with the JAR-FCL requirements and the ICAO standards.

Never mind whether or not they are appropriate, Befehl ist Befehl!, it would seem....:mad:

[Whopity]

And the LAFI still only needs 50 hours experience to remove the Restriction whereas a better qualified FI still needs 100 hours!

Note also the new Aerobatics, Towing and Flight Test Ratings!

[BillieBob]

Why is everyone so surprised? EASA FCL was always going to contain exactly what the bureaucracy wanted it to contain. It was never going to matter one iota what you or I thought about it - we represent nothing more than insignificant irritations that have to be humoured. The whole NPA/CRD process is, so far as EASA is concerned, a necessary, if tedious, formality that will, in the end, be consigned to the dustbin. The same will be true of OPS, ATC and all of the other areas that EASA will take responsibility for. Last I heard, the agency (I won't dignify it with a capital letter) employed over 500 people just one of whom had any professional flight experience. Welcome to the brave new world and thank the Great Green Arkleseizure that I'm almost out of it!

[212man]

........just one of whom had any professional flight experience

Thanks for not letting facts get in the way of your point :ugh:

[BillieBob]

OK, some exaggeration there I admit but, when applied to the Rulemaking Directorate, not that much. It just gets extremely frustrating when the blind dogma of lawyers and bureaucrats continually overrules considered professional judgement.

[Whopity]

After 10 years of practicing EUROCRAP has finally arrived then!

[RVR800]

>Agency has decided to re-introduce the CPL theoretical knowledge requirement

So to summarise the agency has decided that a flight instructor will still have to sit a formal professional pilot public written exam (in proper exam conditions) before being allowed to exercise his intended commercial role?

:eek:

[BristolScout]

I can't see why anyone would object to instructors having to pass the CPL knowledge. After all, they're not hard exams now, not like the old days:ok:

[stupix]

I can't see why anyone would object to instructors having to pass the CPL knowledge. After all, they're not hard exams now, not like the old days

On that point does anyone know where its possible to do, or can suggest a school to study the CPL theory in the UK now ? Rather than do the ATPL's.
I am hoping to go full time into being an instructor over the next few years.

[snchater]

Another vote for GTS at Bournemouth for CPL ground course :D

However, unless you are sure you just want to instruct it is probably better to do the ATPL exams (not a lot of extra studying) as it keeps your options open for other professional flying careers

( Edward, we overlapped at GTS - we'll meet up at Sherburn no doubt)

Stuart Chater

[moona]

CATS is good value for money.

[FlyingStone]

Any info on when we can expect the new EASA Part-FCL and Part-Medical to pass legislation and thus fully replacing JAR-FCL?

[Whopity]

March/April 2012

[Windrusher]

Just a reminder that tomorrow (Wednesday 9th) is the closing date for comments on the responses to comments. Gawd knows whether anything will make any difference, but at least one can try.

Go to the EASA CRT application (http://hub.easa.europa.eu/crt/), log in or register, 'View documents', and find NPA 2008-17b on the fourth page; right click and add general comments.

Windrusher

[IO540]

This (http://www.pprune.org/biz-jets-ag-flying-ga-etc/417109-updated-easa-proposals-non-eu-irs.html) may be relevant.

[BillieBob]

Gawd knows whether anything will make any differenceI think anyone who has had any meaningful dealings with the EASA bureaucracy will know exactly how much difference it will make. It is significant that EASA is currently lobbying the EC for exemption from the requirement to submit future amendments to the NPA process. Bear in mind also that anything that is in the Basic Regulation cannot be changed and anything that can be linked directly to an item in the Basic Regulation will not be changed.

[BEagle]

Of course the Basic Regulation can be changed. But not by EASA - it would require EC political will and effort:

Such measures shall also include provisions for the issuance of all types of pilot licences and ratings required under the Chicago Convention, and of a leisure pilot licence covering noncommercial activities involving aircraft with a maximum certificated take off mass of 2000kg or less and which do not meet any of the criteria referred to in Article 3(j).


Just delete the part in blue, then 'devolve' competence for sub-ICAO licensing to national authorities under the principle of 'subsidiarity' which €urocrats are always quacking about!

[BillieBob]

Of course the Basic Regulation can be changed. But not by EASAWhich, whilst true, is entirely irrelevant since the statement was made solely in the context of the deadline for reactions to the CRD for Part FCL which process, as you concede, cannot result in any changes to the Basic Regulation.

[jez d]

EASA have stated, officially, that the justification for retaining the CPL theoretical knowledge requirement for PPL instructors is because it is required under ICAO Annex 1.

This was the argument put forward by the Belgium national aviation authority which, ultimately, EASA acquiesced to.

There are a number of things wrong here.

First, it has absolutely NOTHING to do with flight safety - EASA's primary remit. Why? Because the LAFI rating to teach the LAPL doesn't require the CPL theoretical knowledge requirement, so clearly EASA doesn't see the CPL theory requirement as a boon to flight safety as it pertains to instructors.

Second, to date, the differences filed against ICAO Annex 1 is larger than the Annex itself, so any excuse that they have to toe the ICAO line is specious, to say the least.

Third, in my opinion, instruction should not classed as aerial work - which is the ONLY justification I can see for the CPL requirement.

The Basic Regulation MUST be re-written; EASA must be properly funded and staffed, and if these ridiculous new regs are to remain then they MUST be written as soft law - i.e. written in such a way that an 'alternative means of compliance' can be filed by our CAA. If these regs are put into hard law then only European Parliament can change them.

Regards, jez

[Teejman]

I am just starting flying so please excuse my ignorance to all the regs.

I wish to become an instructor and have no interest in flying for airlines.

I was told that a new rule was coming in which would mean I did not have to do a CPL rating, just PPL and instructor but if I read this thread right this is not the case, I will have to do the CPL theory. Could someone confirm that I am reading this right, if so I may as well do the flight test and get the full CPL rating.

Thanks in advance.

[stupix]

I am in exactly the same boat as you
I have been informed by a JAA examiner that you can instruct on the PPL with an FI rating but not for financial reward under the new EASA recommendations. The examiner also told me that you will need the CPL theory or ATPL theory to teach for financial reward but not the CPL Practical course.
I am going to do the CPL Theory and the practical as I think it will help me become a better instructor, and as I will be hoping to teach students for money I would prefer to teach them from the stronger standpoint of holding a full commercial license.
I am currently training in Florida and also doing my FAA instrument rating whilst I am here, to gain as much experience I can through these training periods as I feel the more experience you have the better the pilot and therefore the better the instructor you can become.

[Teejman]

Stupix,

Thanks for your answer.

I agree that knowing the CPL theory could make you a better instructor and give you a better understanding.

Teejman

[BEagle]

CPL-level knowledge is largely worthless to an FI at PPL-level.

However, relevant practical theoretical knowledge certainly would be of great worth. But of far greater importance is the ability to impart instruction, thorough knowledge of the training exercise and sound flying skills, together with good interpersonal skills.

The other problem with inexperienced pilots fresh out of the CPL student world is that they will try to teach people to fly PA28s like airliners; they will have an encyclopedic knowledge of trivia and very little airmanship.

Whereas an enthusiastic, experienced PPL-holding FI will probably have a lot more practical experience, a wider experience of SEP aeroplane operation in the PPL environment - and a genuine desire to instruct, rather than simply to build hours for some 737 co-pilot job.

EASA should expect considerable opposition to their volte-face on this nonsensical requirement for PPL/FIs to have CPL-level knowledge.

[Teejman]

Interesting points BEagle.

When you think of it, it does make sense, after all you don't have to be an F1 driver to teach people how to drive, I think just get the instructor license.

I have done some teaching in the past and want to get back into it as I enjoyed it, this way I can combine my love of flying/aircraft as well.

I agree with your points about airmanship, far better to be able to fly rather than know the date of the Chicago convention. I was once told of a pilot that flew the frost off the wings, took most of the runway to get airborne.

[RVR800]

Most people do the CPL exams (rather than the ATPL) because they want to satisfy the theoretical knowledge requirement of single crew flight operations for pilots who are paid professionally - and I agree BEagle that the syllabus should reflect this and make it relevant. The CPL misses the theoretical basis of teaching and learning which would be an add on. I can see why they want to ensure that instructors have a good theoretical base - this is not assured by the FI syllabus alone that only teaches a potential instructor for a few hours and they are not formally examined - other than in the air and a quick chat before the flight test (no written assessment). EASA are following the FAA ICAO model - although the CPL exam in the USA is more accessible and cheaper - less of a barrier...

On problem with the CPL is in reality its a subset of the ATPL question bank and therefore inappropriate - needs updating :rolleyes:

Of course there is no shortage of instructors at the moment anyway and relaxation of the rules would flood the market depressing wages below national min wage but thats irrelevant to the arguments above :*

[Whopity]

The real problem is that nobody has ever sat down and worked out what a CPL holder needs to know. In the main it is just a bag of low quality questions that has evolved over the years which drifts further and further from reality. EASA will ensure that it never improves!

[IO540]

What needs addressing is that the vast majority of UK PPL instructors have never flown past the creases on their map.

In turn, they impart a similar level of expertise onto their students.

Which in turn helps to ensure that the vast majority of PPL graduates find the piece of paper next to useless (beyond the Bembridge cafe burger run) and chuck it all in within a year or so.

Which in turn helps to ensure that the training apparatus is almost never questioned - who is going to question it?? There isn't anybody around to question it.

And those very few who did drag themselves out of this dead end, bought their own plane (or into a group) and fly for real don't hang around the training environment anymore, and don't look back.

Quite how one would achieve this improvement within the present industry vested interests, I don't know, but it's pretty obvious that EASA doesn't either.

The problem is that there is no objective measure of the "product quality". The schools have no business objective, other than to sell hours, in their planes, with an instructor in the RHS for as long as possible.

[blagger]

I dont understand the comment:

What needs addressing is that the vast majority of UK PPL instructors have never flown past the creases on their map.

Exactly what are you suggesting that PPL students are missing out on?

[DFC]

What needs addressing is that the vast majority of UK PPL instructors have never flown past the creases on their map.



and the rest can only do it with a GPS!!

That may be part of the problem in the UK. However, a bigger part is that most of what is handed down in the UK is folklore and nothing more.

Let's look at a very simple part - do you get the instructors to teach the ICAO Annex and point the student to the appropriate part of the AIP for the relevant differences (as per JAR / EASA) or do you require the student to study some piece of legislation written by lawyers for lawyers which means they only know the local rules and have no idea what if any will apply when in another country.

Clasic case of making the easy difficult.

It is very hard to understand why a person setting out to be a teacher in a certain discipline would from the outset wish to avoid learning much of what they will teach if they succeed in being a good teacher.

The attitude of I want to teach but do not want to learn is the start of the rot and is propogated by people who have other reasons for ensuring that they have lots of rot to complain about.

If you want a career as a secondary school teacher then why on earth would you ever need to go to university? If you want to teach at university level then why on earth can't you simply finish your degree and teach the next day - with a brief how to operate an interactive white board.

Do you want your children being taught in secondary school by someone who holds all of 1 A level or your young people being lectured at university by a person that was s student themselves last week?

That is what is considered normal practice in the UK as far as flight training is concerned.

Show me any other area where those wishing to teach approach the task with the mindset of being as minimally skilled as possible and having gained as little knowledge of the industry as possible.

If you employed an electrician you would expect them to have ample knowledge and skill covering all the aspects of electrical instalation both theory and practice. Thankfully it is impossible to qualify as such if you only learn how to wire up light switches and refuse to bother about such things as sockets - because you think that there is enough business in only wiring light switches.

Unfortunately it is not only possible to qualify in the aviation industry with substandard knowldge and limited ability, these people get to teach others. As an industry it is not only unique it is unparalled because the very people that the industry decides are not suitable to progress are the very ones that continue to teach and in many cases become examiners.

Show me another industry where the apprentice who is never going tyo progress teaches the new apprentice and tests their ability

Therefore any attempt by EASA to change the rot is only to be welcomed.

People in for example the UK need to remember that EASA is legislating for Europe and people who have seen many ways of doing things will not always think that the UK way is best.

[BEagle]

God you talk some rubbish, DFC....:rolleyes:

[Whopity]

Interesting how under this European way, an instructor/examiner will be allowed to teach up to 50% of a course and then examine their own students; that should up the pass rate a bit especially in the commercial schools where they will no longer have to use independant examiners.

[Vortex Thing]

Oh go on then I'll reopen the old thread.

Instruction is a profession. Get over it. If you want to teach canoeing, diving, walking even underwater basket weaving then you need a formal qual. We all unanimously agree this to be FI(A) or CRI

However if you want to earn money then you should quite simply be a professional pilot, anything less is exactly that, something less in reality and fact.

Simply put IMHO if you haven't got a CPL or ATPL you should not earn money from instruction period.

Now whether or not the syllabus to achieve CPL is relevant and useful for those intending the FI only track, that is a whole other opinion. Before the shouting starts I do think that there should be certain grandfather rights and transfers for those with certain levels of experience (separate debate as to quanta) for a set amnesty period of say 24 months so we can clear up all those with old/unusual/foreign/military/etc quals BCP, UK only licences, QFIs, etc but after that simple anyone new in should be a professional pilot AND and FI/CRI IMHO.

For those thinking what does mach tuck, thermodynamics and polar stereographic charts have to do PPL instruction? Think where the students you instruct may one day end up.

Primary school teachers have degrees, secondary school the same and so do university lecturers. Do you not want people to think of flight instruction as a profession? If you do then get a professional qualification and leave the amateur stuff to showing your mates around the skies on bank holiday weekends.

:=

Now whose first?

[Pringle 1]

I'll go first Vortex Thing. I agree with you! Why dumb down the 'Profession'?

The only argument I could understand, but not agree with, for the removal of the CPL requirement, was when clubs were losing money a couple of years ago due to an instructor shortage. This doesn't hold an water in the current climate.

If you were a student and had a choice of 2 brand new instructors with minimum hours would you want the one with CPL knowledge or the one with PPL knowledge?

I have no problem with grandfather rights.

[Whopity]

Under the wonderful EASA proposals there are two levels of instructor, the new LAFI and the traditional FI. Both will have the privilege to train ab-initio students from zero to licence issue allbeit for different licences but, both will entitle the licence holder to fly throughout Europe with passengers.

The LAFI does not need CPL knowledge, completes a shorter course and guess what, can get rid of the restriction after supervising only 50 student solo flights.

The FI in contrast requires CPL level knowledge, has to complete a longer course and then has to supervise 100 student solos before they are deemed to have the judgment necessary to authorise a first student solo. The total privileges of the FI are greater but, the fundamental privilege to train a non pilot to a licence issue standard is very much the same.

How can anyone justify such nonsense on safety grounds? Obviously they can't and won't even try to; its simply a bureaucratic exercise being run by a bunch of lawyers who haven't got a clue what they are doing.

All the debate about what level of knowledge instructors should have is rather pointless with this two tier system just over the horizon. Suffice it to say the LAFI will become a much more popular rating because it will be cheaper and easier to achieve. Does this mean that the standard of instruction will fall, or does it mean that the extra qualifications demanded of an FI are pointless?

[ifitaintboeing]

Does this mean that the standard of instruction will fall, or does it mean that the extra qualifications demanded of an FI are pointless?

I see no reason why the standard of instruction shouldn't remain the same as it currently is, as indeed should the level of knowledge held by an FI. Since it is the FIEs who set the standard which is required to pass a Flight Instructor test there should be no significant change.

Regarding demonstration of CPL level knowledge, it is surely more appropriate that FIEs assess the level of knowledge of the FI, rather than the current situation: a lot of expensive written examinations which contain a small amount of GA-relevant information.

[rasti121]

If you were a student and had a choice of 2 brand new instructors with minimum hours would you want the one with CPL knowledge or the one with PPL knowledge?


I don't think that will be (always) the issue. More likely scenario is to choose between a 1000s hours/many years PPL instructor and minimum hours/years CPL instructor - who would you go for?

From the theory perspective - which the question is about - flame-out of a jet engine or ATPL license hour requirements, while maybe of interest, are of no help in training a better PPL pilot - I suspect they are only patience tests (making maybe sense for ATPL level but of doubtful value for instruction in PPL training) - this just shows that all flight training/licensing is set up for ATPL and anything around it is just droppings from the table and that's why there is a CPL theory requirements for instructors (some requirements must be made and this is the one closest... I guess was the thinking)

[Vortex Thing]

rasti

There should be only the choice between an instructor with lots and lots of experience and one with minimal experience. IMHO all instructors should have CPL knowledge so the difference would never exist.

Both you and ifitaintboeing refer to the lack of relevance and make some good points with respect to that.

Let me put it this way. In many a school teachers at ALL levels are degree educated in their particular field. i.e a geography teacher tends to have a degree in geography, a French teacher tends to have a degree in French etc, etc now whilst it is quite possible to go the route of having a degree in education and then specialising in modern languages. The depth of knowledge that the teacher with a specific subject knowledge has is always going to be better than a specialist educator with less depth. Now the specialist educator has other skills on the pastoral side, the cultural side an as an educational specialist and may go on to make a better educational manager headteacher, etc, etc.

Now I will agree that when we are looking at a 8 or 9 yr old learning French this matters very little. However when we get to 'A' Level French I would assert that we would prefer our children(who may or may not want to progress to BA level or beyond) to be taught by someone who has the greatest depth.

If the student pilot never has any design other than learning to fly and remaining at PPL level for ever then at best a PPL knowledge level instructor will bring them to their own level. A ATPL level knowledge instructor should be able to answer those questions that could kindle a deeper wish for knowledge and perhaps even a new career direction. In all students at all levels.

My point is surely you want the best qualified instructor absolutely possible not the one who can get the qualification with the least level of testing and examination possible. Do you want the recent graduate or the partner from the accountants to do you tax and accounts? If you had to go to court would you want the recent graduate or the seasoned barrister? When you are lying on the operating table having a triple bypass do you want the junior house officer doing their solo surgery or do you want the FRCS Cardio Thorasic Professor from a reknowned teaching university.

We want people to see aviation as a profession, so lets have, professional standards, profession like CPD, professional instructors and professional pilots ONLY as those instructors.

I rest my case.:oh:

[jez d]

We want people to see aviation as a profession, so lets have, professional standards, profession like CPD, professional instructors and professional pilots ONLY as those instructors

And how do you propose to attract all these professional, career PPL instructors?

At current wage levels, PPL instruction can only be undertaken as a part-time job, a stepping-stone to an airline career, or for those who are independently wealthy.

[BillieBob]

Reading back through the thread, I'm not sure that anyone answered the specific points raised by Teejman and StupixI was told that a new rule was coming in which would mean I did not have to do a CPL rating, just PPL and instructor but if I read this thread right this is not the case, I will have to do the CPL theory. Could someone confirm that I am reading this right, if so I may as well do the flight test and get the full CPL rating.
I have been informed by a JAA examiner that you can instruct on the PPL with an FI rating but not for financial reward under the new EASA recommendations. The examiner also told me that you will need the CPL theory or ATPL theory to teach for financial reward but not the CPL Practical course.The current (that is after publication of the CRD but before any consideration of the reactions to it) proposal is that CPL (or ATPL) theoretical knowledge is a pre-requisite for the FI rating in all cases.

The proposed privileges of the PPL (but not the LAPL) include remuneration for flight instruction and testing provided that the relevant instructing/examining privileges are held.

This, I believe, is unlikely to change (although I hope I'm wrong) because EASA cannot make pragmatic judgements. They were directed, following their slapping down by the Commission, to stick as closely as possible to JAR-FCL/ICAO. CPL knowledge is an ICAO requirement and therefore it will stay, however inappropriate it may be and whatever the outcry from the 'stakeholders'.

[jez d]

Further to BB's post, LAPL instructors do not require CPL theoretical knowledge and yet will still be eligible for remuneration, which means EASA is not toeing the ICAO line on this one. Mind you, it's a sub-ICAO licence.

So, as it stands, Teejamn and Stupix, yes, you will need to pass CPL theory exams unless you just want to teach the new LAPL.

Regards, jez

[Whopity]

CPL (or ATPL) theoretical knowledge is a pre-requisite for the FI rating in all cases.But there will be another Instructor rating called a Light Aircraft Flight Instructor LAFI who may only teach for the Leisure Pilots Licence who does not need CPL level knowledge. They may conduct remunerated instruction on a PPL but not if holding a LPL.

[Vortex Thing]

Jez D said
And how do you propose to attract all these professional, career PPL instructors?

At current wage levels, PPL instruction can only be undertaken as a part-time job, a stepping-stone to an airline career, or for those who are independently wealthy.

Your argument is an age old one for the tail wagging the dog scenario. We used to send our children down mines and up chimneys to make some money for the family if we were a bit short. Why on earth would we let them go to school when we have no direct and immediate return on our investment! Come to think of it why have children at all?

I managed as a PPL instructor with a pretty hefty mortgage, married with children. It cost me dear and every week was a struggle much less month. Especially as many of the schools I worked at played the old "you are self employed" game and as such if the weather was bad or you were ill or even a plane was off line you earnt nothing.

Was it fun? No. Was it correct that I was treated like this? No. PPL instruction is liveable but the fact that it is poorly paid is a supply and demand issue nothing to do with the our professional standing. It is to do with the mistreatment of FIs by most schools.

Singer used to make the nest sewing machines and typewriters in the industry but with the advent of the computer the skillset of the workers was no longer needed. Ask a coalminer, shipbuilder, etc, etc about supply and demand. It doesn't mean that we should lower the standard it means we have to take the hit on the supply as the demand is not great enough to pay us all.

I love and am passionate about aviation and it's professional instruction and standards. If that means that there are only 10 flying schools in the UK as there is not a large enough market for more. Well that is very unfortunate for us instructors out there but that is life. If we want to change it then we have an MP to lobby and can bemoan our position to Dft, the CAA, the press or anyone who will listen but supply and demand are the drivers of any business and though it would suit us to all be paid handsomely for our consummate skill sets life does not owe us a living.

The thread is about CPL level knowledge start a thread about whether we still have a market/will have a market and we can discuss neoclassical economics at length Hicks, Stigler and Veblen can have their theories discussed and we can bemoan our likely fate if the government or someone very wealthy does not do something to save GA in UK but this does not change YOU the person who sits RHS and stops students killing themselves whilst breaking them down and remoulding them in an aviation like fashion from needing the correct level and/or qualification until UK GA PLC gives up and consigns us to join the shipbuilders, sextant makers, et cetera.:eek:

[Whopity]

What appears to be forgotten amongst all the claims of professionalism and career instructors is that PPL training was for many years, and still is in many countries, a recreational activity. The primary objective is to produce pilots who can enjoy flying safely and at reasonable cost without masses of bureaucracy.

The demise of the AOPA agreement where AOPA controlled all PPL examiners, and the disbandment of the Panel of Examiners lead to all Flight Instruction being regarded as a commercial activity under CAA direction. The former Commercial Flight Instructor simply became an extension of the PPL instructor. The BGA and the BMAA have managed to retain the recreational status of their instructional activities during these changes.

EASA recognises the recreational nature of GA flying, possibly due to the involvement of some of the smaller GA groups but has fudged the whole thing with poorly drafted regulation and unnecessary new licences that exceed ICAO minima, but then fail to qualify as ICAO licences. There is a perfectly good "Recreational" licence described in ICAO Annex 1 with realistic minimum requirements called a "PPL" that has served us well for 60 years.

The requirement for CPL "level" knowledge appears in ICAO Annex 1 but it does not require a pass in the CPL exams! For many years the UK used a FIC pre-entry exam to determine CPL level knowledge. It was the bureaucrats who interpreted this as having to pass CPL exams to indicate this level. In practice, a PPL with around 300 hours of light aircraft experience is better equipped to undertake a FI Course than a graduate of an Integrated ATPL course with 700 hours of theoretical knowledge behind them. With no training analysis ever conducted, CPL exams are simply a hotch-potch of handed down military questions and third rate add-ons. I recall the day when the RAF provided the UK questions to the Board of Trade, before the CAA was invented!

[Vortex Thing]

Just because something has always been done a certain way does not make it correct. It used to be that wives did not have their own tax code, women could not vote and the colour of your skin, your race and the church you did or didn't believe in had a significant affect on which school, university, golf club, job etc you could attend or go to.

What we have now is what is called progress. We want legal accountability, happy insurance companies and safe flying. If we can have all this and then also make it fun well done us. On the flip side if we can have fun but cannot satisfy the above should we be doing it.

When the original legislation was drafted (probably alongside the King James version of the bible) Pontius was a pilot and there were not aircraft landing every 90 seconds at LHR.

I have been as a PPL, a CPL and an FI on flights in and around Farnborough, Blackbushe, High Wycombe and Biggin Hill and surrounding London I have also flown 737s into LHR when incursions occur from all of these directions. I understand both sides and their needs but when I have an A346 in front of me and a B773 90 secs behind me I really do need to know that the solo student on his 1st X-Ctry nav has the perspective and training in his head of the consequences of me going around with limited fuel at the end of a 7hr sector, causing someone else to go around or worse having to follow a TCAS RA in this sort of airspace.

Now you are likely the sort of instructor whose students do know this but you are not the garden variety PPL with PPL only knowledge type of chap are you.

I have taught at schools where senior instructors (DCFI & CFI) advise students to turn off their transponders so that they don't get the school in trouble if they make a pesky zone incursion (in the above mentioned areas) This is a very unlikely trait for a CPL/ATPL holder to perpetuate

I agree the CPL question bank is out of date, nowhere near as relevant as it should be and can suggest far far better ways of doing the exams but this does not change my view that you should teach the level below you and that only CPL and above should instruct anything ever.

It may be a fun day out for the chap who hired the PA18 from Booker or the chap doing aeros in his Pitts from Biggin, it may be a great bit of fun for the Red letter day winner on the 'trial lesson' from Shoreham but it is the end or start of a long day for those doing 220kts on base, 180kts on final or 250 kts on departure separated from each other by often no more than 20 seconds.

We are all in the same airspace so no I agree that a 300hr PPL likely has have specific light aircraft knowledge that puts him ahead of a integrated fATPL straight of the FI course. But isn't that why we have restricted and unrestricted instructors?

VT

[Whopity]

But isn't that why we have restricted and unrestricted instructors?No we have Restricted Instructors so that they can learn the judgment necessary to decide when to send a student on their first solo. A simple safety requirement nothing more than that. And under EASA a LAFI will need half the experience of an FI to make that judgement!When the original legislation was drafted (probably alongside the King James version of the bible) Pontius was a pilotMany of the early rules were made by knowledgeable people who had a first hand grasp of what the legislation was for. Progress seems to have placed people in the position where they make rules that they don't understand. Change creates the illusion of progress and there hasn't been much real progress in recent years.

[IO540]

I have been as a PPL, a CPL and an FI on flights in and around Farnborough, Blackbushe, High Wycombe and Biggin Hill and surrounding London I have also flown 737s into LHR when incursions occur from all of these directions. I understand both sides and their needs but when I have an A346 in front of me and a B773 90 secs behind me I really do need to know that the solo student on his 1st X-Ctry nav has the perspective and training in his head of the consequences of me going around with limited fuel at the end of a 7hr sector, causing someone else to go around or worse having to follow a TCAS RA in this sort of airspace.

I cannot see what CAS busts have to do with the pilot's instructor having sat the 11 or so (14 in most cases; CPL/IR) CPL exams.

One look at the pilot age demographics (look in the back of FTN) and putting this together with the fact that the vast majority of new PPLs chuck in flying within a year or two, makes it obvious that the vast majority of PPLs have not been near an instructor for years if not decades - except for the 2-yearly flight on which you will get a signoff so long as the instructor did not perish on the flight.

CAS busts are the result of antiquated PPL training and equipment, a presumption that the pilot will never fly anywhere for real (so keeping "south of the M25" will keep you out of CAS) and a long term denial and slagging off of everything modern; internet and GPS, throughout both PPL training and CAA "safety" presentations.

Now we have a situation where most instructors have never been past the crease on their chart. The only reason the system hangs together is because nearly all new PPLs drop flying more or less right away so thankfully never push the limits. When I did my PPL, there were about 30 of us and within 1-2 months only about 3 were still flying. By a year or two later, all instructors (except one) I flew with had left to airlines. That odd one vanished following a massive fraud and allegations concerning one female student of 16 and one of well below 16. Of the others, two managed to get female students pregnant. Of course none of this is relevant, but then neither are CPL exam passes :)

[Oktas8]

(A foreigner very cautiously making an observation, in all humility not affected by this legislation)

If other jurisdictions, FAA etc, decide that the EU PPL is not in accordance with ICAO, then EU PPL holders would find it difficult to have their licenses recognised outside of Europe. This would have major implications over time for recreational pilots and also for modular hour-builders.

Perhaps this might be why the LAPL (non-ICAO, non-transferable to other states) is treated in such a common-sense way compared to the PPL.

[Whopity]

EU PPL is not in accordance with ICAOThe EU PPL is in accordance with ICAO; it is the LAPL that is NOT in accordance with ICAO and will be limited to EU.

The safety issues (and that's the only reason for having a licence) are the same for both licenses; establishing dual standards to achieve this is a flawed philosophy.
CAS busts are the result of antiquated PPL training and equipment,Quite often they are the result of sophisticated modern equipment that the pilot cannot operate because of its complexity. There is no correlation between what you can afford and what you can operate. Any pilot should be capable of avoiding CAS by the use of traditional techniques and Mk1 equipment and not have to rely on equipment that can fail.
the vast majority of new PPLs chuck in flying within a year or twoThis has always been the case. People learn to fly to satisfy a desire to do so, and once qualified the level of indulgence falls exponentially. Economics probably plays an important part in this.
most instructors have never been past the crease on their chart.Most flying training never goes beyond the crease in the chart but, all instructors are required to have completed a 540 Km X-Ctry and the grass on the other side of the chart is not greener.

[BEagle]

EASA had second thoughts about the CPL knowledge requirement for PPL FIs, because not having such knowledge wouldn't be in accordance with ICAO.

So, if EASA is nervous about legislating for matters which are 'not in accordance with ICAO', why then are they buggering about with the utterly unloved one size fits no-one LAPL which itself is 'not in accordance with ICAO'?

EASA should do itself and everyone else a big favour by drawing the line at ICAO-compliant pilot licences and should devolve competence for sub-ICAO pilot licensing to national authorities in those member states which have a desire for such licences. This would require a very minor amendment to the General Regulation, but that would first need political intervention.

[IO540]

Quite often they are the result of sophisticated modern equipment that the pilot cannot operate because of its complexity. There is no correlation between what you can afford and what you can operate. Any pilot should be capable of avoiding CAS by the use of traditional techniques and Mk1 equipment and not have to rely on equipment that can fail.I accept that, very much so, but I do wonder which is the bigger issue? Pilots not knowing where they are, or pilots flying "spaceships" but not knowing what the knobs do.

My own anecdotal experience is that the former is a far bigger issue than the latter, and I suspect NATS agree otherwise they would not have done the stunningly exceptional thing of backing that £150 GPS product - something which the CAA would have done over its dead body.

Of course the latter scenario is far more embarrassing ;)

[Whopity]

but I do wonder which is the bigger issue?I suspect it is a combination of the two. Quite often, those who resort to GPS are those who can't cope without it. It is a complement to navigation not a substitute for it.
The nice thing about vintage avionics is that all switches go both ways and don't have sub-menus.

[IO540]

I would not be able to fly VFR right across Europe, as I used to do pre-IR, without a GPS.

Of course it is possible but one has to adopt a very conservative approach, because of the high possibility of human error, and the much higher cockpit workload. The price for messing up can be high, and ATC in some places gets awfully nervous as they are themselves only just hanging in there on the English comms.

In practice I would simply not bother to go anywhere except little local jollies along the coast or along well worn routes - much as perhaps 99% of UK GA does.

For me, and for every pilot who flies distances that I know personally, GPS is primary nav, VOR/DME is the backup (concurrent, usually), and if one had to fly on map+compass alone one would sell the plane and chuck it all in. Or buy some Rotax lawn mower and potter along the coast on Sundays. The stakes would be too high for it to be any fun.

Using a GPS as a backup for DR is like driving a Reliant Robin and towing a VW Golf with it, in case the Robin breaks down. It is the worst possible way of doing it.

Using DR as a backup for GPS is much more sensible, but one has to avoid flying in situations where DR is not going to work which is basically anywhere without copious features, or in poor vis.

The best backup for GPS is VOR/DME plus another (handheld) GPS. However, IIRC, DME is not taught in the PPL which is a pity since it is really simple.

I am not an instructor and won't pretend to be ;) but this subject interests me because I believe the methods being taught are letting people down, badly.

[LEVC]

Would you let an very experienced nurse do surgery to a relative?, why? because she is not a professional surgeon, she is only a nurse, it doesn´t matter how many surgery operations she´s been helping the surgeon to perform.
So why on earth would you want a non profesional instruct how to fly aeroplanes?, if he doesn´t do it well there is lots of dangerous things that can happen, to the student and 3rd persons, both airborne and on the ground.
I support the requirement of CPL level knowledge, I agree with some of you, there can be a very good PPL out there with little need of extra knowledge, but who can tell which PPL needs more knowledge?, nobody, so the only way to make sure all reach the minimum knowledge to be able to develop his instructing abbilities is for the people willing to do the FIC to have CPL level before they start.

As for the exams, the FTO´s giving you the theoretical tuition will make sure your knowledge is enough before you get to the exams, and memorizing the questions wont get you a pass, I believe the CAA usually changes a few of the questions regularly , just enough to avoid this, unless you know your stuff it is not likely you´ll get through.



IO540

If you do navigate with refference to the GPS info as a primary mean of navigation, then you are not flying VFR, you are flying not following the rules you should be following, wether this is an easier way or not for navigation and all that it`s another matter, so if you do not use DR as the primary mean of navigation YOU ARE FLYING ILEGALLY.
Besides, if you use GPS or radionavigation (VOR,ADF,DME) as primary chances are you are looking too much inside the cockpit, thus not applying the "see and avoid" rule, basis of VFR flying, you are putting yourself and others in danger.

The VFR rules say you have to be able to know your position by visually checking the terrain and/or other features below and around you, and use GPS and VOR/DME/ADF only to help you. If you do not feel confident doing it this way, I suggest you get an instructor to help you refresh and improve your DR skills, or else,to get an IR if you haven´t got one,and fly IFR.

Another option, as said by one of our colleagues, is to get the politicians/CAA to change the rules.

LEVC

[S-Works]

so if you do not use DR as the primary mean of navigation YOU ARE FLYING ILEGALLY
Wow! I have seen some ill informed posts in my time, but that ones takes the biscuit.

Please point me at any legislation that states using a GPS instead of DR is illegal.

[FlyingStone]

Isn't GPS's role in VFR navigation same as in IFR? It can be primary source of navigation, but not sole source. I really don't think how GPS or VOR/DME/NDB primary navigation while VFR is illegal?

My opinion is that using only GPS while VFR is illegal - but in order to do that you would have to fly under the hood, which wouldn't be VFR for that matter.

Just try to answer the following then: how would you (only by means of DR) positively identify a VFR fix over water that is only based on coordinates (and can be located via VOR/NDB radials and DME)? I imagine it would be very difficult. Should we just ban VFR over water, just because one cannot use DR to navigate?

Besides, this topic is drifting sideways...

[LEVC]

Well, I am pretty sure it´s writen in several official documents, but for a start and just by googleing "VFR navigation CAA", check this CAA stuff in the VFR guide http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/64/Using%20GPS.pdf
check what it says on the 3rd line, surprise!!!!!
It says exactly that GPS is not to be used as primary mean for VFR navigation.

You may also have a look in here too to see how the CAA expect you to navigate while VFR

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ga_srg_09webSSL05.pdf
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ga_srg_09webSSL25October.pdf

Yes it is ilegal to fly VFR with GPS as primary mean of navigation.
You may like it or not, but it is the way it is.

LEVC

[BEagle]

Remember that you do NOT need to be in sight of the surface to fly VFR!

How do you navigate above 8/8 in VMC outside CAS? DR??

GPS is an excellent navigation aid, yet some view it as a tool of Satan. Incidentally, what qualifies a GPS to be considered 'IFR approved'? The word of Garmin?

Any GPS should certainly be approved for en-route navigation in IMC above safety altitude without the need for other navigation aids. Some of us were taught to fly with only V/UHF DF as the available 'navigation aid' under such circumstances, so having a GPS available in addition should be entirely acceptable. But not, however, for terminal approaches unless a higher degree of performance is included in the GPS.

Devices such as the Garmin aera 500 series will become more and more popular. The CAA is going to have to accept that and MUST change its view on GPS navigation outside controlled airspace......whether VMC or IMC. Yes, much as it will shock certain €uropeans, in the UK we can fly IMC outside controlled airspace if we wish and are suitably qualified.

bose-x, your response to the absurd comments made by LEVC were remarkably restrained, I thought!

[S-Works]

Yes it is ilegal to fly VFR with GPS as primary mean of navigation.
You may like it or not, but it is the way it is.

I say again - show me in LAW where it is ILLEGAL to use a GPS as a PRIMARY means of navigation. Not your interpretation of a CAA flyer. The actual LAW as contained in the ANO that you are referring to. I look forward to being educated.

bose-x, your response to the absurd comments made by LEVC were remarkably restrained, I thought!

Why thankyou Beagle, I am trying a new more restrained approach...... :O

[LEVC]

The links are for official documents published by the UK CAA, they are the ones in charge, the documents are there for a reason, and not to be used as toilet paper, although you may choose to use them for this purpose, democracy rules in the UK after all.


The CAA may, in the future , change it´s view on the use of GPS for VFR flights, untill they do, they expect GPS not to be used as primary mean of navigation when flying VFR, if you do, you are not following the rules, thus flying ilegally, wether it makes sense to you or to me, it is a different matter, we are talking about what is legal or not.

Of course GPS gizzmos are nice and reliable nowadays, and a very useful tools too, same for VOR´s & DME´s, but they are not accepted by the CAA as primary means for VFR navigation.

If that sounds an absurd, Beagle, you may want to refresh your knowledge on very basic regulations, which any FI should be familiar with.

LEVC

[S-Works]

LEVC, so far you have insulted Beagle who will have forgotten more about teaching than most of us will ever learn in a lifetime and have done nothing but quote a few CAA leaflets that are CAA opinion at best.

I am merely asking you to quote the LAW which after all is what will back up your assertion that flying using a GPS as the sole means of navigation is ILLEGAL. You must know where to find the LAW as you have been so vociferous in your assertion that it is ILLEGAL.

Us 'new boys' will be glad to bow to your superior knowledge when you do that one simple thing for us. So come on put your money where you mouth is..... I stand by to be educated.

[BillieBob]

LEVC - You are an arrogant fool and, what is more, you are demonstrably wrong.

Rule 25 of the Rules of the Air Regulations states(1) Within controlled airspace rules 27, 29 and 30 shall be the Visual Flight Rules.
(2) Outside controlled airspace rule 28 shall be the Visual Flight Rules.Nowhere in Rule 27, 28, 29 or 30 is there any reference to navigational technique or to the use of GPS. Consequently, your statement that it is "ilegal to fly VFR with GPS as primary mean of navigation" is entirely incorrect, both factually and grammatically.

You are making the very basic error (typical of the inexperienced) of confusing CAA guidance with the law and you would do well to take heed of your, somewhat offensive, advice to BEagle and refresh your knowledge of the regulations, which is currently sadly inadequate.

[IO540]

The scary thing is that he is an instructor, instructing, out there somewhere.

I thought this "GPS is illegal" stuff was put to death about 5 years ago.

[BEagle]

LEVC, do please enlighten us. To which 'very basic regulations' do you refer?

No need to quote them in full as I realise that your English is barely up to ICAO Level 4 standard. Just the ANO references will suffice.

Assuming, that is, that know what the ANO actually is....:hmm:

[LEVC]

You mean if it´s not in the ANO it is not regulated?, In thought the UK CAA was a regulatory body, and that they do have a say on how aircrafts are operated in the UK, if they provide you with guidance as to how to operate a VFR flight I think you must stick to it, unless one has this kind of superior judgement you made refference to earlier.

I can think of several matters not covered specifically in the UK ANO but regulated by the UK CAA that can get you or anyone not complying in to trouble, legal kind of trouble I mean.

By the way if you have any trouble understanding my post, just let me know and I´ll get double checked for any gramatical or spelling mistake.


LEVC

[mrmum]

LEVC

As someone who's learned their lesson regarding "sloppy" posting, I'd suggest you really should be sure of your facts before hitting the submit button. It's easy to try and present opinion as fact or law unless you're careful.

CAA guides and safety leaflets, even LASORS are not the law, they are either the CAA's recommendations, guidance and advice or their opinion or interpretation. The law is what's in the ANO, and there's simply nothing in the rules of the air, visual flight rules, to back up your assertations regarding the use of GPS and other radio aids for navigating while VFR.

[Whopity]

In thought the UK CAA was a regulatory bodyThe CAA is a Regulatory Body; it applies Regulation as defined in Law, the UK Aviation Act, the ANO and EU law. It is not empowered to make its own regulation any more than a policeman can however; it may be asked to provided technical input to the drafting of aviation legislation.

The latter assumes that it has the necessary technical expertise to do so. In recent years with cost cutting in place, the CAA's expertise has fallen to an all time low. It is not their job to tell people how to operate aeroplanes; only to ensure that they do so safely and in accordance with the current regulation. It has a little more autonomy when it comes to the issue of licences and approvals.

[Cows getting bigger]

LEVC, you really are rather foolish. If I were to fly across an expanse of water (lets say the Irish Sea) I will have no means of visually confirming my position. Consequently, I can either use the GPS or, even worse ;), fly using RNAV. If I do either of the latter, are you telling me that I'm breaking the law? If so, I'll take myself straight to the CAA and demand my public spanking.

Now, can I suggest you understand regulatory principles. The only regulatory document is the ANO; everything else is an interpretation and expansion of this document. If you are perceived to be breaking the law, you can only be charged against one or more of the rules stipulated in the ANO.

[Vortex Thing]

AEIO540
I cannot see what CAS busts have to do with the pilot's instructor having sat the 11 or so (14 in most cases; CPL/IR) CPL exams.

One look at the pilot age demographics (look in the back of FTN) and putting this together with the fact that the vast majority of new PPLs chuck in flying within a year or two, makes it obvious that the vast majority of PPLs have not been near an instructor for years if not decades - except for the 2-yearly flight on which you will get a signoff so long as the instructor did not perish on the flight.

The point I was making re CAS incursions was that CPL/ATPL pilot thinks in a different way than a PPL pilot regardless of the experience of either. i.e a low hour CPL FI 200hrs TT is a professional pilot and having demonstrated to the authority that they are such a professional they have no excuse for doing and therefore likely teaching the student anything other than that same standard. Where as even a 3000hr PPL is still a PPL.

Whopity I agree that some of the rules were made by very knowledgeable people and also that some of the rules were/are very good but many need change. I agree with you and BEagle re the fact that the CPL exam question bank needs a big change.

I also think that GPS are a marvellous invention and will soon be so standard in every single vehicle air or other that exists that that the legislation will have to change to reflect this. I mean do we teach use of sextant for night flying even at ATPL level this is gone now.

However re IO540s comment I do not agree that CAS incursions are anything other than poor instruction and weak technique. The source of this weak technique sorry I would argue is that the instructors are not subject to sufficient standardization and professional standards, they are not united enough as a profession should be because they are not all professional pilots............:sad:

[IO540]

a low hour CPL FI 200hrs TT is a professional pilot and having demonstrated to the authority that they are such a professional they have no excuse for doing and therefore likely teaching the student anything other than that same standard. Where as even a 3000hr PPL is still a PPL.

One cannot possibly make such a statement. You might have a very diligent 200hr CPL student (after all, he won't be a working pilot at that stage), or a really stupid one (and I flew with a few of those) who is still thumbing through the airline job ads 10 years later, and you might have a really sloppy 1000hr PPL (let's not use the outrageous "3000hrs" figure which is 100hrs/year for 30 years) who sticks the key in and flies off (and probably doesn't fly far, over a 30 year period), or a diligent 1000hr PPL who takes a lot of care (and probably goes places, which the vast majority of CPLs never will, in any GA context).

I do not agree that CAS incursions are anything other than poor instruction and weak technique.

I don't think it is as simple, either. In a military setup you can say "blame the officers, not the soldiers" but not in a civilian setup where there is no selection and no underperformance sanction (other than in/ability to pay for the next lesson). There are numerous detailed reasons for CAS busts. I did one by chatting to a passenger and forgetting to do the planned descent at the waypoint. That was daft, and I learnt a lesson there. But the fundamental reason - the one which one cannot do much about - is people simply getting lost because they cannot navigate reliably using DR. Given the lack of selection for ability, etc, that one has to be down to the training and the syllabus, and avoidance of technology appropriate to today's airspace complexity.

Not suggesting that anything can be done about any of this from the regulatory end. Introducing GPS into PPL training would force mandatory installation which would be fiercely resisted by the industry, and you still have the variation in user interfaces, etc. It will never happen.

It will instead be sorted from the practical end: given time (another 20 years, in the UK) most of the fleet will be glass cockpits, and sticking a huge post-it pad over these is not viable. The FAA has done a master stroke (probably inadvertent) by requiring a checkride candidate to demonstrate competence on all installed equipment (to the extent applicable to the test so e.g. no need to program a G1000 for a GPS approach on a VFR checkride) and this indirectly forces the introduction of GPS in the ground school.

[robin]

The FAA has done a master stroke (probably inadvertent) by requiring a checkride candidate to demonstrate competence on all installed equipment (to the extent applicable to the test so e.g. no need to program a G1000 for a GPS approach on a VFR checkride) and this indirectly forces the introduction of GPS in the ground school.


Just imagine what EASA and the CAA legislators will do with this. :ugh:

[DFC]

Lots of misunderstandings here.

First, there is the total misunderstanding with regard to the difference between VFR - Visual Flight Rules and navigation techniques. They are not the same and in fact are not in any way related. The main requirement on a VFR flight is to remain in VMC. There are some others but how the flight navigates is not one of them. Remember that the requirement for adequate lookout applies to all flights - VFR and IFR and as BEagle correctly pointed out VFR is legal above an overcast provided that it is VMC.

If IO540 can not navigate from A to B across Europe without a GPS that is more an issue with IO540's abilities than a problem with the system of navigation when properly taught.

Ded Reckoning (DR) is not a navigation technique in it's self. DR is simply a method of projecting where one expects the aircraft to be at a future time based on certain assumptions.

VFR flights generally use Visual Navigation they look out the window and see where they are. At the lower levels this is the most accurate form of navigation.

Pilots using Visual navigation will also often use DR to give a heading to fly and then update this heading based on their actual progress (visual navigation). This is the primary method of navigation taught. DR and other associated methods are also covered. Problem is that at PPL and CPL level the candidate is required to demonstrate the ability to apply DR during the test and unfortunately this is mistaken for a requirement to use DR as a sole technique and at all times. That is not the case.

Let's make some things clear - Sole means of navigation means that the information derived from that source is the only information on which the progress (and safety) of the aircraft is based on.

Primary source of navigation means that more than one source of navigation information is available but should there be a difference in information the primary source will be deemed correct.

Also, for an electronic system to be used as sole or primary source of navigation information it must be an approved instalation and must meet the applicable performance requirements. This applies to unfiltered VOR instalations as much as unapproved GPS instalations. No handheld GPS (or other) units are approved.

So for the average VFR flight unless they have an approved GPS instalation and comply with the requirements for using such an instalation the GPS will never be either the sole source or the primary source of navigational information.

BEagle mentioned flying above an overcast. Yes DR can be used provided that an appropriate allowance is made for the lack of updates from visual navigation and therefore after 100nm the circle within which the aircraft could be may be large if there is a strong wind. Same goes for flying across the ocean. However, while a handheld GPS can in such cases provide some information which is always better than none at all, it would be rather poor technique to set out on a flight above an 8/8 cloud layer without having first determined a DR heading and time i.e. relying on the GPS to provide these.

Therefore one could argue that pilots who can't navigate visually and who only get by using a GPS are permanently lost even when visual with the surface and as everyone knows when lost any information is better than no information al all - eh IO540? :D

In sumary, not having the ability to navigate accurately without GPS does not in any way mean that Visual Navigaytion is any less efficient or accurate when done by a competent pilot (of any level). Unless the GPS instalation is approved it can not be used as primary or sole source of navigation information.

Finally, GPS does not replace DR. One still has to complete a plan pre-flight which of course will be DR since the actual winds etc are not known at that stage. During flight while GPS will provide a continuous indication of position and track it will only ever display the current track and curent groundspeed. Therefore for efficient navigation the pilot needs to be able to apply DR to future progress inorder to determine what the groundspeed will be on different tracks and also to work out what heading to fly to follow a track of 090 when the current track is 060 and the wind is 180/30.

It has taken a long time for GPS to evolve to the current situation where when you look at the screen it looks very similar to what you see when you look out the window. I still find it hard to understand how an older GPS with very few ground features indicated provides more information than looking out the window where everything is in full view. Oh of course, it is very hard to read the road signs from 2000ft and the GPS names the towns - yes, but isn't the inability to read a map and know what the name of the town over there is the fault of the pilot rather than the system of navigation??

[FlyingStone]

Also worth mentioning, GPS has a lot more functions than just "follow magenta line", which is actually what most owners/users of it do - sadly...

Even the oldest GPS gives you the most important information: position (latitude, longitude), ground speed and TRUE TRACK. In my opinion, flying dead-reckoning (as IO540 suggests) across the Europe is stupid. With GPS (or radio-navigation if you fly VOR to VOR/NDB) you can fly approximately great circle tracks, while with dead reckoning you have to be a magician to fly calculated headings and get no drift whatsoever. And if you forget to check your average Directional Indicator every 10 minutes, you might end up flying to origin instead of destination after an hour. From my experience, flying true tracks indicated by GPS instead of compass heading, calculated with various roundings in the process is much much better and accurate, it gives you very little drift. Sadly, many instructors don't teach various GPS techniques, but only D-> and follow magenta line until you see the destination airport.

My opinion on GPS and all the new technology: if you have it, use it. That of course doesn't mean you have to stare into your shiny new G1000 from rotation to flare...

You should always however maintain reduncancy in navigation: if GPS dies, you always have a backup one. If even that fails, you have VOR/NDB/DME and if all hell brakes loose, you still have good old DR. If you only know how to use DR, havent tracked a radial/QDM/QDR for ages and GPS is the worst sin on Earth you could possibly commit, then whenever the wind forecast is wrong, you will get either lost or at least enormous drift.

My 2 cents....

[DFC]

and that is a 100% perfect example of tyhe total misunderstanding I am talking about.

FlyingStone,

Why on earth would you solely rely on DR when you can look out the window and see exactly where you are? i.e. Visual Navigation.

When you look out the window you see exactly where you are - 100% accurate. No errors you are absolutley 100% where your eyes see that you are when you look out the window.

The problem comes when you want to name the village you are over and you are unable to corelate what you see on the map and what you see out the window.

Visual navigation presents the user with two pictures of the same situation - one out the window and on on a piece of paper. They are the same. However, some skill is required to map read and sadly it is lacking. map reading is essential for visual navigation - in it's most basic form following roads, railways and rivers. This basic skill is missing in those that can not use this method.


If you only know how to use DR, havent tracked a radial/QDM/QDR for ages and GPS is the worst sin on Earth you could possibly commit, then whenever the wind forecast is wrong, you will get either lost or at least enormous drift.



Now why would anyone get lost using visual navigation if the wind is different from planned (which it is a lot of the time).

navigation exercise:

Fly from Atown (VOR at it's centre) to Btown (VOR at it's centre) which is directly East 60nm in your 120Kt aircraft. The two towns are joined by a wandering railway track.

1. Visual navigation - follow the railway track. Works 100% but not very efficient due to the wandering track. Hard to work out ETA

2. Visual navigation - calculate a heading and time that you expect will work and after 6 minutes check your progress, adjust back onto track and fly directly to Btown.

3. VOR/dme - calculate a heading and time that you expect will work and if the heading does not work adjust back onto track (and the eta if applicable) and fly directly to Btown.

4. GPS - calculate a heading and time that you expect will work and if heading does not work adjust back onto track (and eta if applicable) and fly to Btown.

Perhaps it is me but 2, 3 and 4 above are exactly the same navigation technique but with different sources of information - Visual information, VOR/DME or GPS.

May questions for anyone who dismisses the pre-calculation of headings for a navigation exercise / crosscountry flight are;

1. How do you determine how much fuel you are going to require; and

2. How do you determine that a) the aid you are using is working and that the flight is proceeding (close to) as planned?

Finally, I have to point out that on most commonally used navigation charts at PPL level when one draws a straight line it is a great circle. Therefore following the pencil line on your half million will cause you to fly a great circle - just like the GPS will do so provided one can navigate visually one can fly as accurately and as efficiently as when using a GPS.

PS GPS is part of the PPL sylabus and should be included in the practical aspects of visual navigation i.e. DR is only one aspect of the overall sylabus and not the only piece that should the taught simply because that specific element is what people find difficult and is guaranteed to be tested.

[DFC]

Forgot to say;

DR in isolation is for navigating on top of an 8/8 clound layer or over the sea out of sight of land when no other navigation information is available.

I can't think of anywhere in Europe where that applies for more than a few minutes when flying VFR in signt of the surface with no radio aids or GPS.

Therefore it is safe to say that in Europe even without any radio aids or a GPS one is still not going to use DR on it's own.

Perhaps that can clear up one of the biggest problems

[FlyingStone]

DFC, I was only referring to earlier posts where LEVC insisted DR is only legal mean of navigation for VFR flights... :rolleyes:

I've done DR, I never got so lost I couldn't determine my position within a minute or two. But now when almost every aircraft has GPS, I use it since as you've said, it gives you pretty accurate ETA and everything else.

[IO540]

Oh yes, dear old DFC... welcome back :)

If IO540 can not navigate from A to B across Europe without a GPS that is more an issue with IO540's abilities than a problem with the system of navigation when properly taught.

I didn't say I can't. I said I wouldn't dream of even trying it due to the potential for trouble.

VFR flights generally use Visual Navigation they look out the window and see where they are. At the lower levels this is the most accurate form of navigation.

Most accurate? Oh dear...

For crop spraying, maybe. I believe that is among your several hundred specialities (which include test flying the lunar landing module) so I won't argue with that.

Also, for an electronic system to be used as sole or primary source of navigation information it must be an approved instalation and must meet the applicable performance requirements.

Reference please... (for GPS usage under VFR)

No, don't bother, there isn't one.

I hope you are not a currently working instructor, "DFC". I had a chemistry teacher at school who ensured that a couple of generations of kids hated chemistry.

[DFC]

IO540,

You seem to have totally missed the reason for having VOR, NDB, ILS and GPS not to mention airspeed indicators, altimeters etc

If I give a GPS to a 5 year old and they can't manage to navigate between A and B is that a problem with GPS or a problem with the ability of the 5 year old to operate an advanced electronic unit?

You say


I didn't say I can't. I said I wouldn't dream of even trying it due to the potential for trouble.


Where is the potential for trouble if one is a competent person when it comes to visual navigation?

I teach at all levels and I do include GPS as part of the PPL sylabus because it is a required element.

However, one can never get away from the fact that GPS is there to replicate what is already possible based on visual navigation just like VOR, ILS, NDB and DME.

Now most of those navaids were brought into use because when one flies in cloud one can no longer use visual navigation so we need the next best thing we can get to replace the information we are missing i.e. that we are going to miss the hill out to the left and the mast to the right without being so low that we clip that chimney below aka ILS.

The problem is that no matter what system is used - VOR, NDB, ILS, GPS, they all have some error even if it is very small. As someone who claims to be an engineering based person you must understand this basic principle.

Therefore you will also understand that all of the above are designed to replace the information that can be seen easily by the mark 1 eyeball when flying in visual met conditions in contact with the surface. Even the mark 1 eyeball gets more accurate as it gets closer to the runway and can beat any CAT3B ILS at deciding if the nosewheel is on the centerline or not.........provided that the pilot is skilled and competent.

If I fly over my house and look down to see that I am directly over my house then I am directly over my house. I do not have to take into acccount various RSS errors that occur in the system or atmospheric issues or thre latest sun flares.

So when navigating visually, why would any competent person with an up to date map have to rely on GPS (or any other aid) to tell them what they should already know?


Reference please... (for GPS usage under VFR)



You are very confused. Are you asking for a reference as to the use of GPS as a primary / sole information source for safe navigation or are you asking about flying VFR? the two are not automatically linked.

In order for a non-visual aid to be used for navigation it must be certified. The reference is the ANO. Forget GPS. If your VOR is not FM immune then it can not be relied upon for primary / sole source of navigation. That is becuase non-FM immune VORs are no longer certified as such. the same applies to non-approved GPS instalations and of course hand-hel GPS units.

Being very accurate and being certified are separate issues.

PS Don't slag off instructors too much. Some day one will stick round you lomg enough to teach you how to navigate without a crutch!! :)

[bookworm]

but isn't the inability to read a map and know what the name of the town over there is the fault of the pilot rather than the system of navigation??

Yes DFC, it's all "the fault of the pilot". Let's throw away 40 years of human factors learnings along with those nasty crutches that pilots rely on, and just blame the pilot when accident and infringement rates increase... :rolleyes:

[DFC]

Accident and infringement rates are indeed the fault of the pilot when they can't navigate.

Everyone accepts that pilots using GPS will reduce the incident rate.

However, there are lots of pilots these days who like for example IO540 are constantly telling us that unless they have GPS information available they would be unable to navigate visually.

Perhaps we should thank these pilots for using GPS and recognising their failings and doing something that will reduce the carnage they leave in their wake.

But that should not be a reason for ignoring the fact that there are more and more pilots who can not navigate visually.