Children of the Magenta Line. Applies to GA types too

[Centaurus]

With the proliferation of glass cockpit EFIS displays and associated autopilots in flying school training aircraft, as well as in most airline types, it is worth re-visiting this fine presentation of the traps of automation. Does the aircraft you fly have a glass cockpit EFIS presentation? If so, then listen to this video presentation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pN41LvuSz10&t=5s

[gerry111]

Equally useful lessons today. Just as when the video was made, 20 years ago.

[dhavillandpilot]

Is this any different to the young pilots today who rely on GPS instead of map reading

[dr dre]

Is this any different to the young pilots today who rely on GPS instead of map reading

Would pilots of any age nowadays still plan and fly a visual nav using solely map reading and DR outside of training? All pilots (of any age group) I know use GPS or other technology in day to day flying and have done so for a long time.

[ElZilcho]

Perhaps the various training departments and SOP committees of today’s airlines should watch this also.

With SOP’s along the lines of “The highest level of Automation shall be used...” it’s no wonder Pilots are losing their skills.

15 years ago I was flying Teardrop NDB approaches off fixed card ADF’s. Those skills were eroded not by myself, but Airline SOP’s.

[Duck Pilot]

To much reliance on digital technology theses days by VFR pilots using GPS and iPads as a primary means of navigation, which is totally illegal and an act of stupidity.

Heard stories of fresh CPL holders completely getting lost on a check ride when the check pilot/chief pilot turns the GPS off!

Root cause, very bad training!

Attended a very good forum a couple of years ago in Sydney that was put on by CASA and the Children of the Magenta Line was an agenda item. Don’t recall who the presenter was however it may have been the same presenter in the YouTube video. This issue is a major factor in some recent high profile accidents.

If airline SOPs actually let pilots turn all the automatics off and fly on raw data under certain conditions to allow pilots to remain current on the stick and rudder skills, the industry would be a far safer environment.

[jonkster]

Would pilots of any age nowadays still plan and fly a visual nav using solely map reading and DR outside of training? All pilots (of any age group) I know use GPS or other technology in day to day flying and have done so for a long time.


I (and the school I work for) make students do DR with no GPS or tablet etc in their nav training.

After they move on and get a licence and are on their own I am happy for them to do as they wish so long as they have acquired skills and competency in DR navigation and carry a pencil and a paper chart, as a fall back. The idea of people who can only rely on an ipad or tablet for navigation is not something I am comfortable with.

Not talking about certified instruments but the common tablet/ipad based nav applications used by many PPLs in GA.

In aircraft with certified GPS etc that is another matter, in the bottom end of GA and initial training, I believe paper charts and the ability to estimate distances and bearings and make time estimates etc airborne is a basic survival skill.

All in my opinion. If I was giving a biennual proficiency check as a nav, for a PPL who was navigating solely with an ipad, I would remove the ipad part way through simulating a failure and see what they did and how they coped. Not to be nasty but because I think it is responsible to ensure they could cope if it happened.

Magenta lines and tablet based nav applications are great. But ipads and tablets can let you down.

[mikewil]

All in my opinion. If I was giving a biennual proficiency check as a nav, for a PPL who was navigating solely with an ipad, I would remove the ipad part way through simulating a failure and see what they did and how they coped.

And if they pulled out their iPhone with fully charged battery and up to date database using the same application, would you then give them the tick of approval? Or would you keep on throwing their backups out the window until they pulled out a crusty old paper chart with coffee stains and rips all over it?

[601]

And if they pulled out their iPhone with fully charged battery and up to date database using the same application, would you then give them the tick of approval?

No matter how many iThingies they have at their disposal, all the gadgets are referencing transmissions from satellites that can be jammed.
What then?

I find it amusing when friends recount how good their children are who do geocaching. Using a GPS based mapping app does not teach map reading skills.

[mikewil]

No matter how many iThingies they have at their disposal, all the gadgets are referencing transmissions from satellites that can be jammed.
What then?
If there is a problem with the GPS system, we will have a far greater issue on our hands than the odd VFR flight getting lost.

ie. all the IFR flights out there that haven't planned for an alternate because they expected their dual TSO146a GNS430s to be serviceable at their destination where they expect to conduct an approach in IMC would be in a bit of strife (especially with all the ground based aids recently decommissioned).

By all means use a GPS system of your choice but have the chart out and keep it marked up and cross check occasionally what the GPS is saying is sensible. I don't think it necessary to carry a paper map if you have a backup iDevice of some kind. However, you can turn off location services so the iDevice effectively becomes a paper map and the same map reading skills are used without having to waste money on paper charts.

[pithblot]

But ipads and tablets can let you down.

Well, with caveats, not according to the regulator. Nowadays, CASA/company approved paperless cockpits are an option. In these cases, the pilot could be diverting to the middle-of-nowhere in the middle of the night and the only paper on board is the Maintenance Release. If the first approved iPad fails, the WAC, IAP, Jepps, ALA directory and manuals are accessed from the approved back up iPad. There is no option, in a paperless cockpit, to plot a line on a chart - that would be like taking a star shot without a sextant.

[Ixixly]

Don't know what apps you use pithblot, but Ozrunways certainly lets me plot a line on a chart quickly and easily. If the GPS stopped working I'd be more than happy to continue with the App used solely as a chart/map display.

It all depends on your situation of course, I certainly think it is a good idea/essential for instructors to make sure their students understand the fundamentals of using Papercharts as it's still the same fundamentals when using ipads when done properly and safely.

For me personally I can be on one side of the country one day and be sent to the other side the next day, it's bloody hard keeping all the up-to-date charts and maps in a job like that so Ozrunways is an absolute blessing for me.

[pithblot]

Agree with you Ixily, about the benefits of Ozrunways. But you won't be drawing a line on an electronic chart if the iPad battery is flat or the screen fails.

I presumed a chart to be paper, just as I also once presumed a book to be paper. Clearly that's not the case, and my statement would have been clearer had I written; There is no option, in a paperless cockpit, to plot a line on a paperlchart .....

[Ixixly]

You won't be drawing a line on a paperchart if it's damaged, you ran out of pen, pencil broke, perhaps you lost your ruler? Proper planning and risk mitigation will prevent that from happening, though.

In days gone by people could lose a chart, not have an up-to-date one, damage their chart from rain or other sources, of course you found ways to mitigate that, just like when using an iPad. You keep a portable battery with you, plug it into the cigarette lighter, ensure you charged it fully the night before. This is also why we have backup devices. There are pitfalls with Electronic Charts just like there were pitfalls with Paper Charts, we find ways to mitigate those pitfalls.

[KRviator]

I am always amused when people trot out the "If you can't do DR, you ain't a real pilot", or the "If you can't get by without GPS, you shouldn't be flying". GPS is probably surpassed only by the internet in terms of the useful impact it has had on the global population.

Yet aviation nav processes and respective attitudes utilise it like we are still in the 1950's. I have 4 independent GPS systems on board my simple little RV-9. The iPad goes flat? Plug the damn thing in, stupid. Won't take a charge? Bring up the VTC on the EFIS MAP page. That won't work because the subscription timed out yesterday? Good thing the old KLN-90 is still coupled to the autopilot, let's say it pops the ECB? Well, let's trot out the trusty phone running RWY and hope we don't get hit by a meteor given the volume of independent failures we've had on this flight.

That last bit it the key. How many independent failures are VFR pilots supposed to deal with, and at what point will aviation actually move into the modern world?

[pithblot]

Ixixly, do you think I am suggesting we should go back to paper charts?

Proper planning and risk mitigation......

.....when using an iPad. You keep a portable battery with you, plug it into the cigarette lighter, ensure you charged it fully the night before. This is also why we have backup devices. There are pitfalls with Electronic Charts just like there were pitfalls with Paper Charts, we find ways to mitigate those pitfalls.


Does this not sound similar to my original post? Post #12?

My point is that electronic maps and charts have become so reliable (in an approved system) that paper charts, manuals and documents are not even needed as a back up.

[Sunfish]

The philosophy that was drummed into me was "do not ever pass up any opportunity to verify your position". In my opinion doing less than that is rotten airmanship, period, and I don't need x thousand hours to state that anyone who does not use every aid available all the time to cross check position, track and speed is asking for trouble one day.

That means paper chart, pencil and Mk1 eyeball if VFR, it means looking for transits, ASI, magnetic compass, rpm, turn and bank, DG. It means using the available NDB, VOR and GPS as well as the glass map and checking that they all agree with each other all the time.

If you do that, then it becomes extremely difficult to be navigationally "surprised" or incapacitated by subtle system failure.

I have had a total system fritz on a yacht at night, GPS says one thing, fluxgate compass another, magnetic compass different again. Hard wired GPS says this, iPad says that, autopilot doesn't know what to follow and phone says something else - your situational awareness will go to hell very fast.

Pithblot:

My point is that electronic maps and charts have become so reliable (in an approved system) that paper charts, manuals and documents are not even needed as a back up.


......provided you know how to use the backups, unlike the poor sods who went into the South Atlantic. I am not a Luddite but I don't trust machinery totally.

To put it another way "A man with one watch knows what time it is, a man with two is never sure".

[das Uber Soldat]

9/10 'back in my day' thread. Just missing tales of walking to school uphill both ways.

[dhavillandpilot]

Most comments here miss the point. modern technology is great and in the main extremely reliable, but as Sunfish pointed out the Air France accident Is a prime example of what can happen when one computer fails due to missing imput.

If your flying GA on the eastern states then it's pretty much a no brainer that you cannot get too lost.

But try a flight from Birdsville to Alice Springs and halfway there the GPS goes off line. For a situationally aware pilot, read animal cunning pilot, it's no big deal.

Simply keep the sand dunes at a constant angle to the flight path and you will eventually cross the main highway that leads to Alice.

I for one love the newer GPS systems with the large seperate displays, helps us oldies that need glasses.

[Captain Dart]

I fly open cockpit. The iPad EFB (and its backup,of course) is far less likely to blow over the side than the tatty old paper chart.

[Ixixly]

Come on everyone, I think we can all agree that not having to contact a map anymore is definitely the best part of Digital Charts :D

I'll admit, doing it successfully left one feeling pretty chuffed though!

Re-read your post pithblot, I think I misunderstood you when I read it the first time. Think we're basically on the same page anyway here.

[pithblot]

Good job Ixixly. I think we'd also be on the same page about down-sizing the Nav Bag and never having to hand ammend sheets marked 'This page intentionally blank'. :ok:

[jonkster]

And if they pulled out their iPhone with fully charged battery and up to date database using the same application, would you then give them the tick of approval? Or would you keep on throwing their backups out the window until they pulled out a crusty old paper chart with coffee stains and rips all over it?

Yeah I might accept accept that. Depends. Providing they had all the appropriate bits downloaded and ready to go and not needing a 4G signal and could quickly set it all up, maybe.

I would ask them if they would start a flight if they used a tablet but always carried an iPhone as a back up what would they do if climbing into the cockpit at the start of a 2 day trip, they dropped their phone and made the screen unreadable, what would they do? Abort the flight? Be able to use a WAC?

I also would want to make sure they could operate head out and not staring at a tiny screen like a phone but I would think that a reasonable argument for them to make if they always carried a back up and could comfortably operate it (I know my fat fingers are not great on phones, especially if bouncing about).

Then again I am someone who takes pilot's calculators off them if they try to use them in flight or if the only have one pencil arrange for it to be "dropped".


But try a flight from Birdsville to Alice Springs and halfway there the GPS goes off line. For a situationally aware pilot, read animal cunning pilot, it's no big deal.


Earlier this year on a flight to a cattle station north of Coober Pedy just near the SA/NT border (a long way off the highway and not many features), I had my device (using OzRwy) suddenly shutdown and refuse to reboot about 20 minutes after departure from Broken Hill. No idea why - battery was 100%, it was not hot, then it came good on a later leg when I tried it and hasn't done it again. I just don't trust it. I have always been wary of handheld devices and this only confirmed it.

I would like to know that if that had happened to someone I signed off could handle a similar situation prudently - maybe by having their iphone ready to go as suggested or by having the right WACS or even doing a reciprocal heading back to YBHI if that was smartest.

[mustafagander]

Being a dinosaur in the aviation world, and all other worlds too I must say, I use my iPad and Ozthingo to give me tracks and distances so I can prepare a flight plan. I then extract appropriate winds from the ARFOR and make the appropriate twists of the whizz wheel. I grew up with the three Cs - Chart, Clock, Compass - and I don't want to lose those skills.

My recent AFR was negotiated so that I turned off own ship position and used the iPad as I always do - a sophisticated WAC.

Like a number of my friends and colleagues who fly for fun after retirement, I avoid using the full capacity of the EFB to maintain proficiency and a sense of achievement when I fly.

I always carry 2 iPads and a spare external battery of suitable capacity coz I'm a wimp - I hate excitement in the air. Also I keep up to date on my current position by looking out the window and checking for expected road/rail crossings etc. It worked a treat on a recent outback safari I did with a few pals which took me way, way away from my familiar east coast places. I'm more than comfortable not having a paper chart on board and I save a small fortune as a bonus.

[jonkster]

So you'll see how a pilot handles being removed of a device that has become their main tool of navigation during a BFR but you won't teach new students how to use an EFB effectively and just expect them to figure it out?


A little bit of an assumption there. I certainly discuss the use of EFB devices and how they can make life easy but avoid them having access to it in flight. I also would use taking the EFB away as an opportunity to teach new (or relearn forgotten) skills. A flight review is not a test in my opinion but a chance to learn and polish and gain confidence and broaden viewpoints.

If they can navigate with chart and DR, learning to use an EFB is (I think) a piece of cake. And if the EFB fails... they won't be thrown and can drop back a level to skills they have practiced and shown to have proficiency in.


A far more effective way would be to integrate both methods of navigation into the initial training so that one does not become a slave to the magenta line once they get the freedom of flying by themselves.

EFBs are effective and reliable but there needs to be emphasis on how to maintain situational awareness and mitigate the risks (which does not necessarily mean reverting to paper).

That idea (adding EFBs to DR training) is certainly worth exploring - particularly looking at how EFBs can introduce problems like loss of SA and reliance on what the machine says over what they see out the cockpit.

I do get worried when I hear of pilots starting off (and finishing off) their nav training solely using an EFB rather than basic navigation principles. That said, incorporating such aids in their training is worth considering if it makes for safer pilots and as they become more ubiquitous that they use them well.

I would still say I want them to have solid DR training though and would not sacrifice that.

I am curious how you would envisage incorporating EFB alonside DR navigation in nav training for PPLs (seriously - if it makes for safer pilots then I am quite open to the idea). What would you cover in that sort of training? How much time would you devote? What are the pitfalls of using them? How would you mitigate against those pitfalls and how would you train that practically?

[KRviator]

I do get worried when I hear of pilots starting off (and finishing off) their nav training solely using an EFB rather than basic navigation principles.

I would still say I want them to have solid DR training though and would not sacrifice that.Without wanting to sound like a smartasre, could you explain why you feel this way?

I am on the opposite end of the spectrum, and consider things like the whiz-wheel and paper charts a legacy-style of navigation that doesn't really have a place in the modern cockpit. Can I use them? Certainly. Could I use them if all that fancy tech goes dark Certainly. Do I? Not at all.

The use of a sextant and tables are long gone, because technology overtook them, the same can be said of paper charts and DR-style navigation. But I feel too many people worry about the sky falling if you lose GPS reception. The chance of that happening on multiple devices simultaneously is extremely remote.

[Sunfish]

KRviator:

But I feel too many people worry about the sky falling if you lose GPS reception. The chance of that happening on multiple devices simultaneously is extremely remote.

However the probability of catastrophic failure is not zero. GPS can also be jammed....or deliberately degraded.

My point is that if you have ever had a sophisticated GPS/autopilot/flight director system fail on you it is an extremely disturbing event if you relied on it totally. That is if you even have the skills to determine you are being sent duff information.

Unless you learn to establish your position from first principles you are in a world of hurt if the system fails.

Or my BFR (VFR) the GPS was turned off for good reason.

[Duck Pilot]

Is anyone teaching 1:60s and using wiz wheels inflight theses days.

I still have my Kane metal slide wheel that I used in my early navs, this and a map and the windows alway got me from A to B, even in remote areas without a GPS around the Kimberleys.

[KRviator]

KRviator:

The probability of catastrophic failure is not zero. GPS can also be jammed....or deliberately degraded.

My point is that if you have ever had a sophisticated GPS/autopilot/flight director system fail on you it is an extremely disturbing event if you relied on it totally. I completely agree, but single-point failures abound in aviation, particularly light single's, yet we willingly accept them. A drive failure in one of those pesky dual-magneto setups puts you in a potentially life-threatening situation, right now. Any number of fuel system components would, if they failed, result in engine fire or failure, yet we willingly accept that.

Navigating using GNSS for sole-means nav does not result in a life threatening situation, particularly for VFR pilots, should the primary GPS fail. You move to your backup. Sure you might have to carry out a PSAL if you cannot establish your position and you are nearing fuel exhaustion, but that - to me anyway - is merely an annoyance, and a pretty unlikely one at that, it is not a single-point failure that is as serious as people make it out to be.

I work for a rail company that has used the traditional automatic airbrake since they kicked off, however, a few years ago they introduced ECP braking, a new system controlled electronically with computers on each wagon. The reliability of the ECP system is now they are no longer training driver's to use the automatic air brake, meaning if it fails, they have to bring in more experienced driver to move the train if ECP cannot be recovered. But that is progress, and has the full blessing of the national rail safety regulator. I bring this up because just because something has always been done, does not mean it should continue to be done if technology has improved sufficiently. Personally, I think we are beyond that point now with GNSS and EFB's, so long as you have an adequate backup.

It seems we're at a crossroads in Australia regarding GNSS for AIUI, a PVT operation may be conducted under the IFR in an aircraft fitted with only a single GNSS that meets TSO-145/146 or 196 - there is no requirement for a ground-based backup VOR/NDB (CAO 20.18 9D.6 & 9D.7). If your destination has a GNSS approach, you are not required to plan an alternate (based on navaids AIP ENR1.1 11.8.3.1b), so what do you do if you are IMC enroute to your destination, and your (single) nav source fails?

You can't fly the approach, you probably can't even find your destination, and you aren't carrying an alternate, not that you could find your way to it in any event. This is both legal and possible, yet a lowly PPL using GNSS must be expected to use a paper chart in an open cockpit?

[jonkster]

Without wanting to sound like a smartasre, could you explain why you feel this way?


I think it comes down to ensuring that pilots have the confidence to know they can cope when things go wrong.

By handing more and more of the pilot load over to automated systems we make flying easier and more convenient and free up our mental horsepower to deal with decision making which is good.

However if the pilot does not have fallback understandings and training they are at a disadvantage when the technology doesn't operate as it should.


I am on the opposite end of the spectrum, and consider things like the whiz-wheel and paper charts a legacy-style of navigation that doesn't really have a place in the modern cockpit. Can I use them? Certainly. Could I use them if all that fancy tech goes dark Certainly.


which says to me you have a good understanding of the underpinning knowledge of navigation and management of an aircraft in flight that you were taught and is a good backstop when things go wrong.


Do I? Not at all.


which is fine by me. You make a decision based on your equipment, training and experience. Pilot judgement is needed not prescription. So long as it is based on good foundations.


The use of a sextant and tables are long gone, because technology overtook them, the same can be said of paper charts and DR-style navigation.


If a pilot pulled out a sextant to navigate on a proficiency check I would both be *very* impressed and would also take the sextant off them saying it just dropped on the floor and was now broken... :)

DR is not a technology. It is a process and in its most basic form relies on the simplest of technology - some paper, your eyes, brain and fingers. In a pinch you don't need a pencil and you certainly don't need a whizzwheel or protractor or ruler, just a chart. Charts are not infallible and can tear, get blown away or go missing but the failure modes and rates of a paper chart are low.

If you have accurate systems that constantly give you positive fixes and give command indications to direct you in the flight that is great. Providing you understand why they do what they do, that you can determine if there may be an issue with that technology and are not so totally reliant on it to the point that should it fail you will be left in a nasty situation.


But I feel too many people worry about the sky falling if you lose GPS reception. The chance of that happening on multiple devices simultaneously is extremely remote.

If the equipment is certified their reliability is high and if it has appropriate backup systems I would agree.

If it is handhold consumer grade devices bought at your local electronics shop I am not so much worried about the GPS signal as about the reliability and durability of the device.

On a recent remote flight I have had a tablet simply shut down and then refuse to properly boot. Due to my own stupidity I had a mobile phone drop in the cockpit recently and crack the screen. They are not designed to be that resilient. They are designed to be cheap and need replacing on a short cycle as consumer items.



Is this scenario too far fetched? I would say no.

A pilot is heading back from Goulburn to Bankstown in the afternoon and she has an EFB and uses her phone as a back up. She is conscientous and safety minded so everything is downloaded on both, both fully charged and she also carries a spare 'brick battery' and cable because she is prudent and knows from experience sometimes batteries on these things go downhill suddenly.

She has done this flight many times and is now familiar with the area. In fact she is finding she barely even looks at the devices these days because she knows the route and land layout so well. Basically you can almost just follow the highway. Easy peasy.

Forecast is not great with some low cloud but still quite legal and looking north seems OK.

Heavy showers of rain and worsening wx are predicted to move up from the south after the pilot's planned flight so she doesn't want to hang around or she will be stuck in Goulburn overnight and she needs to get to work tomorrow.

She has done it in worse looking weather without pushing VFR conditions so is not overly concerned providing she gets away on time.

Then just prior to departing, while refueling, her phone drops out of her pocket and smashes the screen :( Bugga. Need to get that fixed in Sydney. She has her EFB on the yoke and knows the route well and needs to keep moving or will risk nasty weather (in which case it means missing work tomorrow).

Not long after departing Goulburn heavy rain and mist behind her appears making return to Goulburn a no go. She was not expecting that so soon but it is behind her so still good.

Then in front the weather deteriorates. Heavy showers directly in front like a black wall. The Hume Highway just disappears into clag a few miles in front.

To the east the cloud base is dropping and vis reducing in rain. The west looks fairly OK though base is lowering but she can still see blue sky under the cloud near the horizon. The pilot sensibly decides to head that way and bites the bullet - she will try Crookwell and either stop there or see what the weather does. Looks like she will have to call work tonight and cancel the meetings she was chairing :( Oh well. Better to to be prudent than push her luck in the clag.

She finds Crookwell on the EFB and hits 'go direct'. At which point the screen freezes with the dialog box right over the bits of the map that she wants to see. She tries rebooting. That doesn't work. Now just a black screen with a funny spinning wheel icon. She realises she has had her head down in the cockpit for a minute or two trying to get the EFB to work. She has lost sight of the highway. Still looks reasonably OK to the west but she doesn't recognise what she is seeing on the ground anymore so not 100% sure exactly where she is. She has no chart. No phone, no EFB, no instrument rating, no GPS and no radio nav aids.

She aims in a rough direction that looks clear hoping to find Crookwell and this is no longer a pleasant situation.

She makes a radio call and eventually with assistance and is guided to a safe haven where she spends the night and decides to give flying away and feels scared, embarrassed and that she is useless. :(

Or she pulls a coffee stained old WAC chart out of the seat pocket, makes an estimate of her last location, estimates a track to Crookwell and time estimate, works out when she sees a distinctive shaped dam she is slightly left of track and calculates a heading and revised estimate for Crookwell, revises her sar time, lands and spends a fun night at the Criterion Hotel feeling confident in her ability, proud of herself but also wiser and grateful she had crusty old farts who forced her to do her nav training using antiquated techniques that modern technology has overatken and made redundant.

Or she panics and all bets are off as the outcome... :(



Nothing wrong with EFBs providing people have a sound background in DR techniques. I use one. I also have a WAC(or two) or VNC on my knee. I still have the plastic folder and bit of string I used when flying with charts in an open cockpit.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Children of the magenta was about becoming a slave to the technology. Simple procedures that would normally take a press of a disarm button, a visual turn to a visual approach then arming as little as you need to complete the mission. Too much time spent heads down entering data to facilitate a basic simple task.

VFR GA is as simple as it gets...what is so bloody wrong about brushing up on your DR or pilotage techniques.

[ShyTorque]

I hope everyone is still hand swinging their props. These modern starter motors can fail, don't you know.

[Duck Pilot]

I totally concur Oz! To much reliance on gadgets that keeps the head in the cockpit not out.

[NumptyAussie]

I am not really a conspiracy nut..but to trust your sole ability to navigate anything to the whim of the land of the Orange Donald may, in these times, be a little....careless?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System

[Sunfish]

just push the "direct to" button..........

[KRviator]

I am not really a conspiracy nut..but to trust your sole ability to navigate anything to the whim of the land of the Orange Donald may, in these times, be a little....careless?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_SystemCAsA says it's safe, so it must be so! :}

[NumptyAussie]

CAsA says it's safe, so it must be so! :}

If you have a spare five minutes, it may be worth reading about a incident where a fully specced up aircraft managed to almost hit a lighthouse during a aproach. Unfortunately it did result in the loss of lives.

https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://static.rasset.ie/documents/news/preliminary-report-2017-006.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjZi46in_fWAhXFopQKHaxjCVEQFggsMAQ&usg=AOvVaw2B5PjtTzafLuQQCKBaT7pF

[jonkster]

I hope everyone is still hand swinging their props. These modern starter motors can fail, don't you know.

We teach forced landing procedures because engines can fail. That said, most PPLs will never have an engine failure in their lifetime. We teach procedures to deal with electrical fires. Most PPLs will never encounter one in flight. We teach precautionary search procedures. Most PPLs will never find themselves needing to do one. We teach radio failure procedures. Most PPLs will never experience one. Should we stop doing that?

Why teach emergency procedures if most PPLs will never have an emergency in flight?

Most people have had a phone or tablet die though in the last few years. Do a google search for "my ipod is frozen" or "my ipad won't boot".

What is more likely? A faulty tablet/phone or an engine failure?

I have had more of the former than the later. Teaching emergency procedures is valuable but teaching basic nav skills is a waste of time because EFBs can do that stuff?

The sooner we have autoland and advanced FMS on GA aircraft the better I think. I mean who wants to actually fly an aircraft by hand when the technology can do a way better job? :p

[KRviator]

We teach forced landing procedures because engines can fail. That said, most PPLs will never have an engine failure in their lifetime. We teach procedures to deal with electrical fires. Most PPLs will never encounter one in flight. We teach precautionary search procedures. Most PPLs will never find themselves needing to do one. We teach radio failure procedures. Most PPLs will never experience one. Should we stop doing that?

Why teach emergency procedures if most PPLs will never have an emergency in flight?

Most people have had a phone or tablet die though in the last few years. Do a google search for "my ipod is frozen" or "my ipad won't boot".

What is more likely? A faulty tablet/phone or an engine failure?

I have had more of the former than the later. Teaching emergency procedures is valuable but teaching basic nav skills is a waste of time because EFBs can do that stuff?But it isn't the failure I take issue with. It's the denying of a reasonable & legitimate (ie, self-contained, independent) backup. If you launch blindly relying on your single EFB to get you where you need to go, I completely agree, you're an idiot. They can, and do, fail - which is why I have 4 GPS' on board, including a TSO'd unit, so I can continue the flight should one, two or even three fail.

But 'failing' one on a BFR or check ride, then denying the checkee the ability to use their phone/second tablet (or sextant!) is unreasonable, IMHO. Unless the GPS is being spoofed, which is pretty damn unlikely in Australia, I would have more faith in my Galaxy phone picking up where the simulated 'failed' Ipad left off, and keeping me on track and out of the weeds than the continuing operation of an engine designed long before any posters here were born!

If CAsA say a single GPS is good enough for IFR / IMC at night, with no navigation backup whatsoever, I can't agree VFR pilots should continue with the 'old school' methods, when they will become so unaccustomed to actually using them, if they need to, they're probably more likely to make an error while stressed and ending up worse off than they would be simply going to a backup, second EFB.

[kaz3g]

KRviator:



However the probability of catastrophic failure is not zero. GPS can also be jammed....or deliberately degraded.

My point is that if you have ever had a sophisticated GPS/autopilot/flight director system fail on you it is an extremely disturbing event if you relied on it totally. That is if you even have the skills to determine you are being sent duff information.

Unless you learn to establish your position from first principles you are in a world of hurt if the system fails.

Or my BFR (VFR) the GPS was turned off for good reason.

It seems that everyone is missing the point. Whether you use a paper chart or a digital one, you must fly VFR rules and that means establishing your position by reference to the ground at the required intervals. You have to look outside.

I just happen to find it very reassuring when I'm a long way from anywhere to see the fix point on the ground, to identify it as a correlation with my chart AND have my position confirmed by the dinky little aeroplane that moves across the map (apparently).

I get even more reassurance when my second iPad (mini) and my Garmin agree, too. But if they all gave different coordinate results I would still know by referencing ground to chart, knowing where my last fix was and how I got to my present one in what time frame. And if the screens all failed, I still have a set of paper charts in the bag already marked up for my flight plan.

The AUSTER and I will be back in outback NSW and Qld next May participating in the RFDS 90th Anniversary odyssey from Dubbo to Mt Isa and we will try not to get lost.

Kaz;)

PS? We will both have just turned 74 so it will be a nice little extra to celebrate that milestone, too.

[KRviator]

It seems that everyone is missing the point. Whether you use a paper chart or a digital one, you must fly VFR rules and that means establishing your position by reference to the ground at the required intervals. You have to look outside.Not anymore...You can use GNSS to provide the positive fix if above 2000AGL. And when using an approved radio-nav system, including GNSS (TSO-C129 or better), it pushes the positive-fix time out to 2 hours! :eek:

[gerry111]

[QUOTE=kaz3g;9927767
The AUSTER and I will be back in outback NSW and Qld next May participating in the RFDS 90th Anniversary odyssey from Dubbo to Mt Isa and we will try not to get lost.[/QUOTE]

That sounds like an invitation for others to come along on the trip? :)

[Duck Pilot]

KRviator, What regulation/s allows this?

[mikewil]

KRviator, What regulation/s allows this?

AIP ENR 1.1 3.3.2

3.3.2 Flight under the VFR
3.3.2.1 The following apply in respect of flight under the VFR:


The pilot in command must navigate the aircraft by visual reference to the ground or water, or by using any of the methods specified in para 3.3.1.1, except that when operating at or below 2,000FT above the ground or water, the pilot in command must be able to navigate by visual reference to the ground or water.




So the above states that you need to be able to navigate by reference to the ground or water OR by the methods in the following paragraph (3.3.1.1 as above):

3.3.1.1 An aircraft operating under the IFR must be navigated by:
a. an approved area navigation system that meets performance requirements of the intended airspace or route; or

A TSO129a (or better) GPS system would certainly meet this requirement. For a VFR pilot, as long as one is familiar with how to use the "direct to" function, the navigational requirement would be met. However, using an iPad as a sole means of navigation is a different story as it wouldn't meet the requirements of the regulation. But using the little aeroplane symbol on the iPad to get an "idea" of where you are and then confirming this by looking out the window at ground features would obviously meet the requirement for a visual fix.

[Duck Pilot]

Thankyou Mike!

Just needed to know should I get pulled up by an FOI on a ramp check.

[Flying Binghi]

...GPS system would certainly meet this requirement...

As long as we have a GPS constellation beaming down that golden signal..:)





.

[KRviator]

Thankyou Mick!

Just needed to know should I get pulled up by an FOI on a ramp check.I think the reference is slightly different in the online version of the AIP from ASA. It comes up as ENR 1.1 4.1.1 and 4.1.2:
4. NAVIGATION REQUIREMENTS
4.1 Flight under the IFR
4.1.1 An aircraft operating under the IFR must be navigated by:
a. an approved area navigation system that meets performance requirements of the intended airspace or route; or
b. use of a radio navigation system or systems on routes where,
after making allowance for possible tracking errors of ±9° from the last positive fix, the aircraft will come within the rated coverage of a radio aid which can be used to fix the position of the aircraft. The maximum time interval between positive fixes must not exceed two (2) hours; or
c. visual reference to the ground or water by day, on route segments where suitable en route radio navigation aids are not available, provided that weather conditions permit flight in VMC and the visual position fixing requirements of para 4.1.2.1b. are able to be met.

4.1.2 Flight under the VFR
4.1.2.1 The following apply in respect of flight under the VFR:
a. The pilot in command must navigate the aircraft by visual reference to the ground or water, or by using any of the methods specified in para 4.1.1, except that when operating at or below 2,000FT above the ground or water, the pilot in command must be able to navigate by visual reference to the ground or water.
b. When navigating by visual reference to the ground or water, the pilot in command must positively fix the aircraft’s position by visual reference to features shown on topographical charts at intervals not exceeding 30 minutes. When flying over the sea, visual reference features may include rocks and reefs and fixed man-made objects which are marked on suitable charts and are readily identifiable from the air.
Note: Flight above more than SCT cloud, or over featureless land areas, or over the sea, may preclude visual position fixing at the required intervals and may therefore make visual navigation impracticable.
c. When navigating by visual reference in controlled airspace the pilot must notify ATC if the aircraft’s track diverges by more than one (1) nautical mile from the track approved by ATC, or, if navigating by reference to radio navigation aids, by more than the tolerances given in para 4.1.6.
d. VFR flight on top of more than SCT cloud is available provided that:
(1) VMC can be maintained during the entire flight, including climb, cruise and descent.
(2) For VFR flight on top of more than SCT cloud, the visual position fixing requirements of sub-para b., or the other navigational requirements of section 4.1 must be met.
(3) Prior to conducting a VFR flight on top of more than SCT cloud, the pilot in command must ensure that current forecasts and observations (including those available inflight observations) indicate that conditions in the area of, and during the period of, the planned descent below the cloud layer will permit the descent to be conducted in VMC.
(4) The position at which descent below cloud is planned to occur must be such as to enable continuation of the flight to the destination and, if required, an alternate aerodrome in VMC (see Notes 1 and 2).
e. When navigating by reference to radio navigation systems, the pilot in command must obtain positive radio fixes at the intervals and by the methods prescribed in paras 4.1 and 4.1.5.
f. The pilot in command of a VFR flight wishing to navigate by means of radio navigation systems or any other means must indicate in the flight notification only those radio navigation aids with which the aircraft is equipped and the pilot is competent to use under CASR 61.385

Which takes you to Section 4.1.5:
4.1.5 Position Fixing
4.1.5.1 A positive radio fix is one determined by:
a. the passage of the aircraft over an NDB, VOR, TACAN, marker beacon or a DME site; or
b. the intersection of two or more position lines which intersect with angles of not less than 45° and which are obtained from NDBs, VORs, localisers or DMEs in any combination. For the purpose of this paragraph, a position line must be within the rated coverage of the aid with the exception that if a fix is determined entirely by position lines from NDBs, the position lines must be within a range of 30NM from each of the NDBs;or
c. GNSS meeting the equipment requirements of GEN 1.5 Section 2.
And finally, GEN 1.5 Section 2 states:
Note 4: In this table, GPS means GNSS equipment certified to TSO-C129, TSO-C145, TSO-C146 or equivalent as determined by CASA.

[jonkster]

But 'failing' one on a BFR or check ride, then denying the checkee the ability to use their phone/second tablet (or sextant!) is unreasonable, IMHO.

just to be clear - I didn't say I'd fail the pilot, I would fail *the device* and see what the pilot would do.

Same as I would for an engine. I think that would be a responsible thing to do.

After giving them a scenario in which the EFB failed and if you had multiple backup devices coming out your whazoo (and especially if you pulled out a sextant! :)) *and* you operated them well and in a proficient and safe way I would almost certainly commend you and let you continue.

If you weren't able to do that I would use it as a teaching opportunity.

A paper chart and a brain are cheap backup technology, work well if used well and very rarely completely shutdown and fail to reboot (although I have had one rip in an open cockpit).

[Capt Fathom]

And as the light aircraft continued to infringe controlled airspace up the QLD coast, ATC asked, "do you know where you are?"
"Yes! I'm 300 miles from Cairns"

There was a fatal accident in NSW several years ago that pointed to use of the 'direct to' button.
In lowering weather conditions, the aircraft clipped the top of a small hill. That hill was on the direct track from the departure point to the destination. If the pilot had drawn a line on his chart and been following his progress in relation to the outside world, a small deviation may have saved his life.

Just because you can use a GPS, doesn't mean forget the rest.

[Sunfish]

KRviator. No you can't use your iPad or other unapproved GPS for VFR navigation. The rules refer to approved GNSS systems only.

That means 30 minutes, chart and pencil for VFR navigation all the time unless fitted with TSO'd gear. At least that's the way I read the rules you posted. Unless ipad and Ozrunways are approved by CASA as primary means of navigation.

[mikewil]

KRviator. No you can't use your iPad or other unapproved GPS for VFR navigation. The rules refer to approved GNSS systems only.

That means 30 minutes, chart and pencil for VFR navigation all the time unless fitted with TSO'd gear. At least that's the way I read the rules you posted. Unless ipad and Ozrunways are approved by CASA as primary means of navigation.



It doesn't mean that at all.


It means you need to fix your position every 30 minutes by visual reference to the ground. You can easily meet this requirement by following the magenta line on your iPad and looking out the window and obtaining your visual fixes. I don't condone blindly doing this, but to meet the regulation, you just need to demonstrate that you are obtaining the appropriate fixes.

[mikewil]

As long as we have a GPS constellation beaming down that golden signal..:)
.



Airservices & CASA seem to be pretty confident in this as they have shut down a huge number of ground based aids. As has been stated above, you can blast off on a private IFR flight with a single TSO129a GPS, expect to arrive at a destination with only a GNSS approach in IMC with no alternate and be perfectly legal.


You can also blast off on charter & RPT ops with the appropriate redundant GNSS installations and still be fully reliant on the fact that the satellites above with be serviceable.

[Flying Binghi]

Airservices & CASA seem to be pretty confident in this as they have shut down a huge number of ground based aids. As has been stated above, you can blast off on a private IFR flight with a single TSO129a GPS, expect to arrive at a destination with only a GNSS approach in IMC with no alternate and be perfectly legal.


You can also blast off on charter & RPT ops with the appropriate redundant GNSS installations and still be fully reliant on the fact that the satellites above with be serviceable.

Its been well covered in numerous other threads how a terrorist 'event' may very well cause the un-availability of GPS for indefinite time periods. So, re this thread subject my suggestion is that pilots should develop a mindset of expectation of full GPS signal loss at any time and have a plan B ready for when it happens - rather then when it happens, sitting in the cockpit going WTF, WTF, etc, for half an hour or so...





.

[mikewil]

Its been well covered in numerous other threads how a terrorist 'event' may very well cause the un-availability of GPS for indefinite time periods. So, re this thread subject my suggestion is that pilots should develop a mindset of expectation of full GPS signal loss at any time and have a plan B ready for when it happens - rather then when it happens, sitting in the cockpit going WTF, WTF, etc, for half an hour or so...

.



Completely agree with all you have said above, but as has been said many times in this thread, the likelihood of dire consequences in such an event will be far more relevant to the Chieftain in IMC with 10 POB and insufficient fuel for an alternate (and no means of navigating to one anyway) than the pilot of a VFR aircraft being a bit too reliant on the iPad.

[Flying Binghi]

I'd add that when GPS goes down I'd imagine that there will be radio chaos. And none of them GPS Epirb/trackers will work so those that use them will be looking to do it the old fashioned way thus adding to the radio load.





.

[Clare Prop]

You can argue about what should or shouldn't be taught on here, or you can use the MOS as a reference document.
Volume 2 section 3 NAV includes:

2.4 NAV.4 – Navigate aircraft en route

(a) maintain a navigation cycle that ensures accurate tracking, and apply track correctional techniques to re-establish track prior to waypoint or destination;

(b) maintain heading to achieve a nominated track;

(c) maintain and revise ETAs (±2 minutes) for waypoint or destination;

(d) maintain track in accordance with published flight path tolerances in controlled airspace;

(e) navigate using accepted map-reading techniques;

(f) maintain navigation and fuel log to monitor tracking, ETAs and fuel status;

(g) use appropriate techniques to obtain a positive fix at suitable intervals;

(h) maintain awareness of route, en route terrain, en route and destination weather, and react appropriately to changing weather conditions;


NAV 8 – Use instrument navigation systems

(a) initialise navigation system (as applicable);

(b) conduct navigation system validity check (as applicable);

(c) conduct RAIM check if required;

(d) select, load, check and activate the flight plan (as applicable);

(e) navigate on departure, en route and on arrival using GNSS;

(f) operate instrument navigation systems correctly;

(g) use instrument navigation systems to assist with navigation;

(h) confirm waypoints and fixes using instrument navigation systems.


Underpinning knowledge of the following:

(a) basic GNSS principles;

(b) en route GNSS navigation principles;

(c) dead-reckoning navigation;


So the answer is, they must be competent in both.

To the people who say it is a bad thing, do you ever use a GPS in your car?

[kaz3g]

Not anymore...You can use GNSS to provide the positive fix if above 2000AGL. And when using an approved radio-nav system, including GNSS (TSO-C129 or better), it pushes the positive-fix time out to 2 hours! :eek:

It is JUST an Auster, KRv. Seat of the pants stuff: bat and ball, DG, Vario and Alt plus ASI and Tacho.

GNSS? What's that? :p

Kaz

[kaz3g]

That sounds like an invitation for others to come along on the trip? :)

Gerry, the invitation came from RFDS through the Antique Aeroplane Association. They are looking for old aeroplanes to participate so that it is in part a reenactment by the types that serviced remote areas way back when.

The itinerary is for about 8 small hops with a plan drawn up at 70 knots airspeed so it will be a very leisurely jaunt with lots of evenings along the way.

Don't know about any involvement of others but I am looking forward to it.

Kaz

[Captain Nomad]

As has been stated above, you can blast off on a private IFR flight with a single TSO129a GPS, expect to arrive at a destination with only a GNSS approach in IMC with no alternate and be perfectly legal.

Are you sure re the single TSO129a GPS thing? Check CAO 20.18 9D.8 and 9D.11 / AIP GEN 1.5 ss2.1 and ss2.2

[mikewil]

Are you sure re the single TSO129a GPS thing? Check CAO 20.18 9D.8 and 9D.11 / AIP GEN 1.5 ss2.1 and ss2.2

Apologies, I had second thoughts about it and seemed to remember that the TSO146 is what was necessary for sole means of navigation.

I stand corrected: For IFR:
TSO129a - suitable for IFR & Approaches
TSO146a - suitable as above and as sole means of navigation (ie no backup navaid receivers required etc)

[DropYourSocks]

RE TSO129 vs 146 GPS

My understanding is that you absolutely can use a 129 gps for en route and approaches, but for it to be considered as an "aid" for alternate requirements it must be a 146a.

The logic behind that as explained to me was that for something like a standard raim outage, all 129s become useless where as each 146 independently continues to operate. (If you don't understand why go do a refresher course).

As food for thought, I've heard a lot of older B737s in the countey all still have dual 129 gps (and dual all the other aids too).

[Pinky the pilot]

I have only just read this thread and have found it most interesting. Good arguments have been made from both sides.

FWIW, coming from someone who did a CPL before GPS etc was even invented......

I still believe that every Pilot should still be capable of using a map, the old 'prayer wheel' (Kane Mk6 or the Jeppesen CR2) etc:=

Ok, it may never happen, but just say that one day Kim Fat Wun (or some such crazy) gets so out of line that the order is given and in some deep, ferro concrete hardened shelter somewhere in the USA, General G I Brassbottom reaches out to the GPS on/off switch and selects the OFF position!:eek:

Or a minor star in what is known as the 'Milky way' suddenly decides to start having a massive attack of the sunspots!:uhoh: Massive Solar storms, an' all. Doesn't do HF comms a world of good, and I believe some Satellites don't really care for such events either.

Oh, and ShyTorque; Most interesting is your post! I was once shown how to hand start a 260hp Lycoming. I have posted the story elsewhere on this site.

Yes, it happened many years ago. But last I heard, the same old 60(?)year old design engine and systems albeit with slight modifications,were still being used in modern aircraft.

Abovementioned post quoted below;
When I started my first job in PNG with DZ; after doing the endorsement on the BN2 the Chief Pilot raised an interesting scenario.
"You're on a bush strip the other side of the Owen Stanleys and it's near enough to 'beer o clock on a Friday afternoon so all you want to do is get back to Moresby for the Friday night BBQ and have a few drinks and the starter motor on an engine goes u/s.......what do you do?
He then proceeded to demonstrate how to hand start the BN2's 260hp Lycomings. Brakes on, engine primed with both mags on and throttle fully closed. It fired on about the third swing.
Around 18 months later and with another company in PNG one Friday afternoon about 1630hrs local I found myself in precisely that situation!!!! I set everything up as I had been shown and started swinging, much to the amusement of the locals who were lined up along the side of the strip pointing and laughing at the 'long long balus man.' At somewhere around the 16th or 17th swing away it went and about 3 minutes later I was airborne and climbing for 9500' to slip through the gap back to PY leaving behind a strangely silent mob of villagers whom were busy picking their jaws off the ground!

[ShyTorque]

Pinky, I must say it's not quite so easy when you're flying a turbine engined aircraft... ;)

[Pinky the pilot]

ShyTourque; Point taken and conceded, Sir!:O

However, I'm sure that you get my drift; ie not all ops are Turbine.:}

[Duck Pilot]

Pinky,

Didn’t you receive the training on how to hunt down SP or anything stronger when going U/S remotely?

Went U/S at Namanatani (?) once in a Otter early one afternoon, had a FO with me and he said what do we do now? I said I will source a box of SP and accomodation with 20 Kina. An hour later we had accomodation and were on the juice. It still can be done today in PNG!

Back to the topic, how many new pilots know how to do a 1:60 and actually use a wiz wheel in flight these days?

[Pinky the pilot]

Didn’t you receive the training on how to hunt down SP or anything stronger when going U/S remotely?

Negative.:sad: And if I remember correctly, the place where this incident happened was one of the areas which frown upon such things as alcoholic beverages.:ugh: