The way I Navigate - better or worse?

[VORTIME]

Gooday & Seasons greetings to all,

This is somewhat of a touchy subject, something which I haven't spoken too openly about, albeit with my instructor in the states. I learned to fly to solo nav stage from the "old school" of thought. That is that you do draw lines, then starting calculating correction/make good angles etc enroute.

I really wasn't enjoying it, not because of a mental inability to perform simple maths but rather a dislike for "preventive" teaching methods. Since I got my PPL and for much of my nav in the US, I've flown using VORs, DMEs, ADFs, GPS etc.

As Richard Collins once said, "heck, use GPS at your primary means of navigation!!", further countering concerns over the "batteries running out" by asking what if the map fell out the Cub window?!?

I feel my method of navigation is extremely safe. I file direct to my destination if terrain and airspace allows and have a good knowledge of my handheld GPS and navigation instruments. I also maintain a VFR nav log and record position every 15 minutes or so as I pass my waypoints - but I get there using radio waves.

If my GPS fails and bob's your uncle, the electrics fail, oh the VOR on my transceiver fails - well I'm confident I'd still have no problem getting home safely.

Is my non-use of DR/pilotage a safety hazard or do some people just resent this for no good reason?

Regards
VT

[JetAgeHobo]

I've done several dual VFR cross-country flights without vacuum instruments--it's not my usual preferred way to go, but it's darn useful to keep in practice and keeps one's piloting skills sharp.

Flying the radio waves isn't dangerous, do it all the time. But I beliece it's also a good idea to keep in practice with the back of the E6B and do the DR/pilotage route once in a while, because it's a great challenge, approached with the right frame of mind can be fun, and also keeps one more set of skills in the back pocket.

[distaff_beancounter]

I am with JetAgeHobo on this one. I particularly like his:-and also keeps one more set of skills in the back pocketI original learnt DR navigation in the "old school" method. Once I had got a PPL, closely followed by an IMC rating, I always tried to hire aircraft, with a full "airways" IFR set of navaids. When GPS became readily available, I some took to that as well.
So, when in a suitably equiped aircraft, I use all the navaids available.

BUT, I have been in situations where various instruments have stoped working, due to vacuum and/or electrical failure.

Also, some 6 years ago, I did a tail-dragger course in an aged Citabria. The instructor, of "the old school" then sent me off on solo cross-country trips. The Citabria only had a very basic instrument panel. No navaids, no transponder, not even a DI!. Only a wet compass. The only electric thing was just one radio. And this was in pre GPS days. The DR navigation required, did come as a bit of a culture shock, but once I had remembered what I had originally learnt, it was very satisfying to realise that I could manage perfectly well without ANY navaids.

So, that skill is still in my back pocket. :)

[Flyin'Dutch']

Dear oh dear VORTIME,

You are brave by posting this on this forum, no doubt shortly someone from the old school will post and berate you for flying on the radiowaves and tell you that this is not real flying.

Did you not know that the radiowaves dont keep the aeroplanes in the air!

I always thought it was good old Bernouille but apparently it is DR.

I take it these people live in houses without electric and gas and never watch television (certainly not a colour set) and dont take penicillin when having an infection as they are not sure about the good they all do!

:D

My cross country flying started off with gliding so no DR there and so far never got lost.

When the first GPS sets came along I bought one and found it great and was brave enough to admitting using it. Even the most avid opponent was hooked as soon as they had a flight with it. Quite funny!

I still draw lines on maps and work out a log. I will admit to not using the stopwatch but fly the headings that give me the direct track I want to make as witnessed by GPS and VOR/NDB. If the weather is fine I will just look out the window and on the map as required.

So far never had problems, and some of the airspace around here is pretty tricky.

When GPS and VORs get decommissioned I will have to brush up those DR skills.

Do what suits you best as long as you enjoy yourself and as long as you are safe, who cares.

FD

[Whirlybird]

Most of the time I fly an R22 with no DI and no navaids. It does have a GPS, and I've been known to take a glance at it - because it's there. However, I'm enough in practice with visual nav skills to rarely bother. If I fly an aircraft with radio navaids, I twiddle the appropriate knobs, and use them too. If the weather closes in, then navaids and GPS are a great help.

What I'm saying is, isn't it about time this became a non-subject? You need to know where you are, and you need to be able to cope if your instruments fail, so using more than one system is a good idea. Other than that, does it really matter what you use?

[iainpoll]

Never used a GPS, cant afford one!

However, if I did procure one I would certainly use it -

Use anything that helps - rely on nothing.

If you put allyour eggs in one basket, you are gonna get bitten some day.

Iain

[BEagle]

Personally I draw the track on a chart in chinagraph, measure the track and distance, then work out heading and time using Mental Dead Reckoning. I put the waypoints for the turning points into the GPS and fly with 'dtk', 'gs', 'eta' and the CDI scale in view to confirm that my estimates are more or less correct. Then it's LOOK OUT OF THE WINDOW plus the odd peek at the map and CDI scale. Above 8/8 I use VOR/DME as an area navaid. If I have to navigate in IMC, then I'll use a combination of VOR/DME fixes plus GPS as a back up.

Use whatever is the most appropriate technique for the environment, but don't rely on GPS alone - unless you have a fully IFR approved system.

[sharpshot]

And I thought R22 pilots read the road signs:D

[FlyingForFun]

The great thing about DR is that it will always work (unless you screw it up!) Doesn't matter whether you're over the desert or the sea, or in IMC - if you fly the correct heading for the correct amount of time you'll end up in roughly the right place. And of course you can then look out of the window and compare to the chart (in VMC), or use nav-aids, to correct for minor errors. The only tools you need to fly at DR track are a compass and a clock - which is why a compass and a clock are required equipment in an aircraft. (I've flown a 500nm round trip using DR in an aircraft with a dodgy DI, so a vacuum system is definitely not a requirement!)

The reason I prefer to use this as my primary method of navigation is precisely because it can be a little more difficult, and requires a bit of work. I don't feel that I need to stay current at looking at a GPS screen to work out wherer I am - if I need the GPS, it's there, and I'm confident I'll be able to use it. The same goes for VORs - they're not quite as intuitive as a moving-map GPS, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to be able to use them if necessary. On the other hand, DR skills can go rusty - and if you haven't planned your DR headings beforehand and then you have an electrical failure, especially if you haven't practiced your DR skills for a while, you may find you have problems.

The most important thing, I think, is to have as many options available to you as you want. If you want to use VORs as your primary means of navigation, that's fine. But practice other methods as well, including DR.

I hope this post doesn't make me one of the old-timers who's berating you for not doing "real flying" :D I'm not old enough be an old-timer yet! ;)

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

[Whirlybird]

sharpshot,

The smilie is unnecessary; a lot of R22 pilots DO read the roadsigns. :eek: You're so much more overloaded in an R22 than in f/w aircraft - you don't really have any free hands; you can't trim the aircraft; you can't refold your map. I remember asking other helicopter pilots how they managed, and several said fly low and read the roadsigns.

But like with everything else in aviation, it gets easier with practice. For my CPL nav I was juggling a chart and two OS maps, simulating looking for someone's house where I was going to land - and you can't use navaids and GPS for that anyway. And after a while VFR nav becomes fun; it has you looking outside most of the time, and you start to realise that the charts have a huge amount of detail you never noticed before - odd shaped bits of woodland, every bend in the river, every sticky out bit of every town. So I do it that way because I actually enjoy it!

And like everyone else, occasionally I get lost, and then it's nice to have GPS or navaids as a backup - saves me flying low and reading the roadsigns. ;)

[drauk]

Anybody who says that looking out of the window is the only way to fly has never flown in IMC. Those that have know how to use VOR and NDB to navigate. So it can be done, with some restrictions, if you learn how to do it.

Dead reckoning can go wrong - what if your clock breaks? The obvious answer is that you've got another one hopefully. Which is exactly the same answer as for what happens when your panel mount GPS fails (use your handheld one, use a VOR, use DR, etc.).

Pilotage, a skill which I've not come across in the UK, is interesting - in the US I've been on mountain flying courses where we took off with no PLOG at all and just used what we could see and the contours on the map to navigate. Then you really don't need a clock.

It is not often I disagree with something I see FFF having written, but I don't agree that DR works anywhere. What if the wind isn't doing exactly what the forecast said it would and you're flying over water? Or over anything else with few landmarks - like countryside at night?

I also don't believe that DR skills go rusty very quickly. Even in flight, calculating a wind-adjusted bearing and ETA for a diversion is dead easy (within the constraints of the wind forecast) using a wind protractor.

I'd agree with the many others that have said that it is always good to be able to use a variety of techniques and that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with navigation by VOR/NDB. If there was we wouldn't be flying in IMC.

[FlyingForFun]

Pilotage, a skill which I've not come across in the UK.....Really? I use pilotage every time I "just fly to the local area to mess around for a bit"! Ok, so I don't have a definite destination like the kind of flying you're talking about (which I have done, both using mountains in Arizona and using whatever I could find in the UK, and it's much easier with mountains!) - but it's still pilotage!

As for ded (not dead) reckoning not working... I've only, so far, found the wind to be significantly different from forecast once - and that was my fault because I was flying a few thousand feet above my planned altitude. But even so, after flying over a very green area with not many external features to navigate by, and without using any navaids, I was still close enough to my planned track that once I got close to some features I could easilly correct for the error. Part of the ded reckoning technique involves correcting for wind which isn't quite as forecast, so I'm not sure you can claim that it's not working if the wind isn't quite as forecast! But it's a good point anyway, despite my being pedantic about it!

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

[sharpshot]

Whirly - You bit!! ;)

I only know what you do because a colleague of my father's who held two world altitude records also flew rotarycraft and I recall him commenting on the differences!

You just confirmed it.

[drauk]

FFF, I guess the question of pilotage depends on what definition you attach to it. Strictly as "navigation by identifying landmarks", of course it is used in the UK - local trips where you're familiar with the area, or even circuits come to that. But as a means of cross-country navigation without the use of a projected track adjusted for wind, it is not examined as part of a PPL in the UK - my examiner even complained that I'd spent too much time identifying things on the ground and that once I was happy that my course was correct for the given wind I should just fly it. And all through my PPL I never heard the term mentioned. My first experience of it was in the mountains near Arizona too.

I am aware that deduced reckoning requires taking account of the differences in forecast and actual winds. But how can you calculate that difference having flown over a considerable featureless distance? And as you point out, sometimes you don't fly at the altitide you planned for. My point really was that DR (dead reckoning is in the dictionary, by the way) only works if you can identify landmarks, hence the comment about featurless terrain/ocean. Like you say, it would be a rare case in the UK where you couldn't subsequently pick up your course when features do appear.

[englishal]

I vote for the airwaves I'm afraid. I used to use DR a lot in sailing, and even did my Yachtmasters a few years ago. However in reality, even though all the exams were using DR, now we just plug our route into the GPS, or rather set a heading and let the GPS tell us where we are and mark it off on a chart. I also work on survey ships, and we rely totally on GPS to enable us to position stuff on the seabed with incredible accuracy. Most ships use GPS as primary (only) nav nowadays, even though they have a sextant shoved in a cupboard somewhere [dunno if anyone knows how to use it though :)]

When I fly from A to B, I like to travel IFR. I use GPS all the time as a backup, and may even use it for primary Nav if its more convienient (in the US of course). I also like to slave these gadgets to the Autopilot, let the plane take me from A to B and then fly the approach, leaving me free to monitor the dials.......... but I'm sure some people would scoff at this ;)

Know how to use your gadgets safely, and also know their limitations and have a backup in case of problems. Then there is no harm flying the radio waves.

Cheers
EA

[rustle]

englishal

Most ships use GPS as primary (only) nav nowadays...

Surely you're not using the above as an endorsement for GPS? Or have you missed the recent news about the channel "incidents" :rolleyes:

Maybe they should look out the window occasionally too ;)

[englishal]

have you missed the recent news about the channel "incidents"

Hmm...good point !:D

[VORTIME]

With GPS the autopilot could have been programmed to circumnavigate such obstacles - increase safety.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

My, My, My Children:

Some of the statements here in the private pilot thread are down right frightening.

We are living in the year 2003 just in case no one has noticed.

Modern nav aids are only getting better as time goes by, GPS being the latest and most accurate and reliable.

Dead reckoning nav can eventually do exactly that, leave you dead due to fuel starvation and crashing in an unhospitable place.

I know this is mostly a group from the British Ilses who post here, but it is foolish to listen to those who are frozen in a time warp and are so out of touch with the rest of the world that they can only think in the past.

I can guarantee everyone here that DR nav does not work worth a sh.. in a very large area of this planet. How in hell can you bet your life on DR when you do not have accurate and dependable wind forcasts avaliable?

Why why would any sane pilot even argue about using "ALL" the nav aids to better ensure situiational awareness ??

And please, please don't give me any of that crap about how it used to be, I have been there.

Cat Driver:

:D The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.:D

[drauk]

Chuck, have you actually read this thread? Which post said that GPS was bad? Or that using instruments was bad? Apart from FFF saying that he likes using DR and some jokes about the ships in the channel every poster has endorsed the use of GPS. And even these two exceptions didn't condemn its use. Weird.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Drauk:

I was refeering to those who post on Pprune slagging the use of GPS, and extolling the use of DR, not to the discussion going on here. :D :D

I should have explianed it better.

You don't really think I am weird do you? :D

Cat Driver:

[Whirlybird]

Yeah Chuck, but it's not happening any more. Not on this thread anyway. Times have changed, even on Private Flying. Er...who's living in the past? :D

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Oh God it must be.............Me. :D :D

I have made other mistakes too like getting married several times... :D

Cat Driver:

[ETOPS773]

Yep,we do live in 2003. We do have a reliable GPS system..use it!!

So I agree with Chuck 110%,use it if you have the opportunity.

VFR / DR flying is all great taking family and friends up around the block..and on a little cross country here and there.

But 2-3 hour cross country flights are challenging at best,and sometimes have a high workload that can be reduced by using GPS.
DR just gives you a headache after a couple of hours and squeezing between our cluttered airspace,picking out little towns and motorways.DR..yeah its a good idea and all,make sure you can do it..but its inefficient and only makes long trips longer.

During the summer I did a trip from Lydd-Nottingham to stay with a friend for the weekend,and did not have my GPS back then.Since then got my copy of MSFS2002 and my VOR/instrument flying is hot,so I could do it that way these days..which I do quite often.
Anyhow..If I had used my GPS I could have shaved 15-20 minutes off the outbound and inbound trip,and thats worth doing..saving money on the aircraft rental of £60ish for the weekend (return trip).

Also..PPL holders..how goods your dead reckoning 30 minutes before sunrise and 29 minutes after sunset?? Using the GPS you can depart earlier and arrive sooner ;)

[Whirlybird]

ETOPS,

I don't get that. If you draw a line on a map and follow it, why should it take you longer?

I've flown three Dawn to Dusk entries (minimum of 8 hours flying) using only visual nav. Admittedly there were two of us, but if you're used to it, then it's not tiring, so long as the vis is reasonable, and of course you're in a country like the UK with lots of ground features (OK Chuck? ;) )

I think what people have been saying in the past, or what they SHOULD have been saying, is that GPS etc is fine and dandy and a wonderful thing, but MAKE SURE YOU CAN DO IT THE OLD WAY TOO. I find it slightly worrying when people say that VFR nav is difficult and they don't like it so they won't use it. This means nav skills which have never really been acquired get worse, and very soon disappear altogether. I think this could be dangerous. Even if you're using radio aids or GPS, you need some sort of situational awareness, a rough idea of where you are on the ground, something of an ability to look at a map and visualise what the area under you should look like and vice versa. And, of course, GPS can fail etc...this has all been said.

This is part of a larger issue, which has been discussed several times on Rotorheads recently. The main issue there is should you learn on a helicopter with a governor, which controls your rotor RPM and thereby reduces workload and increases safety, but means the newer generation of helo pilots don't have as much feel for rotor RPM. I've heard the same kind of thing discussed in relation to carb heat; somewhere on some aircraft the carb heat was wired open; the result was that pilots became unaware of the carb icing issue. This is the same sort of problem.

So the question really is: Should we learn everything on as basic an aircraft as possible with no modern aids until we can do it well, THEN use modern aids? Or should we accept that we live in the 21st century, and that maybe some of these things (including visual nav?) are becoming outdated? Or a combination of the two?

Hmmm...anyone want to start another thread?

[FlyingForFun]

No, let's not start another thread - if we did that, people would know what they were reading about before they opened the thread!

I'm not sure that you can relate ded-reckoning with a governor on a helicoptor, although I do know where you're coming from. The governor (correct me if I'm wrong - I know very little about these whirly things!) is a technical advancement which means that old techniques are no longer applicable on modern equipment. A bit like double-declutching in your car. Or landing a tail-dragger. Before the days of synchro-mesh, every driver knew how to double-declutch, but that doesn't mean those of us who drive post-war cars are worse drivers. Likewise, the fact that many of us can't land a tail-dragger doesn't make us worse pilots, because those techniques aren't necessary now that nearly all modern aircraft have tricycle undercarriages.

Of course, it's still good fun to learn to fly tail-draggers, and it will probably improve your flying generally. And, although I've never done it, I'd imagine that driving a car without synchro-mesh is good fun and will improve your general driving skills. Likewise, I'd guess that flying a helicoptor without a governor would improve your helicoptor flying skills.

But here's the difference... when I get back into a PA28, I don't do 3-point landings (at least, I try not to! :)). When an owner of a classic pre-war car gets back from the car show and hops into his Mondeo, he doesn't double-declutch. And once you get back into your helicoptor with a governor, you let the governor take care of the rotor RPM. Although all these things will help your general skills, you don't use them, directly, when you're operating modern equipment.

On the other hand, you can (and arguably should) make use of DR skills, regardless of what modern equipment you've got. You could hop into an airways-equipped aircraft, with a couple of IFR-approved moving-map GPSs, and still draw a line on a map and follow it - and many people do. Even if you don't draw a line on the map, you still look at the map for a quick sanity check (hmm, DI says 085 but I should be going north-west, something's wrong), or for a rough idea of time (looks about 200nm, I do about 100kts, should take about 2 hours - the 4 hours' fuel I've got in my tanks will be enough). Technology will mean we have to rely less and less on DR - but it won't ever completely remove the skill from flying the way a governor has removed the need to control rotor RPM manually, or the way synchro-mesh has removed the need for double-declutching.

Now, I wonder how much more off-topic this thread can get? :D

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

Due to the heavy use of these forums we would prefer it if you are going to post something then please make sure it is worthwhile and at least 20 characters long. One liner replies such as 'Yes', 'No' or 'I agree' for example, are not necessary and only use up valuable bandwidth. Please use your back button to change your reply or use the link below to go to the forums.
;) :p P.E.

[distaff_beancounter]

FFF rightly points out that a knowledge of basics does help you to spot the gross errors, that can arise when something, such as a navaid fails.

I have had a HSI fail (faulty flux detector, whatever that may be :( ). I had, as usual, drawn a line on the chart, so I knew that I should be heading about 190, but the HSI was indicating 040. So it did prompt me to look at the dear old fashioned wet compass, which I then used to get home.

And yes, FFF , I can get even further off topic :D

As part of the day job, I train student accountants. I can soon spot the younsters who were weaned onto calculators at age 5. They are the ones who insist that 9x5=5683, 'cos their calculator says so. They cannot imagine that some of us older ones, can do such a calculation in our heads, & that we learnt old fashioned things like tables & mental arithmetic, when we were at school. :)

[VORTIME]

Hello -

Thank you all for your respective replies!

If I may for a moment re-align the topic: having a handheld GPS, a VOR, ADF, DME etc - is this a safe way to fly as opposed to DR or Pilotage?

Rgrds
VT

[FlyingForFun]

VT,

Opinions will differ, as you've discovered. My opinion is Yes. You have redundancy - if you have a complete electrical failure you've still got your handheld, although you need to be aware of the limitations of a handheld GPS, what you can legally use it for, and where you place the aerial.

But it's not as safe as using a handheld GPS, a VOR, ADF, DME and a DR plog.

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

[Whirlybird]

FFF,

The governor on a helicopter is not an exact analogy, but closer than you might think. Despite having a governor, a helicopter pilot should ALWAYS be aware of rotor RPM - is it too high or too low, is it fluctuating for some reason, has the governor failed? People who learn to fly helos without governors - and there still are some around - do this naturally. The rest of us know we should, but often don't. Much the same as the newish pilot with a GPS, who knows he should be using his nav skills as a backup, but doesn't. Until his GPS fails, or he discovers he's heading in completely the wrong direction, or whatever. And when something goes wrong, you discover you don't have those skills which should be basic and instinctive, but now aren't.

But OK, I'll leave you to stick to the point, and start another thread if I feel it's worth it.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Further reading of this thread leads me to beleive my understanding of this discussion is cultural.

Not being a Brit I just may not understand the topic.

To me DR navagation is using desired tracks and forcast winds to calculate headings to be flown and the time it will take.

VFR flying using ADF, VOR, GNS, RNAV, INS, LORAN, GPS, smoke signals or what ever.... SHOULD ALWAYS BE BACKED UP BY MAP READING.

VFR and map reading are one and the same.

DR to me is an altogether different subject.

DR in the year 2003 is an inexact science due to the fact that forecast winds are never a guarantee of what you will get.

PS.

Whirley: Park your helicopter and get a gyroplane and you can forget RRPM. :D

Cat Driver:

[FlyingForFun]

Chuck, I'm not sure what you mean about the cultural thing. As far as I'm aware, the only cultural difference between the US and the UK is that US private pilots tend to rely on nav-aids a little more than UK private pilots - I put this down to the fact that there are many more large featureless areas in the States than there are in the UK.

You said:
VFR flying using ADF, VOR, GNS, RNAV, INS, LORAN, GPS, smoke signals or what ever.... SHOULD ALWAYS BE BACKED UP BY MAP READINGI agree. I'd also like to add that flying using DR should always be backed up using another method, due to the inherent inaccuracies of the method. If you're VFR, then you should back it up with, at the very least, map reading (pilotage), and optionally use other navaids.

Can't see any differences in our thinking, except maybe a little personal preference - cultural or otherwise.

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

PS - was thinking about apologising to BRL for wasting valuable bandwidth with my earlier post, but decided not to waste valuable bandwith with an apology!

[Tinstaafl]

Use everything that's available.

Don't rely on only a single thing ie confirm it using alternative methods.

Often one method will be more appropriate than another as your primary method, depending on the task.

[VORTIME]

Saying it is danergous to rely on your electrical system (ingore handheld GPS for now) - does that mean that IFR in all SEL without dual electrical systems is not safe.

If that's the case, the ones who preach most about "old school" flying (instructors) are contradiciting themselves flying in IMC?

VT

[Timothy]

I wonder if people are aware that panel mount GPS often (always? I don't know) have battery backup, so they will continue to work for a period after a power failure.

[LowNSlow]

How many VFR pilots actually recalculate their track made good etc? I just eyeball it and correct accordingly, I don't write it down just adjust the compass (my coffe grinder DI is purely decorative).

I always draw a line on the chart if I'm going out of the local area, I would find not doing it silly when it is a good method of checking the NavPro / GPS generated plog for accuracy. I usually note the time of passing significant landmarks to give me a datum to work from if I become "temporarily unsure of my position". Doing the full blown DR bit however is a timewasting exercise IMHO as it is too inaccurate for todays' crowded and restricted airspace.

I know the WW2 navigators used DR as it was all that was available early in the war. At night it was the best method for locating the wrong town to attack due to the inherent assumptions required. Accurate night bombing wasn't generally possible until the first generation of radio aids was invented. These in turn spawned the ADF, VOR transponders etc which make our life much easier.

So to conclude, I think a pilot should be familiar with basic map reading skills, look out of the windows and also use every method at their disposal to maintain accurate navigation.

[Windy Militant]

Any method you use is fine if used properly! At a CAA safety talk a while back the nice man said that the main problem with GPS is people don't bother drawing lines on the map and end up infringing controlled airspace. As with any tool it's not what you've got it's how you use it. ;)