Is 'pen and paper' GA flying actually better and safer than using GPS?

[vfr-uk]

Is the 'traditional' method of 'pen and paper' GA flying actually better and safer than using GPS?

This posting (or rather, "fragmented rant") is inspired by the many articles I've read on this forum and others, where people get trashed for having an opinion about GA flying being hideously outdated. You know - the ones where someone casually mentions GPS or a nice modern feature in an aeroplane - only for their every word to be torn to pieces by pilots and instructors with thousands of hours - it being implied that it's almost a crime for people with so few flying hours to even have an opinion on the subject.

So - I thought rather than all these people get continually picked on, I'd invite a good debate on it here.

I've nearly completed my PPL course, and have followed aviation for two decades, and despite having low flying hours - have many opinions about the subject of flying specific to small GA aircraft. (I'm picking mainly on GPS here as there are so many things I think are madness in general aviation that the list is far too long to discuss in one mail).

The main issue most people have is that somehow it isn't safe or correct to use GPS (and yes - I know the reasons why). It might break or the batteries run out, for example. Er, hello..... the wings could fall off the plane... Why focus on the bad aspects of modern technology all the time. GPS surely must help make flight safer? Anyone?
One person who favoured it on this forum (can't remember the article) said at one of these trashings (partly for comic effect) that his pens smudged in the cockpit so pen and paper can go wrong. Even that got trashed and he was told he was using the wrong type of pen and should have three extra as a backup! Come on now - how safe is it to have a bottle of nail polish remover in the plane to be able to remove lines from your map?

To be blunt: I will fly with a GPS once I get my license, and I will use it safely with a paper map backup for now. However, I will also be dreaming of the day when there is no need to carry a map or to draw lines on it, or even to do all the pre-planning that is necessary to get to that stage. And that time is coming, albeit very, very slowly.

One thing I can say for sure is that (in general) the quickest to jump to tear apart GPS users comments are people with a huge number of flying hours gained using very traditional methods of navigation, and instructors that spend each and every day teaching these methods. In my mind these people are some of the worst placed to comment. What I mean is these people are the one group of pilots that DO have their skills honed perfectly and have a thorough understanding of the theory that backs them up. Most people that have learnt to fly don't have this level of knowledge and many never will. I can only assume that thousands of people fly for fun because it is something they've dreamed of as children, and really just want the easiest and safest approach to it.

What many people seem to miss in this debate is that accidents used to happen long before GPS came along, and I have no doubt that people have lost their lives because they became lost in an aeroplane and had no backup way of knowing where they were, which after a course of events and frustrations and probably panic, ended with their flights in disaster.

Personally I think it's mad that GPS isn't carried by students on solo nav-exercises. Sure you can use the radio if you are unsure where you are (well, if it's working and you can get through on it) but wouldn't it be safer not to have to? Sure you can guestimate using the 1 in 60 rule, but can you really be bothered? I'm sure you could still design an aircraft or a skyscraper using a slide rule and pencil and paper if you had the time and really wanted to - but how many people do? Most have moved with the times and accepted that technology has moved on.

As a newcomer to 'actual' flying, I was amazed at the seemingly stagnant progress in aviation - and part of this is that the majority of people you encounter in aviation seem to have not only accepted it, but almost cherish it and totally defend it. I can remember asking someone during my course 'why have a carb heat at all, but if you have to - why run it from engine heat, as if you lose that you can then never recover and clear carb icing'. 'That's just the way it is' was the answer I seem to remember.

For my sanity, a few recent magazine articles, including one in the latest edition of Flyer in particular, have provided hope that change is finally coming. And we are fortunate that some people have the common sense and inspiration to fight the system and come up with an aircraft such as the Cirrus SR22.

Putting Aviation aside and using general common sense, I can't see how getting into a modern (i.e. an aircraft in the near future) whose computers are linked to absolutely the most up-to-date information on weather, other aircraft traffic, topography of the land below, checklists, emergency procedures to name a few, and relying on these systems will ever be less safe than the alternative. That is of having people draw lines on paper, measure angles and distances, calculate drift, guestimate weather (and all the cumulative errors that come with these processes), try and remember 20 text books on what to do when and why, wait for the latest pages of their flight guides to come through the post and hope they are still up to date by the time you use them.......

In my opinion - looking at technology developments in other areas - it is absolute certainty that the paper map, NOTAMs, 'whiz wheels', flight guides, Forms 214 and 215 etc etc WILL all be replaced in the future by electronic systems (such as GPS, glass cockpits, live situational awareness data being transmitted straight to the cockpit.....). Wouldn't it be great to just tell one single system where you want to go in your plane and get an opinion on whether it was safe or not, without needing to cross reference another ten sources?

I know what kind of companies I'd buy shares in - and Cirrus would be one of them for exactly the reasons I outline here....
The aviation community should try and encourage modern technology, or before they know it, cars will have overtaken aircraft, and young kids will be safely thrashing around the skies in 'super cars' and enjoying it, while pilots will still be messing around in the briefing room trying to find some nail polish remover to erase their last flight plan before the weather turns and the chance of carb icing increases.

So, come on all you aviators poised ready to attack the points in this post - I'm looking for the barrage of comments about how wonderfully effective the carb heat control is and the fact that the paper map WILL survive!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (And perhaps even some interesting debate on the subject)

(after writing this post, I found a very similar one here which I don't want to distract people from...)
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=94303

[AC-DC]

Don’t do it, make sure that you map reading and navigation skills are up to scratch. Yes, GPS is safe, reliable etc. but what will you do the day it is down, or if the MOD has decided to block it (the same day that you forgot to read the NOTAMs) or when the batt. ran out while you are in turbulences and can’t change them? Use it to boost your confidence in your ability by checking your map position against it say every 30min, but leave it on your back seat for the rest of the time, especially as you are a new pilot. I did the same mistake that you want to do, it took me long time to develop the confidence in my ability and my map reading skills. My advice to you is don't repeat my mistake!:ouch:

[mad_jock]

Well until you can garantee that the GPS signal will not be jammed or otherwise fannyed around with the whole of your trip you can't.

The mil will and do jam it with no warning.

And added now there are 2 local tossers in my area with 30 quid GPS jammers.

At least if you have a paper version to show that you have done proper planning if you cock up they only throw half the book at you instead of the whole one.

MJ

[IO540]

sstreet

In my view your comments and concerns are right on the mark.

There is no technical reason why charts could not be electronic. But everybody will hang onto any income stream they can for as long as they can. If you had a monopoly on growing tomatoes then you would hang onto that. If the CAA was giving away their charts (electronic data would get bootlegged by most pilots, like software does) they would make less money. Money has got to be the #1 reason why we have paper charts only, no downloadable form at all. Same in most other countries. Jeppesen hang onto their GPS databases in the same way.

Regarding the pilot publications, yes they are certainly improving of late. But sadly for every "modern" article there are several that are full of c**p. Like the last issue of Pilot, where somebody wrote in that they could not get a handheld GPS working in an airliner in between certain latitudes, so concluding there is a "GPS black spot" there. What utter b******s; it is a near miracle the unit worked at all given the small windows. But the magazine published that letter! More ammunition for the WW1 leather helmet flying brigade.

Practically everyone who flies regularly with a purpose (to get somewhere) uses a GPS nowadays, so don't worry about it. Just buy one, make sure it is a nice moving map unit, internal batteries, suitable for use in the planes which you can get your hands on (which might rule out most Garmins if there is no panel-top or yoke mount option) and use it. Forget the criticism; 95% of the pilots who criticise you will drop out anyway before their first license renewal, and most instructors have no experience of actually going anywhere (no need to, and no money).

Right now the flight training industry, worldwide, has far bigger problems than not teaching GPS. The only scenario where anything significant could change is if most schools went bust, the planes got scrapped and replaced with new ones with the kit already fitted, and the whole business was restarted on a proper financial basis. I am sure that on present trends most schools around today will be bankrupt within 5 years but the rest of the stuff won't happen. Sorry to be pessimistic :)

mad_jock

You may be confusing

a) using a GPS as a primary navigation tool en-route, with the flight planning having been done using the CAA chart, and the chart and the written (or printed-out, if you use e.g. Navbox) plog being carried with you on the flight, and

b) carrying just the GPS

Most smart pilots do a). Only exceedingly stupid people will do b) but for some reason the anti-GPS crowd assumes that everyone who uses a GPS does b).

If GPS coverage disappears, you get a much higher cockpit workload - just what your instructor likes to see :O But not a lot else happens. You just end up with less confidence in your position.

[Justiciar]

In aircraft technology, the reason things stay as they are is that there is insufficient money and profit in GA to justify the substantial investment in new systems. Yes things are starting to change - Cirrus being one, the new Diamond diesel twin being another. New engine management systems are appearing, like FADEC with no carb heat or pitch control. But these things are expensive and some developments filter down from the automobile industry, where of course profits are that much bigger. Thats why your carb heat works the same today as it did 50 years ago - no consumer is willing to pay extra for an aircraft with a redesigned carb heat. Why bother?
If you think single engined aircraft are bad, there has been even less incentive to develop new twins - the market has not been there.
As far a GPS is concerned. Yes it is good and accurate, but it is a piece of equipment whose function in aviation is to help you fly the aircraft accurately and safely. Unless you spend your whole time with your eyes in the cabin staring at it it will not give you awareness of where you are, nor allow you to relate that to the conditions. The good think about pencil and map is that it forces you to think about your route, the hazards likely to be encountered, timing fuel etc before you leave. Whilst on route you have to maintain an awareness of where you are by knowing speed and time on route. To me part of aviation is knowing by your own skill and understanding where you are on route and how long to your destination. Apart from anything else, just following the GPS takes so much of the fun out of it!

[Mike Cross]

CAA give away the information for free. All of the aeronautical information is available on the web in the AIP. The base map is not theirs to give away. Copyright belongs to Ordnance Survey and the CAA have to pay royalties for its use.

Electronic charts ARE available. You can get them here (http://www.memory-map.co.uk/maps_uk_intheair.htm) The price reflects the charges they have to pay Ordnance Survey for the licence.

Mike

PS

Even with the CAA giving away the information for nothing there are plenty of examples of errors in the GPS databases being produced from it!

Mike

[Flying Farmer]

My advice for what it's worth,
Sharpen your pencil, clean your chart, get some permanent markers, a stopwatch and a decent instructor an do it the proper way.
Asked a guy on a flight the other day to take me home, using his new high tec GPS, guess what? off we set 20 degrees off track, don't say it won't happen to you, believe me it will, usually in a high stress situation just when you don't need it.
Even diversions, without the aid of a protractor and ruler, can be made accurately with a little practice and a little training, same again good instructor needed.
Am I an instructor, yes but low hours, have I been lost , no, unsure of position, oh yes, and guess what some half decent training helps an awfull lot.
GPS use it as a back up if you must but please, please learn to do it the "old fashioned way" before you place to much reliance on it.
Just my thoughts on the subject,
Any one with a few thousand hours like to correct me
FF
Fly safe out there, remember you can't stop and ask the way!!!

[vfr-uk]

(just to clarify - I am an extremely careful pilot and will be using DR techiniques to navigate with, and a GPS as a backup. I was looking more for a debate on modern aviation tools, rather than tips on whether I should personally use a GPS or not!!)

[Rattus]

You do have a debate - looks like 5-2 at the moment.
Riveting...

[FWA NATCA]

There is nothing wrong with being tied to a GPS, but as with anything electronic it can fail, or you can put in a fix or coordinates incorrectly.

Granted GPS makes navigation simplier, but one shouldn't neglect or forget the skills of paper (just in case).

Mike

[Wot No Engines]

I know this is just going to fan the flames a bit, but...

It is just as easy to make a mistake with pencil and paper as it is with any electronic nav aid (such as GPS). 2 different forms of navigation to cross check each other will always be better than one only. So this is what I do.

It is common sense to have the skills to manage when all else fails, so being able to use a map, pencil and paper is essential. This is probably the reason that this is generally the ONLY taught method of navigation - if you are only going to learn one then this is the one to learn, but why isn't a second form taught as well - GPS or some other ????

As an analogy, how many parachutists would use their reserve chute first as this is meant to be the most reliable ? Who would walk 50 miles as there is a chance your car may break down ?

In just about all areas of life, you use the easiest technique that works and have a backup that you know how to use.

Arguing that GPS is purely a backup is like the parachutist that uses their reserve chute first, or the person who only ever walks somewhere.

Who has seriously had a GPS failure in the last 3 years that was more than a minute or so providing you had adequate electricity supply - In over 1500 hours useage (both air and water) in the last 3 years, I haven't seen a single system failure and accuracy was better than 100m at all times that mattered (closer to 10m when checked) - no idea on the other times as I wasn't checking, but I doubt that the error was any greater.

The biggest single problem with GPS is antenna positioning - which means you need to install it properly - not just chuck it in the back and run it from internal batteries with the built in antenna when you get lost. This is also not the time to learn how to use it.

[bar shaker]

Sstreet

As computers sometimes fail, you may find that quite a few people will add to your debate by sending you letters, delivered by a man on a bike.

The answer is to use both. I give both equal importance and if one were to let me down, the other would keep me safe. How can a paper map let you down? Well it can't, but it can involve some faffing around. Go for a flight in a flew wing microlight, or a Moth, especially on a turbulent day, for a distance that involves a map fold/flip. If you lost an engine, would you get out the ruler on the way down to calculate your exact long/lat for a PAN/mayday, or would you read the coords off your GPS?

Having recently qualified, I'm also amazed that the technology isn't embraced more (at all?) and the correct use of GPS isn't actually taught to students.

Use GPS as a back up or use it with equal importance, but do use it.

I understand they teach kids to use calculators in school now. Never happened in my day.

:ok:

[Gerund]

I reckon it is important to learn how to use paper and pencil and dead reckoning when training. It helps develop general awareness and trains the mind to correlate visual cues with what is on the chart - eg is that hill twenty miles away, ten, or fifty?! Is that road ten miles to starboard, five, or twenty?

After that? Use a GPS as the primary navigation aid, and have a lot more fun.

I have done a bit of flying in countries where normal visual navigation would be difficult, and radio navigation impossible. The answer: we use a hard wired GPS and, for back up, a hand held GPS! And I promise you, the problems if we got lost there would be one hell of a lot worse than in good old blighty.

sstreet:

I sympathise with your views - I have also been there and got the teashirt for my troubles. I posted a view about not bothering to learn morse code....ouch. And the whizz wheel....ouch. Don't worry about it - the Luddites may have smashed up the Spinnning Jennies, but that didn't stop the Industrial Revolution. You will meet a lot of Luddites in every field of endeavour. I can remember when the introduction of computers into business was blamed for every mistake that happened! 'Computer error' - how many of you are old enough to remember that mantra?

[FloatLikeAButterfly]

I think the point of flying for a lot of people here is the fun. Suppose G.A. avionics were at the stage were you could program them to take-off, fly the route and land hands-off. It may well be that it would be safer than doing it yourself but what would be the point?

For a lot of people, much of the enjoyment of flying comes from manual navigation. Some people like to do just about everything that way, others as little as possible. I doubt whether many deaths have been caused by using GPS; I doubt whether many have been caused by using DR in preference to it.

If I can ever persuade the CAA to give me a license, I think the degree to which I use modern avionics will be based more on the Fun factor that the Safety factor. For me, that will probably mean using both the old and the new. I can happily spend hours either messing around with maps or tinkering with the latest gizmos and gadgets.

I don't think one way is wrong and the other right. At the moment, I think it would be wrong to rely solely on GPS whereas it would not be wrong to rely solely on DR. In a few years time, it probably okay to rely solely on either.

Floaty

[BEagle]

sstreet - You are taking a very sensible and pragmatic view of the correct way to use a VFR-only GPS to assist your navigation.

Personally, I dislike 'moving map' GPS systems as their attractive 'eye candy' seduces pilots into too much 'head-in' flying under VFR. Also, the database needs frequent expensive updating to be of any use.

However, if you draw your route on a normal chart, measure your track and distance and note them down, then if you configure your GPS to display 'DTK' (desired track), GS and ETA you will have a good back-up to your navigation planning. Whether you use a whizz-wheel or mental DR to assess your anticipated HDG and GS is up to you; as you gain experience you will probably find MDR to be sufficient. Set your GPS Course Deviation Indicator to show cross-track error, then fly using the chart and visual fixes as your primary reference with an occasional squint at the GPS CDI as a useful back-up.

Many people make the mistake of setting 'DTK' and 'TRK', thinking that this wil show them that they're on track. Of course it won't, it will only show them that they're paralleling their planned track. If you use 'DTK' and 'TRK', then you must also have 'XTK' displayed to indicate cross-track error if you want to avoid trouble!

GPS is an excellent tool; however, understand its limitations and don't become reliant upon it! Always think to yourself "What would I do if the GPS failed right now"......

[bluskis]

If you want to fly for fun, and use the old fashion ways, what better than a balloon.

For more advanced fun flyers there is always the glider. No new fangled engines to have to learn to manipulate.

For flying in order to go places, nothing like a brand new twin, preferably jet powered, autopilot and coupled GPSs.

I dont see the point of the arguement. Each to his own.

[lighttwin]

sstreet asked which was better and safer, pen and paper or GPS. Clearly the answer will depend upon a combination of the nature of the flight, the equipment of the aircraft, the experience and ability of the pilot and the location of the airspace in which the flight takes place.

A triangular navex with an inexperienced pilot could become quite dangerous if reliance is placed on a GPS.
A 600 mile. international VFR flight carried out solely using dead reckoning could become dangerous because of the fatigue factor, and the unreliability of forecast winds etc for the duration of the flight

For the use of GPS. as a primary navigation aid (from a practical rather than a legal viewpoint) it is essential to have two GPS. units at least one of which is panel mounted with an external aerial. Traditional electronic navigation equipment, ADF, VOR and DME should then be used to confirm the continued functioning of the GPS equipment. Obviously this only works if the pilot has the ability to use the equipment.

sstreet is located in London. Local flying in the London area is constrained by the requirement to remain under the class A. airspace and this very much limits the options for making the flight as safe as possible. One of the risks of VFR flight is midair collision.

Even well away from London the majority of light aviation traffic remains below 3000 ft. and therefore there is a substantial safety advantage in conducting cross-country flight above that height. The problem in the UK is that flying above 3000 ft. will very often involve flying in cloud. Given an IMC rating this presents no problem and again for much of the UK the lower airspace radar service will provide an excellent radar information service giving information on other traffic. Clearly from a safety perspective this is the best place to be in order to avoid the risk of midair collision, but a quick look out of the window will confirm that the pen and paper method of navigation does not work very well in cloud.

To end with a cautionary tale a couple of months ago crossing from Southampton to Cherbourg the handheld Garmin suddenly decided that the MP beacon had moved from Cherbourg to somewhere at the South Coast towards Dover. It was about five minutes before it regained its senses even though it was claiming to see an adequate number of satellites. Fortunately the panel mounted Garmin 100 and the SouthamptonVOR did not share this confusion, and in 25 mi. visibility it was clear that the Isle of Wight had not changed its alignment either. It was however a sobering lesson in the risks which could follow from relying on just one instrument. On the other hand if both satnavs and the DME agree on the range to the next way point, which matches the range set out in the computer-generated plog prepared before the flight that does give a feeling of confidence in the equipment which is hopefully not misplaced. From a safety point of view that clearly gives a greater certainty as to position than dead reckoning

[IO540]

lighttwin

May I ask what Garmin handheld (and how old was it) it was that showed a way-off position without any indication of there being anything amiss? Poor software aside this should not be possible. One occassionally hears tales of this happening but they are always 2nd or 3rd hand, and seem to be limited to very old (>7 years) models.... having said that, for example a Garmin 195 is a 1995-design product although I would have hoped they have updated the firmware since then!!

The nav methods you appear to describe are exactly what I do: use a panel mounted "IFR approved" GPS, with a proper rooftop antenna of course, with a preprogrammed flight plan in it, as the PRIMARY navigation source, and using VOR/DME tracks displayed on a CDI/DME, concurrently. If an autopilot is used, this tracks the GPS track (rather than a VOR) as this avoids losing AP lock when inevitably switching navaids en-route.

This gives a very low workload solution which not only avoids single-device hardware/software failures/bugs but also makes it virtually impossible to fly a gross error, e.g. on a recip track, or a track which is say 180 instead of 80, etc, etc.

The problem with the above is

- Most GPS users use a handheld with an indoor antenna which is barely adequate
- Most handheld GPS users don't program the flight plan into it, and if they do they often end up entering waypoints as lat/long which is very error-prone (handheld databases tend not to contain IFR intersections etc which make very handy waypoints)
- DME isn't in the PPL syllabus (trivial as it is)
- Many/most GA planes don't have a properly working VOR/DME

IF every plane had a properly fitted large-screen GPS with a database less than a year old (there is little need for more frequent updates given that one uses the printed charts for planning anyway), plus a VOR/DME, there would be very little left to argue about. I am not an instructor but if I was teaching someone I value to fly seriously, this would be the baseline for going anywhere. It's pretty damn easy to learn and do, and gives you plenty of time to keep a lookout, do the radio, do the checks, and enjoy the flight.

[englishal]

I'm 100% for GPS, BUT electornic gadgets do fail and will fail so you better have a backup for when they do fail. A laminated paper chart won't fail, or its very unlikely to :D When I fly, I usually use traditional navaids, GPS and chart. If the plane has a panel mounted GPS, I carry a handheld as well. If the plane doesn't have a panel mounted, I carry 2 handhelds.....[cost me nothing, I got them from 'safety points' with work :D]...so I always have a backup.

When the Europeans launch Galileo and you can get a combined GPS Galileo [and the russian system, can't remember the name of] with official maps released by the CAA then I can see GPS taking away from the chart...just like in shipping. All ships carry charts, but most modern ships navigate via GPS and an Ecdis type moving map system...

Cheers
EA

[IO540]

englishal

In my view the American GPS is extremely unlikely to fail. They have multiple satellites and multiple ground stations. The same system is used by their military, and all their latest (and evidently very effective) weapons use it.

If GPS "fails" it is because it has been jammed, or your receiver has packed up. A 2nd GPS (which I carry too, along with a handheld radio) would help with the latter but even when the European system is operational nothing will help with the former since the frequencies are all very similar and, if the jamming is done by the military/govt, you bet all GPS signals will go at the same time, by prior agreement.

There is a detailed and extremely interesting report on the www by the U.S. Volpe Institute which tells you all about this, and more or less how to do it, and how to build jamming-immune receivers too.

So a backup is needed no matter what.

None of this changes the eminent suitability of GPS as a primary navigation device. You just carry a backup, and enjoy the GPS while it works (99.99% of the time).

[lighttwin]

IO540

Yes it was a Garmin 195 - never happened before - but if it happens again it will have to go.We do have ayounger handheld but I like the 195. The panel mount is a very elderly 100 - but works fine. Saving up for a 430 or 530!

[redsnail]

The GPS is a tool and nothing more. It will not replace proper well thought out planning. Do the planning on the charts at home. Work it all out and have a good "PLOG" ready to hand. This will of course give you an idea of the terrain, danger/restricted/CTA areas and you'll get an idea of the fuel required.
Now you blast off and in conjunction with good VFR navigating, using the navaids and the GPS you should have a nice pleasant trip.

Quite often I fly without a GPS. It certainly isn't dangerous. It's good to keep the original IR skills up to speed. The GPS just makes it easier. (Also saves the boss money in fuel)

[englishal]

In my view the American GPS is extremely unlikely to fail.
Ah, what I meant was the GPS unit might fail. I've used GPS for the past 8 years for my job [offshore surveying] and have never seen the GPS signal itself 'fail' for more than a few seconds, even 300nm from Baghdad during GW 2. However I have seen GPS units fail, my last hand held developed a fault where it would just switch off for no apprent reason.....while I was flying, which was a bit irritating.

On the subject of CAS dB's, I use Memory Map charts on a Casio Cassiopeia, and as the charts are electronic representations [scans] of the official CAA charts, the CAS boundaries are accurate and in my view are accurate enough to navigate CAS by. I've been wary of doing this but in all the 'tests' I've carried out they seem to be 100% accurate. I wouldn't trust a stand alone MM [moving map] GPS to keep me clear in the UK, though in the US where most of these dB's are compiled I wouldn't be so sceptical. I bought Jeppesen Flightstar VFR a few years ago, and the number of errors in the Nav data compared to the paper chart was frightening. Its ok as a rough planning app, to plan the route, but if you didn't cross check with the 'official' chart you'd find yourself in trouble. CAS was wrongly labeled [C instead of D for example, B for A etc], almost as if the designers had tried to convert the UK CAS system into the American system. Flightstar in the US is accurate though. Maybe the UK version has improved now, I haven't used it for a while, but this problem seems to be the same one as is often seen on MM GPS dB's, US CAS is accurate, UK CAS is innacurate some of the time.

Cheers
EA:D

[slim_slag]

redsnail,

The GPS is a tool and nothing more. It will not replace proper well thought out planning. Do the planning on the charts at home.

Charts are also just a tool and nothing more. Plenty of people don't look at the chart until they get into the plane. Plenty of people don't even bother doing that. Are they safe? They can be, but not as often when a student pilot.

Quite often I fly without a GPS. It certainly isn't dangerous. It's good to keep the original IR skills up to speed. The GPS just makes it easier. (Also saves the boss money in fuel)

I'm not sure IR navigation skills are all that relevant to VFR pilots, VFR pilots are encouraged to keep their eyes outside the cockpit. It's also a lot easier planning and flying a x-country when under IFR. IMO.

[VORTIME]

Let's simplify it: GPS is excellent. Use it by all means once you're able to navigate by DR. When you can do this, the GPS will help you get from point A to point B on the map - and if you throw in VORs/DMEs/ADFs/DR you're very unlikely to get lost!

[redsnail]

VORTIME,
couldn't agree with you more. It is excellent.
Slim slag,
If VFR pilots are encouraged to look out the window, then why have a GPS? Oh... yeah, they also look inside too.
I think you missed my point. The GPS is fantastic however, I don't want my basic IR or even VFR skills to deteriorate because I use a GPS.

If people aren't looking at a chart untill they get into the aircraft, why? What's wrong with their airmanship? We are taught to plan a flight. Why do some folk forget that after their licence and rely solely on an electronic box that will take you directly to where you told it to go. (Whether it's right or wrong)
Has the incidence of inadvertant CTA penetrations increased? If so, is it the over reliance on the "GO TO" button?

Don't get me wrong, I much prefer the accuracy and ease of the GPS. However, it's use shouldn't be instead of planning.

[englishal]

I don't want my basic IR or even VFR skills to deteriorate because I use a GPS.
What about your future IR skills then? It'll come in Europe soon, the sooner the better [in my opinion]. I fly IFR in the states, using IFR approved GPS, and its great. Your flight plan can be simplified to XYZ dct...and thats it :D

Cheers
EA

[rustle]

It'll come in Europe soon...

It is already here. Your flight plan can be simplified to XYZ dct...and thats it :D

Of course if you're using airways it can still be, say, EGLK DCT CPT/G1/BCN DCT EGFF - how you find CPT/G1/BCN is up to you because ATC and Eurocontrol don't care if you're using VORs or GPS to find the beacons...

[redsnail]

EA,
I've actually done it already. I used to use a GPS approved for sole navigation in Australia (special conditions and approvals) as well as a GPS as primary navigational aid too. Even done GPS NPA approaches in Australia.

Any way, we are getting away from the original topic. GPS is great, but it can't replace good planning.

[slim_slag]

redsnail,

I'm not saying you should not plan your flight, that would be incredibly foolish and probably illegal. What I am saying is that in some circumstances there is no need to plan it on a chart at home.

I think GPS can make your planning even better! It's a tool, use it when it makes sense and when it helps.

I think I did miss your IR point. I agree, reliance on a hand held GPS is bad, I've noticed my skills deteriorate, so I reviewed my use of the tool. Sometimes it is definitely the best way to navigate when VFR, for instance when flying the narrow corridors over the Grand Canyon. Use the tools which make sense when they make sense and you have a better chance of staying alive.

[pontius's pa]

It depends how old you are.

[AC-DC]

What I am saying is that in some circumstances there is no need to plan it on a chart at home.

Have you forgotten the AIS story?
Before you walk you need to crawl and before you run you need to walk. Sometime short cuts are not useful and should not be welcomed. See my first reply at the beginning of the thread.

[slim_slag]

AC-DC,

I couldn't agree with you more, but if you look at my first reply you'll see I don't think shortcuts apply to student pilots. Actually I don't think shortcuts apply to more experienced pilots either, but then it all depends on what you call a shortcut.

[david viewing]

The reason that a hand held GPS "just switches off" is likely to be tarnishing of the battery contacts. This results in momentary disconnection even when the contacts are tightly pressed to the battery cells. Strangely, GPS software does not seem to be designed to withstand this highly predictable event.

This contamination is usually the result of leakage of vapour or even liquid from defective batteries and is an argument in favour of buying premium brands, which even so can still leak. (Rechargeable batteries are a false economy because they have vents to relieve pressure).

The only real fix is contact replacement, but a short term substitute is a fibre glass pencil available from hobby shops and electronics suppliers used to burnish the metal (and the batteries).

In flight, removing the batteries and burnishing them against some suitable cloth like your trousers is likely to help.

If you get this problem once, you will get it again, possibly at a really inconvenient moment!

[englishal]

Thanks for that David, I just cleaned up the battery contacts and replaced the batteries and it seems fine again. This happened ages ago to my GPS II+, and I couldn't get it to work at all so I gave up. I was having a clear up and was about to bin it when I did what you suggested and low and behold it works fine now!.....I thought it was ******ed, now I have 2 backup GPS's :D

EA

[IO540]

Battery contacts do fatigue and may need to be bent back up after a while to make a good contact.
Rechargeable batteries are best avoided in any "backup" product because they usually self-discharge after 1-2 months, so they are likely to be flat right when you need them.

Regarding software design, I am afraid that a lot of avionics is still in the 1970s. Garmin handhelds for example don't contain a hardware watchdog timer (cost: 50p) and some are known to crash and freeze up occassionally... I once discussed this with a Garmin engineer and he gave me some reasons for them not using a watchdog (e.g. the time to re-acquire a fix after a watchdog reset) but all of them were easy to solve and have been solved elsewhere.