Infringements
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bookworm,
having used clock-map-ground extensively, very low level in a tactical environment with lots of other distractions and much later than the 70's or 80's I have to disagree with you.
If VFR, proper use of this technique works. GPS is good and cannot be dismissed. However reliance on GPS without proper training in navigational techniques is a folly. We've all read stories of people who have driven into rivers etc because they blindly follow SATNAV - a lot of today's drivers can barely read a map.
People with minimal hours under their belt with a PPL are in danger of going down the same route.
I'm not against GPS and the 1000 hours quote was a bit tongue in cheek - however I'm with DFC in believing that proper nav training should be done, similarly when doing IMC ratings, upon completion reliance on GPS IFR is again, not a sound attitude.
Maintaining the 'basic' skills and using both this and GPS to cross check each other is the only sensible way to navigate, if one insists on having GPS.
And by cross checking I don't mean carry two GPS units!!
having used clock-map-ground extensively, very low level in a tactical environment with lots of other distractions and much later than the 70's or 80's I have to disagree with you.
If VFR, proper use of this technique works. GPS is good and cannot be dismissed. However reliance on GPS without proper training in navigational techniques is a folly. We've all read stories of people who have driven into rivers etc because they blindly follow SATNAV - a lot of today's drivers can barely read a map.
People with minimal hours under their belt with a PPL are in danger of going down the same route.
I'm not against GPS and the 1000 hours quote was a bit tongue in cheek - however I'm with DFC in believing that proper nav training should be done, similarly when doing IMC ratings, upon completion reliance on GPS IFR is again, not a sound attitude.
Maintaining the 'basic' skills and using both this and GPS to cross check each other is the only sensible way to navigate, if one insists on having GPS.
And by cross checking I don't mean carry two GPS units!!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bookworm, DFC, anotherthing
I completlely agree with your comments about better training being required, use of basic nav/map skills is essential, but proper training on how to use GPS's should now be part of PPL training.
Personally I always have my map on my lap and cross check from GPS,s and other nav aids to the map so should they all go phhutt I can put my finger on the map and be sure of my location. One thing my 296 is good for is naming towns and villages that are just a blob on the 1/2 mill map.
For IMC work the use of GPS will be come more important in the future with the demise of ADF's and NATS looking at decommissioning quite a few VOR's.
For me the best way to avoid any agro is talk to the units concerned.
H 365
I completlely agree with your comments about better training being required, use of basic nav/map skills is essential, but proper training on how to use GPS's should now be part of PPL training.
Personally I always have my map on my lap and cross check from GPS,s and other nav aids to the map so should they all go phhutt I can put my finger on the map and be sure of my location. One thing my 296 is good for is naming towns and villages that are just a blob on the 1/2 mill map.
For IMC work the use of GPS will be come more important in the future with the demise of ADF's and NATS looking at decommissioning quite a few VOR's.
For me the best way to avoid any agro is talk to the units concerned.
H 365
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's get one thing straight. GPS has been part of the PPL sylabus for 10 years or more.
However, the one issue common to a large number of lateral infringers is that they did not apply an appropriate margin of error to the technique they use.
How many people plan thei VFR flight at a level that is for example 1000ft above all obstacles within 5nm of track so that they will have suitable clearance above the hills. masts etc that are along the track even if their navigation is not keeping them exactly on track.
These very same pilots plan their track to pass within perhaps 2nm of a control zone and can not understand how they could infringe.
Approved installed GPS units are RNP 5 in the enroute mode and thus are only guaranteed to keep the aircraft within 5nm of where they say it is.
Therefore, unless pilots plan to miss controlled airspace by a minimum of 5nm they have to have something else to use which enables more accurate navigation eg a line feature etc etc especially when visibility is not good.
Far too many PPL's measure a VOR radial from a 1:500,000 chart that misses a control zone by 1 or 2nm and despite the fact that the VOR is some 20, 30 or more miles away make no allowance for either the system errors that can cause them to be in the zone even when the VOR says they are not.
Find me a bit of PPL, CPL, IR, ATPL training provided in the UK that discusses in any depth the various errors in the various navigation techniques and facilities i.e. just how accurate will DR be with a fix every 15 minutes. How much more accurate with a fix every 6 minutes etc - except GPS which of course where the errors are explained frequently the pilots reliant on GPS don't believe that the error can ever me more than a few feet.
Clearly indicates what is a big part of the problem. Find me the bit of the above quote where the expected position on the map is crosschecked with the actual position on the ground!!!
However, the one issue common to a large number of lateral infringers is that they did not apply an appropriate margin of error to the technique they use.
How many people plan thei VFR flight at a level that is for example 1000ft above all obstacles within 5nm of track so that they will have suitable clearance above the hills. masts etc that are along the track even if their navigation is not keeping them exactly on track.
These very same pilots plan their track to pass within perhaps 2nm of a control zone and can not understand how they could infringe.
Approved installed GPS units are RNP 5 in the enroute mode and thus are only guaranteed to keep the aircraft within 5nm of where they say it is.
Therefore, unless pilots plan to miss controlled airspace by a minimum of 5nm they have to have something else to use which enables more accurate navigation eg a line feature etc etc especially when visibility is not good.
Far too many PPL's measure a VOR radial from a 1:500,000 chart that misses a control zone by 1 or 2nm and despite the fact that the VOR is some 20, 30 or more miles away make no allowance for either the system errors that can cause them to be in the zone even when the VOR says they are not.
Find me a bit of PPL, CPL, IR, ATPL training provided in the UK that discusses in any depth the various errors in the various navigation techniques and facilities i.e. just how accurate will DR be with a fix every 15 minutes. How much more accurate with a fix every 6 minutes etc - except GPS which of course where the errors are explained frequently the pilots reliant on GPS don't believe that the error can ever me more than a few feet.
Personally I always have my map on my lap and cross check from GPS,s and other nav aids to the map so should they all go phhutt I can put my finger on the map and be sure of my location. One thing my 296 is good for is naming towns and villages that are just a blob on the 1/2 mill map.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not to detract from the seriousness of this thread, but ... well actually detracting from the seriousness of this thread ... on a lighter note ....
Did anyone see the Top Gear caravan airship infringement of Norwich's airspace on Top Gear last night? ... PMSL
Did anyone see the Top Gear caravan airship infringement of Norwich's airspace on Top Gear last night? ... PMSL
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC
I didn't make myself clear, I always use basic navigation methods when flying VFR and always know my location in relation to the ground, the other aids are for confirmation.
As you say I suspect that a lot of the time people are unaware of the innaccuracies and don't make the necessary allowances to remain outside CAS. If your track passes that close talk to the unit involved and get a service.
H365
I didn't make myself clear, I always use basic navigation methods when flying VFR and always know my location in relation to the ground, the other aids are for confirmation.
As you say I suspect that a lot of the time people are unaware of the innaccuracies and don't make the necessary allowances to remain outside CAS. If your track passes that close talk to the unit involved and get a service.
H365
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Therefore, unless pilots plan to miss controlled airspace by a minimum of 5nm they have to have something else to use which enables more accurate navigation eg a line feature etc etc especially when visibility is not good.
Far too many PPL's measure a VOR radial from a 1:500,000 chart that misses a control zone by 1 or 2nm and despite the fact that the VOR is some 20, 30 or more miles away make no allowance for either the system errors that can cause them to be in the zone even when the VOR says they are not.
Far too many PPL's measure a VOR radial from a 1:500,000 chart that misses a control zone by 1 or 2nm and despite the fact that the VOR is some 20, 30 or more miles away make no allowance for either the system errors that can cause them to be in the zone even when the VOR says they are not.
For those of you talking about GPS training courses, I went to one recently. It was about using the Garmin 430/530.
Given that some of us are using Pilot III or even Garmin 55s without moving maps, I think it would have to be a very generic course as each of us have different problems.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I was constructing the syllabus for a GPS course, any model, I'd allocate 20% of the course time to showing how the model works and the theory behind GPS navigation, and 80% on map reading techniques...
Obviously, that would be for VFR flying not IFR
Just as an aside, does anyone teach about gross error checking in navigation nowadays, or offset mapreading Nav?
Obviously, that would be for VFR flying not IFR
Just as an aside, does anyone teach about gross error checking in navigation nowadays, or offset mapreading Nav?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given that some of the tighter areas of Class G are less than 10nm wide in places, that's a good trick if you can do it.
I frequently ask PPLs and CPLs why they check +/- 5nm from the track for obstacles. Most simply say that it is what they were shown. They were never given a reason of why 5nm was used and not 2nm or 20nm. Worse, they were never shown situations where +/- 5nm would not be enough. There is absolutely no explanation of the link between the size of the corridor and the probability of statying within it using different navigation techniques.
----------
Heading 365,
OK I see what you are talking about.
However,
If your track passes that close talk to the unit involved and get a service.
However, the pilot is still 100% responsible for planning and actioning the plan that will keep the aircraft outside controlled airspace - even if they have a comms failure or the unit is too busy to provide a service other than a basic service.
---------
Anotherthing,
It is surprising just how much all the GPS units have in common. Basic theory, performance, errors, mapping Datums, WGS84, built in database, approvals, direct to, nearest, pilot database, loading and crosschecking of routes are very common from unit to unit even if the exact menu / button pushes are different. Add to things like cross track errors, and the non-angular display of a CDI and most is covered without ever looking at a specific unit.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It does appear that most controllers would prefer to offer a service to all but the constraints of workload preclude this. Is it therefore a case that NATS, in their desire to cut costs, are not adhering to the terms set out when they acquired the CAS? As it is now clear that all controllers must report infringements then surely it is equally right that all refusals to access CAS should also be reported by the controllers and of course by any pilot so affected. We do appear to have a very one sided view at the moment and only clear raw data will enable proper action to be taken. Can any one point to where refusals should be addressed please?
How many controllers still issue the stock phrase of ROCAS on first contact from GA traffic?
How many controllers still issue the stock phrase of ROCAS on first contact from GA traffic?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: UK
Age: 45
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
surely it is equally right that all refusals to access CAS should also be reported by the controllers
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 1,122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have only used ROCAS once,to a non SSR microlight,who was so slow it wasn't showing on primary either.The pilot was so annoyed about not being allowed into CAS to do what he wanted,get in the way and be totally blind to me,that he infringed anyway.
Looks like it worked then.
Looks like it worked then.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Throw a Dyce you certainly made me laugh! I am not unsympathetic to the plight of ATCOs and what they are sometimes expected to endure. Please dont tar all GA pilots with the same brush, we are not all the same but just like evryone else in the world we all occasionally get things wrong especially when in marginal weather, single pilot IMC.
Dear all,
Please do not get me wrong. I am in no way advocating that you do not file, quite the reverse. What I am saying is that the CAA has very little in it's toolkit..take the culprit to court or nothing else. Other tools are required, much as you all probably do on a day to day basis but a phone call from the CAA would worry someone more than one from a unit with just an ATZ. Don't forget that infringements are not always the pilot's fault, sometimes controllers are at fault as well. We must be careful not to stereotype. The UK is a very busy area, with complicated airspace structures, some of which switch on and off. I concur with the issue of better navigation training, particularly if it explains that the nomenclature on a chart means 55000' not 5000'. But once again, lets not stereotype, the vast majority of GA and military out there are extremely competent and very much aware of where they are. Education all around is the key.
Throw a Dyce - check your PMs
Please do not get me wrong. I am in no way advocating that you do not file, quite the reverse. What I am saying is that the CAA has very little in it's toolkit..take the culprit to court or nothing else. Other tools are required, much as you all probably do on a day to day basis but a phone call from the CAA would worry someone more than one from a unit with just an ATZ. Don't forget that infringements are not always the pilot's fault, sometimes controllers are at fault as well. We must be careful not to stereotype. The UK is a very busy area, with complicated airspace structures, some of which switch on and off. I concur with the issue of better navigation training, particularly if it explains that the nomenclature on a chart means 55000' not 5000'. But once again, lets not stereotype, the vast majority of GA and military out there are extremely competent and very much aware of where they are. Education all around is the key.
Throw a Dyce - check your PMs
Last edited by Widger; 1st Dec 2009 at 21:46.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: uk
Age: 70
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuzzy, quote `..slightest hint you are not familiar with navigation..`
Best advice should be stay on the ground until you are familiar, take someone qualified with you or go for retraining.
Do not get airborne expecting ATC to take responsibility for your flight. You are the Captain, YOU are responsible!
If every pilot flying within 15 miles of CAS calls for vectors the system would overload very quickly!
Best advice should be stay on the ground until you are familiar, take someone qualified with you or go for retraining.
Do not get airborne expecting ATC to take responsibility for your flight. You are the Captain, YOU are responsible!
If every pilot flying within 15 miles of CAS calls for vectors the system would overload very quickly!
PPRuNe Bashaholic
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 1997
Location: The Peoples Alcoholic Republic of Jockistan
Posts: 1,442
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Depends what level. Above FL195 the whole of the UK is in Controlled Airspace. Below that, loads of the UK is more than 15 miles from CAS, level dependent of course.
The CAA has published guidance on the use (or not) of GPS in GA aircraft in SafetySense Leaflet no. 25 "Use of GPS".
Probably the biggest risk of infringement, when using GPS, is when flying way-point to way-point using GOTO where the track passes close to CAS and there is no way-point near the CAS. The GPS may show that you are less than 5 degrees off-track - but if the way-point you are navigating towards is 30 miles ahead you may be a couple of miles or more away from where you thought - plus the 2 km GPS error claimed in the leaflet. The solution is to put a control way-point at the nearest point to the CAS that you want to be to ensure that you don't infringe. A few degrees off-track 1 mile from a way-point is negligible, 30 miles or more away is problematical.
Probably the biggest risk of infringement, when using GPS, is when flying way-point to way-point using GOTO where the track passes close to CAS and there is no way-point near the CAS. The GPS may show that you are less than 5 degrees off-track - but if the way-point you are navigating towards is 30 miles ahead you may be a couple of miles or more away from where you thought - plus the 2 km GPS error claimed in the leaflet. The solution is to put a control way-point at the nearest point to the CAS that you want to be to ensure that you don't infringe. A few degrees off-track 1 mile from a way-point is negligible, 30 miles or more away is problematical.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.aaiu.ie/upload/general/4719-0.pdf
Seems that lessons of previous accidents are either forgotten or ignored.
Is one of the several factors that killed the people (including a CAA examiner) in the above accident.
Have a look at the safety recomendations to the CAA and ask how many have been followed through!!!!!
GPS deviation is not angular it is linear.
VOR - 1 dot right = 1 degree off = 1nm at 60 and 0 at the VOR (subject to system errors).
GPS - 1 dot right = (perhaps) 1nm off at 60nm and 1nm off at 0nm and will parallel the track 1nm off provided each dot represents 1nm (again subject to system errors).
That final provision depends on scale selected.
A pilot who uses say 2nm full scale deflection normally can believe that they are within 1nm of track when less than 1/2 scale deflection. However, if in error the scale has been set to 5nm full scale then they will be twice as far off track as they think all the way past the fix.
VFR GPS can not be used as sole source information for navigation.
Approved GPS instalations when in the enroute mode are (for the most part) RNP 5. That means +/-5nm which will keep the flight on the airway but not guarantee that the flight remains outside the zone that the track misses by 2nm. Working to such small tollerances requires PRNAV and to follow a coded PRNAV procedure.
Seems that lessons of previous accidents are either forgotten or ignored.
A few degrees off-track 1 mile from a way-point is negligible, 30 miles or more away is problematical.
Have a look at the safety recomendations to the CAA and ask how many have been followed through!!!!!
GPS deviation is not angular it is linear.
VOR - 1 dot right = 1 degree off = 1nm at 60 and 0 at the VOR (subject to system errors).
GPS - 1 dot right = (perhaps) 1nm off at 60nm and 1nm off at 0nm and will parallel the track 1nm off provided each dot represents 1nm (again subject to system errors).
That final provision depends on scale selected.
A pilot who uses say 2nm full scale deflection normally can believe that they are within 1nm of track when less than 1/2 scale deflection. However, if in error the scale has been set to 5nm full scale then they will be twice as far off track as they think all the way past the fix.
VFR GPS can not be used as sole source information for navigation.
Approved GPS instalations when in the enroute mode are (for the most part) RNP 5. That means +/-5nm which will keep the flight on the airway but not guarantee that the flight remains outside the zone that the track misses by 2nm. Working to such small tollerances requires PRNAV and to follow a coded PRNAV procedure.
