JAA PPL - RADIO NAV BITS
Guest
Posts: n/a
JAA PPL - RADIO NAV BITS
Anyone have a clue what knowledge we are supposed to be imparting for the radio nav instruction exercise in the JAA PPL syllabus? There seems to be some confusion as to what the examiners will be testing for. They want to see candidates tuning and identing beacons...(hands up who knew morse prior to their CPL/ATPL nav).....and there it becomes a bit blurry. Do they want to see the candidate obtain a fix or track towards the beacon? Or maybe both. And if tracking is the order of the day, are we looking at tracking specific radials or QDMS?
------------------
Get there eventually
------------------
Get there eventually
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well, as I understand it, at the end of the nav. bit of the Skill Test, the candidate is to do a radio position fix (could even use VDF but not radar). Once this is done they have to beacon track for a few minutes. I like to give my students the knowledge to intercept and track a different QDM/QDR than the one that they find themselves on at the position fix.
Guest
Posts: n/a
OK. So do you get your student to learn morse? Also just how far and to what standard of accuracy are they required to track having obtained their fixes? I'd be interested get the views of some examiners as the few I've spoken to seem to be using their own interpretation of a loosely defined requirement.
CLAD
------------------
Get there eventually
CLAD
------------------
Get there eventually
Guest
Posts: n/a
In US, you have been required to " tune , Identify and twist " station you are using for navigation as long as I know.
Knowing morse by hart is not required, not in the ATP level, as ID's are printed on the charts.
SCAGGS ISLAND
112.1 SGD
... --. -..
JJ
Knowing morse by hart is not required, not in the ATP level, as ID's are printed on the charts.
SCAGGS ISLAND
112.1 SGD
... --. -..
JJ
Guest
Posts: n/a
They have to be able to tune, ident and track towards a VOR I thought.
They do not need to know Morse therefore the minimum standard for them is to know that they must listen to the ident and that it should sound clearly like Morse. They should further know that a rythmical TST transmission means the beacon cannot be used and the same if no Morse is heard.
I always teach tracking from a beacon as it only takes 5 more minutes and is of use for position fixing. I did not believe that cross cut position fixing is tested per se.
A grey JAA area I agree.
WWW
They do not need to know Morse therefore the minimum standard for them is to know that they must listen to the ident and that it should sound clearly like Morse. They should further know that a rythmical TST transmission means the beacon cannot be used and the same if no Morse is heard.
I always teach tracking from a beacon as it only takes 5 more minutes and is of use for position fixing. I did not believe that cross cut position fixing is tested per se.
A grey JAA area I agree.
WWW
Guest
Posts: n/a
I agree - it is rather a grey area. What I do during PPL Skill Tests is to explain to the 'applicant' (JAR-speak for candidate) that the ground below has become obscured by fog and then ask them to 'establish position by use of whatever radio aid(s) you wish except for ground-based radar or GPS'. Once they've done this, I ask them to track towards a suitable beacon on a constant radial/bearing for the required 5 minutes. This tests 2 separate but related skills, radio-aided fixing and tracking a radial/bearing. I do expect them to identify their navaids, but I'm quite happy for them to write the morse idents for whatever aids they like on their chart or log beforehand - although I don't tell them in advance which beacon I'll be using. But wouldn't it be sooo nice if the CAA had morse idents on the chart like they do in the USA!! As my aircraft all have VOR/DME/ADF/ILS/GPS, the students get reasonably well used to the function of each (except GPS!!) during training - and so far the ones I've tested haven't had any problem sorting out their radio nav.
[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 01 September 1999).]
[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 01 September 1999).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
CAA Standards Document 20 (Guidance to Examiners Conducting the Skill Test for PPL) states, in Section 3:
Navigation aids, VOR, ADF, VDF and DME may be used, but not at the expense of accurate flying.
GPS or radar should not be used as the primary fixing/tracking aid.
The applicant will be asked to intercept and maintain a track To or From a suitable VOR or ADF. He will be expected to tune and identify the aid correctly and to operate within the promulgated range. He will be required to fly the aircraft accurately and maintain good lookout throughout. This part of the flight will normally take place after the diversion or during return to base aerodrome.
I don't see how an applicant can "identify the aid correctly" without being able to recognise the morse ident. Writing down the dots and dashes, whilst acceptable, could be an onerous task in some parts of the country when the applicant has no idea where the diversion will end up and has to cover all possible ADF and VOR idents.
Navigation aids, VOR, ADF, VDF and DME may be used, but not at the expense of accurate flying.
GPS or radar should not be used as the primary fixing/tracking aid.
The applicant will be asked to intercept and maintain a track To or From a suitable VOR or ADF. He will be expected to tune and identify the aid correctly and to operate within the promulgated range. He will be required to fly the aircraft accurately and maintain good lookout throughout. This part of the flight will normally take place after the diversion or during return to base aerodrome.
I don't see how an applicant can "identify the aid correctly" without being able to recognise the morse ident. Writing down the dots and dashes, whilst acceptable, could be an onerous task in some parts of the country when the applicant has no idea where the diversion will end up and has to cover all possible ADF and VOR idents.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Why not just a morse decode?
They're published on all the charts in Oz. Even the ones that have the morse ident printed in the navaid info box.
They could just write one out since a morse decode doesn't seem to appear on charts here.
------------------
Don't mess with the red switches.
They're published on all the charts in Oz. Even the ones that have the morse ident printed in the navaid info box.
They could just write one out since a morse decode doesn't seem to appear on charts here.
------------------
Don't mess with the red switches.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I have a simple "decode key" to decode morse without ANY prior knowledge. Email me at [email protected] for the "secret"
Guest
Posts: n/a
As suspected, a consensus of views is emerging through practical application of the CAA standards info but is it really in the interest of the student? Also isn't it really a bit much that none of us here has been able to say exactly what we are required to teach and we are all saying "well my interpretation is....". Picture the nightmare of an IRT or GFT where the requirements were this lose or ill-defined....
From Watford's post -
"The applicant will be asked to intercept and maintain a track To or From a suitable VOR or ADF. He will be expected to tune and identify the aid correctly and to operate within the promulgated range. "
If you are to do justice to the subject you need to do a lot of theory on the various system characteristics. You then have the extra 5 flying hours to teach the art of NDB tracking, lets assume +/- 15 degrees of accuracy (ie larger than the IMC requirement) and VOR tracking and also then the position fixing. Add this to the reality of student availability (ie not flying every week). There is a good possibility of exceeding the hours if you act with integrity and make sure that the student is properly trained. After all, is there any point in half teaching them to use the equipment?
As the correct identification of the aids requires a knowledge of morse (in the UK, as the only reference to morse is normally on the reverse side of the kneeboard strapped to the student's leg) it would appear we are onto a bit of a loser from the outset.
Just one more thing and I'll shut up. If this is being done in the spirit of the IF part of the training, ie wx goes pants, PPL finds themselves in cloud, 180 turn, get the hell out of Dodge; then why are we teaching them to use navaids and possibly fly themselves further into the poo? Wouldn't it be a better bet to encourage them to get on the radio and get radar vectors, maybe even to the point where they do a couple of SRA's or PAR's and save the radio nav for continuation training. I mean there are more than a few who will fly something post-licence that won't even have a radio let alone navaids.
------------------
Get there eventually
[This message has been edited by climbs like a dog (edited 03 September 1999).]
[This message has been edited by climbs like a dog (edited 03 September 1999).]
[This message has been edited by climbs like a dog (edited 03 September 1999).]
From Watford's post -
"The applicant will be asked to intercept and maintain a track To or From a suitable VOR or ADF. He will be expected to tune and identify the aid correctly and to operate within the promulgated range. "
If you are to do justice to the subject you need to do a lot of theory on the various system characteristics. You then have the extra 5 flying hours to teach the art of NDB tracking, lets assume +/- 15 degrees of accuracy (ie larger than the IMC requirement) and VOR tracking and also then the position fixing. Add this to the reality of student availability (ie not flying every week). There is a good possibility of exceeding the hours if you act with integrity and make sure that the student is properly trained. After all, is there any point in half teaching them to use the equipment?
As the correct identification of the aids requires a knowledge of morse (in the UK, as the only reference to morse is normally on the reverse side of the kneeboard strapped to the student's leg) it would appear we are onto a bit of a loser from the outset.
Just one more thing and I'll shut up. If this is being done in the spirit of the IF part of the training, ie wx goes pants, PPL finds themselves in cloud, 180 turn, get the hell out of Dodge; then why are we teaching them to use navaids and possibly fly themselves further into the poo? Wouldn't it be a better bet to encourage them to get on the radio and get radar vectors, maybe even to the point where they do a couple of SRA's or PAR's and save the radio nav for continuation training. I mean there are more than a few who will fly something post-licence that won't even have a radio let alone navaids.
------------------
Get there eventually
[This message has been edited by climbs like a dog (edited 03 September 1999).]
[This message has been edited by climbs like a dog (edited 03 September 1999).]
[This message has been edited by climbs like a dog (edited 03 September 1999).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
I've never got the impression that the radio nav. has been introduced to enable flight in marginal conditions. I think that the view of the CAA is that they've got a bit fed up of controlled airspace infringements by PPLs and are rather glad radio nav. is being taught at the basic level now, in the hope that it may improve the situation.
Guest
Posts: n/a
If the CAA are looking at it in that sense then surely they would require more in the test. The test actually seems to simulate a recovery of position after a temporary period of uncertainty, and then track the beacon to get home. I am still unsure as to what is being driven at by the requirement. I must be thinking like a dog too 
------------------
Get there eventually
------------------
Get there eventually
