Instructors using GPS whilst students are in aircraft
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 1,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course the GPS will give you "early situational awareness", but the aim of the exercise is for the student to be confident that he can have sufficient situation awareness using the techniques you are teaching him. By using the GPS to enhance your situational awareness above what is possible using visual techniques alone, you are demonstrating to the student that the visual techniques are not sufficient.
Have to say I dont agree!!! You are not saying that visual techniques are not sufficient you are enhancing you navigation techniques and in some cases the GPS may be required instead of visual techniques. This would come down to your instructing at the end of the day on how you put it across and that is the key. I have instructed before, although in a different field and its how you initially put it across to the student that will be burnt into the minds. I had a student turn upto me for an Advanced course that could have killed him because he misunderstood something a previous instructor had told him, it was down to the way the instructor had put it across!
2. Given that 2 years ago whilst teaching I had a PA34 almost 'punt' me up the rear during an instructional flight I wonder how he passed 30' away from me and NEVER saw me....perhaps too busy enjoying his moving map display...which is the primary problem of GPS...too much time in the cockpit causes accidents.
They could also have had their head in the cockpit staring confused at their map and drawing pencil lines on their map as they tried to work out where they were or a diversion required!!! Unless you know what they were upto in the cockpit you cant make this statement.
A GPS requires a quick glance to determine where you are, the same person who would stare at a GPS would also stare confused at his/her map as well and therefore think its an invalid argument.
[Edited for spelling!]
Julian.
Have to say I dont agree!!! You are not saying that visual techniques are not sufficient you are enhancing you navigation techniques and in some cases the GPS may be required instead of visual techniques. This would come down to your instructing at the end of the day on how you put it across and that is the key. I have instructed before, although in a different field and its how you initially put it across to the student that will be burnt into the minds. I had a student turn upto me for an Advanced course that could have killed him because he misunderstood something a previous instructor had told him, it was down to the way the instructor had put it across!
2. Given that 2 years ago whilst teaching I had a PA34 almost 'punt' me up the rear during an instructional flight I wonder how he passed 30' away from me and NEVER saw me....perhaps too busy enjoying his moving map display...which is the primary problem of GPS...too much time in the cockpit causes accidents.
They could also have had their head in the cockpit staring confused at their map and drawing pencil lines on their map as they tried to work out where they were or a diversion required!!! Unless you know what they were upto in the cockpit you cant make this statement.
A GPS requires a quick glance to determine where you are, the same person who would stare at a GPS would also stare confused at his/her map as well and therefore think its an invalid argument.
[Edited for spelling!]
Julian.
Last edited by Julian; 3rd Feb 2006 at 09:51.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it's a no-brainer.
The idea is to teach VFR DR nav. From a map.
Putting myself back in the position of a student, I'd have no faith in the instructor who wasn't using the same method of nav that he/she was asking me to use. Simple as that. Like an instructor who can't demonstrate accurate steep turns but expects me to do them.
Have the GPS with you - no problem - but used in the way Beagle was suggesting.
The idea is to teach VFR DR nav. From a map.
Putting myself back in the position of a student, I'd have no faith in the instructor who wasn't using the same method of nav that he/she was asking me to use. Simple as that. Like an instructor who can't demonstrate accurate steep turns but expects me to do them.
Have the GPS with you - no problem - but used in the way Beagle was suggesting.
The teaching of visual navigation is one of those things which needs a disciplined approach to flying. Regrettably, all too often FIs waste the student's effort by insisting on totally unnecessary RT communications and other distractions. On the first few navigation exercises, my preference is not to use the RT at all apart from aerodrome departure and arrival. Concentrate on the essentials of Heading and Time, backed up by pre-planned visual fix points - NOT 'map reading' per se!
We also teach the 'standard closing angle' method of track correction. Let the off-track student make his estimate of track error, work out the correction time and fly it, then turn back onto the original heading. If you've left the exact original track in the GPS, there's nothing so confidence-building for the student as pulling up the GPS CDI bar when the student the SCA correction has been completed - and showing him/her that it has worked and we're now back on track!
We also teach the 'standard closing angle' method of track correction. Let the off-track student make his estimate of track error, work out the correction time and fly it, then turn back onto the original heading. If you've left the exact original track in the GPS, there's nothing so confidence-building for the student as pulling up the GPS CDI bar when the student the SCA correction has been completed - and showing him/her that it has worked and we're now back on track!
Join Date: May 2001
Location: up North
Posts: 661
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nicely put Beagle.
Throughout the PPL course a student is learning a multitude of new techniques, many of which will be very foreign to him/her. Map reading has always been a difficult skill to master (except for a lucky few) and, I hope, many of us should remember the hard mental workload of determining how to get back on track once a deviation has been recognised.
The real issue here is developing a student's faith in a technique - and you can only do this if you show the student that you can use the same problem solving methods as you have taught him. Do that and his/her faith in the technique is boosted tenfold - a real step forward to those that find this bit of the course hard.
Used sensibly a GPS can enhance map reading skills a lot. Used badly - the student being fully aware that the instructor is using GPS for positional information - and it degrades the whole meaning of the map reading exercise. All the student will be thinking is that he must get a GPS as soon as possible - it's what the instructor uses!
Beagle's approach is sounder. The GPS is present but the instructor is still showing the pupil that his assessment of navigational accuracy is based on the same technique the student is using. This enhances respect for the instructor and faith in the technique being taught.
Throughout the PPL course a student is learning a multitude of new techniques, many of which will be very foreign to him/her. Map reading has always been a difficult skill to master (except for a lucky few) and, I hope, many of us should remember the hard mental workload of determining how to get back on track once a deviation has been recognised.
The real issue here is developing a student's faith in a technique - and you can only do this if you show the student that you can use the same problem solving methods as you have taught him. Do that and his/her faith in the technique is boosted tenfold - a real step forward to those that find this bit of the course hard.
Used sensibly a GPS can enhance map reading skills a lot. Used badly - the student being fully aware that the instructor is using GPS for positional information - and it degrades the whole meaning of the map reading exercise. All the student will be thinking is that he must get a GPS as soon as possible - it's what the instructor uses!
Beagle's approach is sounder. The GPS is present but the instructor is still showing the pupil that his assessment of navigational accuracy is based on the same technique the student is using. This enhances respect for the instructor and faith in the technique being taught.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 889
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Students need to learn VFR navigation in order to pass their skills test.
If that's what you believe, then instructors can use GPS as much as they like, and (as you say mumbo) the instructor can really focus on the delivery of the lesson. As soon as the candidate passes the LST, he/she will buy a GPS, and the argument becomes a red herring.
On the other hand, many instructors believe this:
Students need to learn VFR navigation because it will keep them safe for the rest of their VFR careers.
Liking the thread - hope this adds something useful...
O8
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Islander2
Many on these forums have disagreed. Indeed, it has been observed that some UK GA aeroplanes have CAA-approved Flight Manual Supplements for GPS installations that meet RNP5 airspace (BRNAV) primary navigation requirements.
In a thread on a different topic, Formation Flyer asked:
Formation Flyer, it would be really useful if you could answer this question in respect of your own contentious assertion.
In a thread on a different topic, Formation Flyer asked:
Formation Flyer, it would be really useful if you could answer this question in respect of your own contentious assertion.
AIC 93/2002 Pink 41.
Agreed it is accepted for PRNAV and BRNAV airspace (although BRNAV is FL100+ typically if I recall - although I havent read up on where it is defined).
The VAST majority of pilots not flying heavies or pub transport, will not be flying in such airspace and therefore the other rules apply which are that GPS is not approved to replace convential navigation techniques and is accepted as a 'supplemental aid'.
Additionally flying instrument approaches based on GPS when the approach is based on a radio aid is not allowed.
and so on.
Hope that helps!
FF
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Julian
2. Given that 2 years ago whilst teaching I had a PA34 almost 'punt' me up the rear during an instructional flight I wonder how he passed 30' away from me and NEVER saw me....perhaps too busy enjoying his moving map display...which is the primary problem of GPS...too much time in the cockpit causes accidents.[/I]
They could also have had their head in the cockpit staring confused at their map and drawing pencil lines on their map as they tried to work out where they were or a diversion required!!! Unless you know what they were upto in the cockpit you cant make this statement.
A GPS requires a quick glance to determine where you are, the same person who would stare at a GPS would also stare confused at his/her map as well and therefore think its an invalid argument.
[Edited for spelling!]
Julian.
They could also have had their head in the cockpit staring confused at their map and drawing pencil lines on their map as they tried to work out where they were or a diversion required!!! Unless you know what they were upto in the cockpit you cant make this statement.
A GPS requires a quick glance to determine where you are, the same person who would stare at a GPS would also stare confused at his/her map as well and therefore think its an invalid argument.
[Edited for spelling!]
Julian.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BEagle
We also teach the 'standard closing angle' method of track correction. Let the off-track student make his estimate of track error, work out the correction time and fly it, then turn back onto the original heading. If you've left the exact original track in the GPS, there's nothing so confidence-building for the student as pulling up the GPS CDI bar when the student the SCA correction has been completed - and showing him/her that it has worked and we're now back on track![/COLOR][/FONT]
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: An island somewhere
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by FormationFlyer
AIC 93/2002 Pink 41.
But leaving the legalities to one side, let's consider the logic. GPS is approved, or shortly to become approved, as the primary navigation means for:
1. IFR in BRNAV controlled airspace, with direct clearances that can be greatly in excess of 100nm;
2. IFR in PRNAV exceptionally-busy TMA airspace, flying SID's and STAR's to very tight track-error tolerances; and
3. IFR non-precision approaches in IMC to NDB minima or lower.
But it's not suitable as the primary navigation means in VFR in the open FIR? Laughable ... and a quite unsustainable position, since most pilots know first hand that with the right equipment, knowledge and SOP's it is at least as good a navigation method as anything else that is available.
None of which is meant to decry the alternative of map reading and MDR as first taught to me nearly thirty years ago. They work perfectly well in VMC (less so single crew in IMC!), could be said to be immune to equipment failure (although where was I recently reading of someone's watch failure on skill test!?) and have stood the test of time. Flying the Chipmunk, I can still enjoy the challenge. When using my high performance SEP to go places? You must be joking!
Last edited by Islander2; 8th Feb 2006 at 10:50.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Far East
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Islander2, the same principles should work fine in a fast single... the military navigate visually at low level and 450kts.
Arguably the faster you go the easier it is becuase time between features is likely to be less, and the faster you go the less effect drift has so as long as you hold the heading you plan it should be work as well as if not better than in a spam can.
Arguably the faster you go the easier it is becuase time between features is likely to be less, and the faster you go the less effect drift has so as long as you hold the heading you plan it should be work as well as if not better than in a spam can.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: An island somewhere
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dude~
Islander2, the same principles should work fine in a fast single.
The question is, which method is easier, more accurate, less likely to leave you uncertain of your position, extends the utility of the aeroplane and is, overall, less nerve-racking?
That this argument arises frequently on these forums suggests there is no overwhelmingly right answer to that question. Each pilot will decide for themselves given the challenges they enjoy, the equipment available and the type of flying they do.
I believe strongly that map reading and MDR should continue to be the first method of navigation a student pilot learns. Back to basics will always be, at the very least, an available fall-back when all else fails, whatever primary means is used.
Personally, I couldn't get overly concerned if an instructor keeps an eye on GPS-determined position while instructing basic navigation. Others on here would have said instructor put against the wall and shot.
But those same antagonists, in some cases, are complicit in a serious failing of the current PPL for many students, and I do get hot under the collar about that.
The fact is, a majority of pilots WILL use GPS when they get their licence, and some of those poor, misguided fools will go on to use it as the primary means of navigation. But the position taken by some individuals within the CAA and within much of the training industry will have ensured that many of those pilots received little or no useful tuition in flight planning and navigation where a GPS is to be used. They will not have a proper understanding of the gotchas, and how to avoid them. And they will not have a scientific basis for developing appropriate SOP's.
Those same individuals then wag their fingers where GPS is said to be a contributory factor in CAS infringements or head-in-cockpit airproxes, and attempt to take the moral high ground by saying: "I told them not to do it!"
GPS is here to stay. It WILL be used by numerous pilots as their primary means of navigation. Scaremongering by saying that it's not legal (untrue), unreliable (untrue) inaccurate (untrue), too difficult to use safely unless you fly daily (untrue) and all the other nonsense that is aired on here from time to time is unhelpful.
Surely, instead, the training industry should be providing practical assistance in GPS operation ... based on facts and experience rather than 'it wasn't like that in my day' prejudice ... to help those pilots fly safely.
Last edited by Islander2; 8th Feb 2006 at 10:12.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 889
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How should the training industry provide practical assistance in training? Serious question actually.
a- Give dual instruction in VFR GPS use (preceded by instructors getting qualified in VFR GPS instructional techniques).
b- Give classroom instruction in GPS use, in such a way that it satisfactorily transfers to post-PPL gallivanting around the sky.
c- Make it the subject of the CAA magazine, again with the "satisfactory transfer to piloting skills" caveat.
d- All of the above.
e- Don't care, as long as someone else pays for it... (Sorry, had to throw that one in. )
I see problems with cost for a & b. Costs include - instructor training, familiarisation with a wide variety of OEM styles, teaching methods that transfer to all the different GPS's on the market, extra training pre-PPL (say current average +3 hours), equipping crusty old aero clubs with kit, and finally upgrading all the above down the track a wee way. (c) might happen - lobby your favourite CAA office. (d) probably will happen by 2010, and (e) is the current response by most of us.
Howzat Islander?
a- Give dual instruction in VFR GPS use (preceded by instructors getting qualified in VFR GPS instructional techniques).
b- Give classroom instruction in GPS use, in such a way that it satisfactorily transfers to post-PPL gallivanting around the sky.
c- Make it the subject of the CAA magazine, again with the "satisfactory transfer to piloting skills" caveat.
d- All of the above.
e- Don't care, as long as someone else pays for it... (Sorry, had to throw that one in.
)I see problems with cost for a & b. Costs include - instructor training, familiarisation with a wide variety of OEM styles, teaching methods that transfer to all the different GPS's on the market, extra training pre-PPL (say current average +3 hours), equipping crusty old aero clubs with kit, and finally upgrading all the above down the track a wee way. (c) might happen - lobby your favourite CAA office. (d) probably will happen by 2010, and (e) is the current response by most of us.
Howzat Islander?
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Islander2
Since you had stated, unequivocally, that the use of GPS is NOT LEGAL as a primary means of navigation in UK airspace, I was hoping (as, I know, were others) that you could put this debate to rest by quoting law (ie ANO or Eurostuff) rather than operational guidelines.
But leaving the legalities to one side, let's consider the logic. GPS is approved, or shortly to become approved, as the primary navigation means for:
1. IFR in BRNAV controlled airspace, with direct clearances that can be greatly in excess of 100nm;
2. IFR in PRNAV exceptionally-busy TMA airspace, flying SID's and STAR's to very tight track-error tolerances; and
3. IFR non-precision approaches in IMC to NDB minima or lower.
But it's not suitable as the primary navigation means in VFR in the open FIR? Laughable ... and a quite unsustainable position, since most pilots know first hand that with the right equipment, knowledge and SOP's it is at least as good a navigation method as anything else that is available.
But leaving the legalities to one side, let's consider the logic. GPS is approved, or shortly to become approved, as the primary navigation means for:
1. IFR in BRNAV controlled airspace, with direct clearances that can be greatly in excess of 100nm;
2. IFR in PRNAV exceptionally-busy TMA airspace, flying SID's and STAR's to very tight track-error tolerances; and
3. IFR non-precision approaches in IMC to NDB minima or lower.
But it's not suitable as the primary navigation means in VFR in the open FIR? Laughable ... and a quite unsustainable position, since most pilots know first hand that with the right equipment, knowledge and SOP's it is at least as good a navigation method as anything else that is available.
GPS is no worse than anything else? I believe that the reservations regarding GPS come down to the amount of electronics required to block GPS and cause serious disruption to air traffic - as I understand it the low level of the GPS signal means that relatively small transmitters and cheap electronics could block GPS signifcantly - however, to do the same to an ILS or VOR etc requires significantly higher power transmitters...but thats all hearsay but i thought id mention anyway.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Islander2
But those same antagonists, in some cases, are complicit in a serious failing of the current PPL for many students, and I do get hot under the collar about that.
The fact is, a majority of pilots WILL use GPS when they get their licence, and some of those poor, misguided fools will go on to use it as the primary means of navigation. But the position taken by some individuals within the CAA and within much of the training industry will have ensured that many of those pilots received little or no useful tuition in flight planning and navigation where a GPS is to be used. They will not have a proper understanding of the gotchas, and how to avoid them. And they will not have a scientific basis for developing appropriate SOP's.
Those same individuals then wag their fingers where GPS is said to be a contributory factor in CAS infringements or head-in-cockpit airproxes, and attempt to take the moral high ground by saying: "I told them not to do it!"
[snip]
Surely, instead, the training industry should be providing practical assistance in GPS operation ... based on facts and experience rather than 'it wasn't like that in my day' prejudice ... to help those pilots fly safely.
The fact is, a majority of pilots WILL use GPS when they get their licence, and some of those poor, misguided fools will go on to use it as the primary means of navigation. But the position taken by some individuals within the CAA and within much of the training industry will have ensured that many of those pilots received little or no useful tuition in flight planning and navigation where a GPS is to be used. They will not have a proper understanding of the gotchas, and how to avoid them. And they will not have a scientific basis for developing appropriate SOP's.
Those same individuals then wag their fingers where GPS is said to be a contributory factor in CAS infringements or head-in-cockpit airproxes, and attempt to take the moral high ground by saying: "I told them not to do it!"
[snip]
Surely, instead, the training industry should be providing practical assistance in GPS operation ... based on facts and experience rather than 'it wasn't like that in my day' prejudice ... to help those pilots fly safely.
Originally Posted by Islander2
GPS is here to stay. It WILL be used by numerous pilots as their primary means of navigation. Scaremongering by saying that it's not legal (untrue), unreliable (untrue) inaccurate (untrue), too difficult to use safely unless you fly daily (untrue) and all the other nonsense that is aired on here from time to time is unhelpful.
unreliable(?) - potentially, NOTAMS are regularly put ot regarding GPS jamming and areas of unreliable reception - so it is to a degree more unreliable - but in specific circumstances. For the average Joe the reliability issue is not one of technology per se - but more one of BATTERIES....
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: An island somewhere
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by FormationFlyer
Er. No 3. Where is your information for this? 1 & 2 are already accepted. 3 isnt and I havent seen a proposal in the UK for this - I would be interested in reading the background material - out of curiosity - and I would add that all approaches to a/d under IMC must be published approaches.
Also, I believe you are incorrect when you say that all approaches in IMC must be published approaches. And my view would seem to be supported by the CAA, since in January 2003 they published an RIA for a proposed amendment to the ANO that, inter alia, would prohibit any person from flying any instrument approach procedure to any aerodrome in the UK otherwise than in accordance with an approval granted by the CAA to the person in charge of the aerodrome. The proposed amendment has not been incorporated.
Finally, on GPS comparison with other aids, it is simply ludicrous that you and others continue to put forward arguments as to why GPS is a fundamentally less reliable system than the traditional aids. Nobody is saying that it is 100% reliable and, yes, that needs to be taken into consideration, but it's pretty damn close. My aeroplane has had panel-mounted GPS alongside a traditional full-airways fit for the last twelve years. During that time, I've experienced one instance of loss of GPS accurate-position availability, and that was for a period of around one minute! Across the same period, I've lost count of the numerous times I've been unable to use VORs because of their unserviceability or lack of range at lower levels, or unable to use NDBs because of weather or worries about their hopeless inaccuracy at night or near the coast.
Experience has shown, for me, that the basic arguments against use of GPS are fundamentally Luddite in nature. I am 100% confident that the vast majority of pilots getting a reasonable level of exposure to GPS reach the same conclusion. So, whatever the views of the dinosaurs, it is fast becoming the prevelant form of navigation in GA, and that is not going to change.
What is needed for safe use of the GPS equipment is knowledge, some limited skills development, and appropriate SOPs. But that is no different from many other aspects of flying an aeroplane safely.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: An island somewhere
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by FormationFlyer
GPS in the open FIR is not a legal primary means for the average PPL holder. Perhaps you can show us the reference that states it is?
So, as before FF, I invite you to provide us with the legal reference to support this contoversial and unhelpful view about the illegality of GPS, which I am certain is just plain wrong.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Islander2
Sorry, FF, but you have a fundamental lack of understanding of how the law works in this area. For GPS not to be legal as a primary means of navigation in the UK open FIR, such use would have to be prohibited by the ANO (or other UK Statutory Instrument or Eurolaw). It does NOT have to be expressly permitted for such use to be lawful.
So, as before FF, I invite you to provide us with the legal reference to support this contoversial and unhelpful view about the illegality of GPS, which I am certain is just plain wrong.
So, as before FF, I invite you to provide us with the legal reference to support this contoversial and unhelpful view about the illegality of GPS, which I am certain is just plain wrong.
Interesting.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Islander2
At the AGM of PPL/IR Europe at Cambridge Airport on 6th May 2006 there will be a presentation by Adam Whitehead, Staff Flight Examiner from the CAA, on the progress that has been made with trialling GPS approaches in the UK. I understand it is possible one of those approaches could be active by that date. I believe non-members are welcome to attend, so you may like to come along. Details can be found on the PPL/IR Europe website.
Originally Posted by Islander2
Finally, on GPS comparison with other aids, it is simply ludicrous that you and others continue to put forward arguments as to why GPS is a fundamentally less reliable system than the traditional aids. Nobody is saying that it is 100% reliable and, yes, that needs to be taken into consideration, but it's pretty damn close. My aeroplane has had panel-mounted GPS alongside a traditional full-airways fit for the last twelve years.
[snip]
Experience has shown, for me, that the basic arguments against use of GPS are fundamentally Luddite in nature. I am 100% confident that the vast majority of pilots getting a reasonable level of exposure to GPS reach the same conclusion. So, whatever the views of the dinosaurs, it is fast becoming the prevelant form of navigation in GA, and that is not going to change.
What is needed for safe use of the GPS equipment is knowledge, some limited skills development, and appropriate SOPs. But that is no different from many other aspects of flying an aeroplane safely.
[snip]
Experience has shown, for me, that the basic arguments against use of GPS are fundamentally Luddite in nature. I am 100% confident that the vast majority of pilots getting a reasonable level of exposure to GPS reach the same conclusion. So, whatever the views of the dinosaurs, it is fast becoming the prevelant form of navigation in GA, and that is not going to change.
What is needed for safe use of the GPS equipment is knowledge, some limited skills development, and appropriate SOPs. But that is no different from many other aspects of flying an aeroplane safely.
Where i have the problem is handheld GPS - which I doubt will EVER be a primary means of navigation - in the same way that at night you cannot fly without lighting systems powered by the main busses in the aircraft - i.e. the CAA will not allow you to fly using battery powered torches or headlamps. If the GPS is panel fit then Im all for it. However, I do feel that moving map GPS can cause a certain amount of heads-in due to incorrect use of the navigation aid - that said so can VORs/ADFs.
The other area is as already discussed - poor quality training for pilots - the problem is that most pilots pick up the 'wonder-box' and don't seek helpful advice from a knowledgable instructor, nor put their mind to how it should be used in the cockpit.
Incidentally I often have a GPS in the back of the cockpit on IMC training sorties so I can link the GPS into my laptop, run up RANT and debrief the student - and be able to show them the needles - a valuable aid indeed.
So im not the anti-GPS cretin that you perhaps think I am...
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: An island somewhere
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by FormationFlyer
Er..so you dont consider an AIC - pink - worthy wording then?
Interesting.
Interesting.
Are you saying that an AIC - pink - creates law?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: An island somewhere
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by FormationFlyer
Where i have the problem is handheld GPS - which I doubt will EVER be a primary means of navigation - in the same way that at night you cannot fly without lighting systems powered by the main busses in the aircraft - i.e. the CAA will not allow you to fly using battery powered torches or headlamps. If the GPS is panel fit then Im all for it.
I certainly agree that portable GPS equipment (as opposed to panel-mounted units) present important additional issues. Issues that would benefit from suitable guidance (often unavailable in the present 'GPS is the work-of-the-devil' environment). Issues that can be adequately dealt with by appropriate pre-flight planning, the provision of spare batteries and by the proper use of map reading as a secondary means of navigation.
You confuse these issues, however, with your analogy. Night flying requires, per the ANO, lighting that is supplied from the main electrical source of supply in the aircraft. It does NOT require the equipment to be 'installed' as opposed to portable or 'hand held'.
Many users of portable GPS (including me, in the Chipmunk) use the aeroplane's main electrical source of supply to power the equipment via an electrical-supply socket (or cigar lighter). With an adequate GPS aerial, I can think of no reason why such an arrangement should not be used as the primary means of VFR navigation. Indeed, I successfully used just such a system recently to 'assist' my navigation around 4,000nm of Africa in a Cessna 182, where the lack of distinct ground features (and an almost total absence of traditional radio navigation aids) makes map reading/conventional radio-nav rather more of a challenge than it is in the UK (although, for the purists, unquestionably not impossible!).
Of course, if you or anybody else can actually point to the legislation that prohibits the use of GPS for primary navigation, I would protest (along with a very, very large number of other GA pilots!) that I only ever use it as back up ... except, that is, when I'm actually required by legislation to use it in the altogether much less demanding application (sic) above FL095 in controlled airspace designated for the purposes of RNP-5.
Last edited by Islander2; 19th Feb 2006 at 22:21.