EASA Part FCL
Further to BB's post, LAPL instructors do not require CPL theoretical knowledge and yet will still be eligible for remuneration, which means EASA is not toeing the ICAO line on this one. Mind you, it's a sub-ICAO licence.
So, as it stands, Teejamn and Stupix, yes, you will need to pass CPL theory exams unless you just want to teach the new LAPL.
Regards, jez
So, as it stands, Teejamn and Stupix, yes, you will need to pass CPL theory exams unless you just want to teach the new LAPL.
Regards, jez
Thread Starter
CPL (or ATPL) theoretical knowledge is a pre-requisite for the FI rating in all cases.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Emirates Living - The Meadows
Age: 79
Posts: 405
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Morituri te salutant
Jez D said
Your argument is an age old one for the tail wagging the dog scenario. We used to send our children down mines and up chimneys to make some money for the family if we were a bit short. Why on earth would we let them go to school when we have no direct and immediate return on our investment! Come to think of it why have children at all?
I managed as a PPL instructor with a pretty hefty mortgage, married with children. It cost me dear and every week was a struggle much less month. Especially as many of the schools I worked at played the old "you are self employed" game and as such if the weather was bad or you were ill or even a plane was off line you earnt nothing.
Was it fun? No. Was it correct that I was treated like this? No. PPL instruction is liveable but the fact that it is poorly paid is a supply and demand issue nothing to do with the our professional standing. It is to do with the mistreatment of FIs by most schools.
Singer used to make the nest sewing machines and typewriters in the industry but with the advent of the computer the skillset of the workers was no longer needed. Ask a coalminer, shipbuilder, etc, etc about supply and demand. It doesn't mean that we should lower the standard it means we have to take the hit on the supply as the demand is not great enough to pay us all.
I love and am passionate about aviation and it's professional instruction and standards. If that means that there are only 10 flying schools in the UK as there is not a large enough market for more. Well that is very unfortunate for us instructors out there but that is life. If we want to change it then we have an MP to lobby and can bemoan our position to Dft, the CAA, the press or anyone who will listen but supply and demand are the drivers of any business and though it would suit us to all be paid handsomely for our consummate skill sets life does not owe us a living.
The thread is about CPL level knowledge start a thread about whether we still have a market/will have a market and we can discuss neoclassical economics at length Hicks, Stigler and Veblen can have their theories discussed and we can bemoan our likely fate if the government or someone very wealthy does not do something to save GA in UK but this does not change YOU the person who sits RHS and stops students killing themselves whilst breaking them down and remoulding them in an aviation like fashion from needing the correct level and/or qualification until UK GA PLC gives up and consigns us to join the shipbuilders, sextant makers, et cetera.
And how do you propose to attract all these professional, career PPL instructors?
At current wage levels, PPL instruction can only be undertaken as a part-time job, a stepping-stone to an airline career, or for those who are independently wealthy.
At current wage levels, PPL instruction can only be undertaken as a part-time job, a stepping-stone to an airline career, or for those who are independently wealthy.
I managed as a PPL instructor with a pretty hefty mortgage, married with children. It cost me dear and every week was a struggle much less month. Especially as many of the schools I worked at played the old "you are self employed" game and as such if the weather was bad or you were ill or even a plane was off line you earnt nothing.
Was it fun? No. Was it correct that I was treated like this? No. PPL instruction is liveable but the fact that it is poorly paid is a supply and demand issue nothing to do with the our professional standing. It is to do with the mistreatment of FIs by most schools.
Singer used to make the nest sewing machines and typewriters in the industry but with the advent of the computer the skillset of the workers was no longer needed. Ask a coalminer, shipbuilder, etc, etc about supply and demand. It doesn't mean that we should lower the standard it means we have to take the hit on the supply as the demand is not great enough to pay us all.
I love and am passionate about aviation and it's professional instruction and standards. If that means that there are only 10 flying schools in the UK as there is not a large enough market for more. Well that is very unfortunate for us instructors out there but that is life. If we want to change it then we have an MP to lobby and can bemoan our position to Dft, the CAA, the press or anyone who will listen but supply and demand are the drivers of any business and though it would suit us to all be paid handsomely for our consummate skill sets life does not owe us a living.
The thread is about CPL level knowledge start a thread about whether we still have a market/will have a market and we can discuss neoclassical economics at length Hicks, Stigler and Veblen can have their theories discussed and we can bemoan our likely fate if the government or someone very wealthy does not do something to save GA in UK but this does not change YOU the person who sits RHS and stops students killing themselves whilst breaking them down and remoulding them in an aviation like fashion from needing the correct level and/or qualification until UK GA PLC gives up and consigns us to join the shipbuilders, sextant makers, et cetera.
Thread Starter
What appears to be forgotten amongst all the claims of professionalism and career instructors is that PPL training was for many years, and still is in many countries, a recreational activity. The primary objective is to produce pilots who can enjoy flying safely and at reasonable cost without masses of bureaucracy.
The demise of the AOPA agreement where AOPA controlled all PPL examiners, and the disbandment of the Panel of Examiners lead to all Flight Instruction being regarded as a commercial activity under CAA direction. The former Commercial Flight Instructor simply became an extension of the PPL instructor. The BGA and the BMAA have managed to retain the recreational status of their instructional activities during these changes.
EASA recognises the recreational nature of GA flying, possibly due to the involvement of some of the smaller GA groups but has fudged the whole thing with poorly drafted regulation and unnecessary new licences that exceed ICAO minima, but then fail to qualify as ICAO licences. There is a perfectly good "Recreational" licence described in ICAO Annex 1 with realistic minimum requirements called a "PPL" that has served us well for 60 years.
The requirement for CPL "level" knowledge appears in ICAO Annex 1 but it does not require a pass in the CPL exams! For many years the UK used a FIC pre-entry exam to determine CPL level knowledge. It was the bureaucrats who interpreted this as having to pass CPL exams to indicate this level. In practice, a PPL with around 300 hours of light aircraft experience is better equipped to undertake a FI Course than a graduate of an Integrated ATPL course with 700 hours of theoretical knowledge behind them. With no training analysis ever conducted, CPL exams are simply a hotch-potch of handed down military questions and third rate add-ons. I recall the day when the RAF provided the UK questions to the Board of Trade, before the CAA was invented!
The demise of the AOPA agreement where AOPA controlled all PPL examiners, and the disbandment of the Panel of Examiners lead to all Flight Instruction being regarded as a commercial activity under CAA direction. The former Commercial Flight Instructor simply became an extension of the PPL instructor. The BGA and the BMAA have managed to retain the recreational status of their instructional activities during these changes.
EASA recognises the recreational nature of GA flying, possibly due to the involvement of some of the smaller GA groups but has fudged the whole thing with poorly drafted regulation and unnecessary new licences that exceed ICAO minima, but then fail to qualify as ICAO licences. There is a perfectly good "Recreational" licence described in ICAO Annex 1 with realistic minimum requirements called a "PPL" that has served us well for 60 years.
The requirement for CPL "level" knowledge appears in ICAO Annex 1 but it does not require a pass in the CPL exams! For many years the UK used a FIC pre-entry exam to determine CPL level knowledge. It was the bureaucrats who interpreted this as having to pass CPL exams to indicate this level. In practice, a PPL with around 300 hours of light aircraft experience is better equipped to undertake a FI Course than a graduate of an Integrated ATPL course with 700 hours of theoretical knowledge behind them. With no training analysis ever conducted, CPL exams are simply a hotch-potch of handed down military questions and third rate add-ons. I recall the day when the RAF provided the UK questions to the Board of Trade, before the CAA was invented!
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Emirates Living - The Meadows
Age: 79
Posts: 405
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Physics does not care for theory much.
Just because something has always been done a certain way does not make it correct. It used to be that wives did not have their own tax code, women could not vote and the colour of your skin, your race and the church you did or didn't believe in had a significant affect on which school, university, golf club, job etc you could attend or go to.
What we have now is what is called progress. We want legal accountability, happy insurance companies and safe flying. If we can have all this and then also make it fun well done us. On the flip side if we can have fun but cannot satisfy the above should we be doing it.
When the original legislation was drafted (probably alongside the King James version of the bible) Pontius was a pilot and there were not aircraft landing every 90 seconds at LHR.
I have been as a PPL, a CPL and an FI on flights in and around Farnborough, Blackbushe, High Wycombe and Biggin Hill and surrounding London I have also flown 737s into LHR when incursions occur from all of these directions. I understand both sides and their needs but when I have an A346 in front of me and a B773 90 secs behind me I really do need to know that the solo student on his 1st X-Ctry nav has the perspective and training in his head of the consequences of me going around with limited fuel at the end of a 7hr sector, causing someone else to go around or worse having to follow a TCAS RA in this sort of airspace.
Now you are likely the sort of instructor whose students do know this but you are not the garden variety PPL with PPL only knowledge type of chap are you.
I have taught at schools where senior instructors (DCFI & CFI) advise students to turn off their transponders so that they don't get the school in trouble if they make a pesky zone incursion (in the above mentioned areas) This is a very unlikely trait for a CPL/ATPL holder to perpetuate
I agree the CPL question bank is out of date, nowhere near as relevant as it should be and can suggest far far better ways of doing the exams but this does not change my view that you should teach the level below you and that only CPL and above should instruct anything ever.
It may be a fun day out for the chap who hired the PA18 from Booker or the chap doing aeros in his Pitts from Biggin, it may be a great bit of fun for the Red letter day winner on the 'trial lesson' from Shoreham but it is the end or start of a long day for those doing 220kts on base, 180kts on final or 250 kts on departure separated from each other by often no more than 20 seconds.
We are all in the same airspace so no I agree that a 300hr PPL likely has have specific light aircraft knowledge that puts him ahead of a integrated fATPL straight of the FI course. But isn't that why we have restricted and unrestricted instructors?
VT
What we have now is what is called progress. We want legal accountability, happy insurance companies and safe flying. If we can have all this and then also make it fun well done us. On the flip side if we can have fun but cannot satisfy the above should we be doing it.
When the original legislation was drafted (probably alongside the King James version of the bible) Pontius was a pilot and there were not aircraft landing every 90 seconds at LHR.
I have been as a PPL, a CPL and an FI on flights in and around Farnborough, Blackbushe, High Wycombe and Biggin Hill and surrounding London I have also flown 737s into LHR when incursions occur from all of these directions. I understand both sides and their needs but when I have an A346 in front of me and a B773 90 secs behind me I really do need to know that the solo student on his 1st X-Ctry nav has the perspective and training in his head of the consequences of me going around with limited fuel at the end of a 7hr sector, causing someone else to go around or worse having to follow a TCAS RA in this sort of airspace.
Now you are likely the sort of instructor whose students do know this but you are not the garden variety PPL with PPL only knowledge type of chap are you.
I have taught at schools where senior instructors (DCFI & CFI) advise students to turn off their transponders so that they don't get the school in trouble if they make a pesky zone incursion (in the above mentioned areas) This is a very unlikely trait for a CPL/ATPL holder to perpetuate
I agree the CPL question bank is out of date, nowhere near as relevant as it should be and can suggest far far better ways of doing the exams but this does not change my view that you should teach the level below you and that only CPL and above should instruct anything ever.
It may be a fun day out for the chap who hired the PA18 from Booker or the chap doing aeros in his Pitts from Biggin, it may be a great bit of fun for the Red letter day winner on the 'trial lesson' from Shoreham but it is the end or start of a long day for those doing 220kts on base, 180kts on final or 250 kts on departure separated from each other by often no more than 20 seconds.
We are all in the same airspace so no I agree that a 300hr PPL likely has have specific light aircraft knowledge that puts him ahead of a integrated fATPL straight of the FI course. But isn't that why we have restricted and unrestricted instructors?
VT
Thread Starter
But isn't that why we have restricted and unrestricted instructors?
When the original legislation was drafted (probably alongside the King James version of the bible) Pontius was a pilot
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been as a PPL, a CPL and an FI on flights in and around Farnborough, Blackbushe, High Wycombe and Biggin Hill and surrounding London I have also flown 737s into LHR when incursions occur from all of these directions. I understand both sides and their needs but when I have an A346 in front of me and a B773 90 secs behind me I really do need to know that the solo student on his 1st X-Ctry nav has the perspective and training in his head of the consequences of me going around with limited fuel at the end of a 7hr sector, causing someone else to go around or worse having to follow a TCAS RA in this sort of airspace.
One look at the pilot age demographics (look in the back of FTN) and putting this together with the fact that the vast majority of new PPLs chuck in flying within a year or two, makes it obvious that the vast majority of PPLs have not been near an instructor for years if not decades - except for the 2-yearly flight on which you will get a signoff so long as the instructor did not perish on the flight.
CAS busts are the result of antiquated PPL training and equipment, a presumption that the pilot will never fly anywhere for real (so keeping "south of the M25" will keep you out of CAS) and a long term denial and slagging off of everything modern; internet and GPS, throughout both PPL training and CAA "safety" presentations.
Now we have a situation where most instructors have never been past the crease on their chart. The only reason the system hangs together is because nearly all new PPLs drop flying more or less right away so thankfully never push the limits. When I did my PPL, there were about 30 of us and within 1-2 months only about 3 were still flying. By a year or two later, all instructors (except one) I flew with had left to airlines. That odd one vanished following a massive fraud and allegations concerning one female student of 16 and one of well below 16. Of the others, two managed to get female students pregnant. Of course none of this is relevant, but then neither are CPL exam passes
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 889
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(A foreigner very cautiously making an observation, in all humility not affected by this legislation)
If other jurisdictions, FAA etc, decide that the EU PPL is not in accordance with ICAO, then EU PPL holders would find it difficult to have their licenses recognised outside of Europe. This would have major implications over time for recreational pilots and also for modular hour-builders.
Perhaps this might be why the LAPL (non-ICAO, non-transferable to other states) is treated in such a common-sense way compared to the PPL.
If other jurisdictions, FAA etc, decide that the EU PPL is not in accordance with ICAO, then EU PPL holders would find it difficult to have their licenses recognised outside of Europe. This would have major implications over time for recreational pilots and also for modular hour-builders.
Perhaps this might be why the LAPL (non-ICAO, non-transferable to other states) is treated in such a common-sense way compared to the PPL.
Thread Starter
EU PPL is not in accordance with ICAO
The safety issues (and that's the only reason for having a licence) are the same for both licenses; establishing dual standards to achieve this is a flawed philosophy.
CAS busts are the result of antiquated PPL training and equipment,
the vast majority of new PPLs chuck in flying within a year or two
most instructors have never been past the crease on their chart.
EASA had second thoughts about the CPL knowledge requirement for PPL FIs, because not having such knowledge wouldn't be in accordance with ICAO.
So, if EASA is nervous about legislating for matters which are 'not in accordance with ICAO', why then are they buggering about with the utterly unloved one size fits no-one LAPL which itself is 'not in accordance with ICAO'?
EASA should do itself and everyone else a big favour by drawing the line at ICAO-compliant pilot licences and should devolve competence for sub-ICAO pilot licensing to national authorities in those member states which have a desire for such licences. This would require a very minor amendment to the General Regulation, but that would first need political intervention.
So, if EASA is nervous about legislating for matters which are 'not in accordance with ICAO', why then are they buggering about with the utterly unloved one size fits no-one LAPL which itself is 'not in accordance with ICAO'?
EASA should do itself and everyone else a big favour by drawing the line at ICAO-compliant pilot licences and should devolve competence for sub-ICAO pilot licensing to national authorities in those member states which have a desire for such licences. This would require a very minor amendment to the General Regulation, but that would first need political intervention.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite often they are the result of sophisticated modern equipment that the pilot cannot operate because of its complexity. There is no correlation between what you can afford and what you can operate. Any pilot should be capable of avoiding CAS by the use of traditional techniques and Mk1 equipment and not have to rely on equipment that can fail.
My own anecdotal experience is that the former is a far bigger issue than the latter, and I suspect NATS agree otherwise they would not have done the stunningly exceptional thing of backing that £150 GPS product - something which the CAA would have done over its dead body.
Of course the latter scenario is far more embarrassing
Thread Starter
but I do wonder which is the bigger issue?
The nice thing about vintage avionics is that all switches go both ways and don't have sub-menus.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would not be able to fly VFR right across Europe, as I used to do pre-IR, without a GPS.
Of course it is possible but one has to adopt a very conservative approach, because of the high possibility of human error, and the much higher cockpit workload. The price for messing up can be high, and ATC in some places gets awfully nervous as they are themselves only just hanging in there on the English comms.
In practice I would simply not bother to go anywhere except little local jollies along the coast or along well worn routes - much as perhaps 99% of UK GA does.
For me, and for every pilot who flies distances that I know personally, GPS is primary nav, VOR/DME is the backup (concurrent, usually), and if one had to fly on map+compass alone one would sell the plane and chuck it all in. Or buy some Rotax lawn mower and potter along the coast on Sundays. The stakes would be too high for it to be any fun.
Using a GPS as a backup for DR is like driving a Reliant Robin and towing a VW Golf with it, in case the Robin breaks down. It is the worst possible way of doing it.
Using DR as a backup for GPS is much more sensible, but one has to avoid flying in situations where DR is not going to work which is basically anywhere without copious features, or in poor vis.
The best backup for GPS is VOR/DME plus another (handheld) GPS. However, IIRC, DME is not taught in the PPL which is a pity since it is really simple.
I am not an instructor and won't pretend to be but this subject interests me because I believe the methods being taught are letting people down, badly.
Of course it is possible but one has to adopt a very conservative approach, because of the high possibility of human error, and the much higher cockpit workload. The price for messing up can be high, and ATC in some places gets awfully nervous as they are themselves only just hanging in there on the English comms.
In practice I would simply not bother to go anywhere except little local jollies along the coast or along well worn routes - much as perhaps 99% of UK GA does.
For me, and for every pilot who flies distances that I know personally, GPS is primary nav, VOR/DME is the backup (concurrent, usually), and if one had to fly on map+compass alone one would sell the plane and chuck it all in. Or buy some Rotax lawn mower and potter along the coast on Sundays. The stakes would be too high for it to be any fun.
Using a GPS as a backup for DR is like driving a Reliant Robin and towing a VW Golf with it, in case the Robin breaks down. It is the worst possible way of doing it.
Using DR as a backup for GPS is much more sensible, but one has to avoid flying in situations where DR is not going to work which is basically anywhere without copious features, or in poor vis.
The best backup for GPS is VOR/DME plus another (handheld) GPS. However, IIRC, DME is not taught in the PPL which is a pity since it is really simple.
I am not an instructor and won't pretend to be
but this subject interests me because I believe the methods being taught are letting people down, badly.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Europe
Age: 49
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DR is suposed to be the base of VFR navigation
Would you let an very experienced nurse do surgery to a relative?, why? because she is not a professional surgeon, she is only a nurse, it doesn´t matter how many surgery operations she´s been helping the surgeon to perform.
So why on earth would you want a non profesional instruct how to fly aeroplanes?, if he doesn´t do it well there is lots of dangerous things that can happen, to the student and 3rd persons, both airborne and on the ground.
I support the requirement of CPL level knowledge, I agree with some of you, there can be a very good PPL out there with little need of extra knowledge, but who can tell which PPL needs more knowledge?, nobody, so the only way to make sure all reach the minimum knowledge to be able to develop his instructing abbilities is for the people willing to do the FIC to have CPL level before they start.
As for the exams, the FTO´s giving you the theoretical tuition will make sure your knowledge is enough before you get to the exams, and memorizing the questions wont get you a pass, I believe the CAA usually changes a few of the questions regularly , just enough to avoid this, unless you know your stuff it is not likely you´ll get through.
IO540
If you do navigate with refference to the GPS info as a primary mean of navigation, then you are not flying VFR, you are flying not following the rules you should be following, wether this is an easier way or not for navigation and all that it`s another matter, so if you do not use DR as the primary mean of navigation YOU ARE FLYING ILEGALLY.
Besides, if you use GPS or radionavigation (VOR,ADF,DME) as primary chances are you are looking too much inside the cockpit, thus not applying the "see and avoid" rule, basis of VFR flying, you are putting yourself and others in danger.
The VFR rules say you have to be able to know your position by visually checking the terrain and/or other features below and around you, and use GPS and VOR/DME/ADF only to help you. If you do not feel confident doing it this way, I suggest you get an instructor to help you refresh and improve your DR skills, or else,to get an IR if you haven´t got one,and fly IFR.
Another option, as said by one of our colleagues, is to get the politicians/CAA to change the rules.
LEVC
So why on earth would you want a non profesional instruct how to fly aeroplanes?, if he doesn´t do it well there is lots of dangerous things that can happen, to the student and 3rd persons, both airborne and on the ground.
I support the requirement of CPL level knowledge, I agree with some of you, there can be a very good PPL out there with little need of extra knowledge, but who can tell which PPL needs more knowledge?, nobody, so the only way to make sure all reach the minimum knowledge to be able to develop his instructing abbilities is for the people willing to do the FIC to have CPL level before they start.
As for the exams, the FTO´s giving you the theoretical tuition will make sure your knowledge is enough before you get to the exams, and memorizing the questions wont get you a pass, I believe the CAA usually changes a few of the questions regularly , just enough to avoid this, unless you know your stuff it is not likely you´ll get through.
IO540
If you do navigate with refference to the GPS info as a primary mean of navigation, then you are not flying VFR, you are flying not following the rules you should be following, wether this is an easier way or not for navigation and all that it`s another matter, so if you do not use DR as the primary mean of navigation YOU ARE FLYING ILEGALLY.
Besides, if you use GPS or radionavigation (VOR,ADF,DME) as primary chances are you are looking too much inside the cockpit, thus not applying the "see and avoid" rule, basis of VFR flying, you are putting yourself and others in danger.
The VFR rules say you have to be able to know your position by visually checking the terrain and/or other features below and around you, and use GPS and VOR/DME/ADF only to help you. If you do not feel confident doing it this way, I suggest you get an instructor to help you refresh and improve your DR skills, or else,to get an IR if you haven´t got one,and fly IFR.
Another option, as said by one of our colleagues, is to get the politicians/CAA to change the rules.
LEVC
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so if you do not use DR as the primary mean of navigation YOU ARE FLYING ILEGALLY
Please point me at any legislation that states using a GPS instead of DR is illegal.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: IRS NAV ONLY
Posts: 1,230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't GPS's role in VFR navigation same as in IFR? It can be primary source of navigation, but not sole source. I really don't think how GPS or VOR/DME/NDB primary navigation while VFR is illegal?
My opinion is that using only GPS while VFR is illegal - but in order to do that you would have to fly under the hood, which wouldn't be VFR for that matter.
Just try to answer the following then: how would you (only by means of DR) positively identify a VFR fix over water that is only based on coordinates (and can be located via VOR/NDB radials and DME)? I imagine it would be very difficult. Should we just ban VFR over water, just because one cannot use DR to navigate?
Besides, this topic is drifting sideways...
My opinion is that using only GPS while VFR is illegal - but in order to do that you would have to fly under the hood, which wouldn't be VFR for that matter.
Just try to answer the following then: how would you (only by means of DR) positively identify a VFR fix over water that is only based on coordinates (and can be located via VOR/NDB radials and DME)? I imagine it would be very difficult. Should we just ban VFR over water, just because one cannot use DR to navigate?
Besides, this topic is drifting sideways...
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Europe
Age: 49
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I am pretty sure it´s writen in several official documents, but for a start and just by googleing "VFR navigation CAA", check this CAA stuff in the VFR guide http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/64/Using%20GPS.pdf
check what it says on the 3rd line, surprise!!!!!
It says exactly that GPS is not to be used as primary mean for VFR navigation.
You may also have a look in here too to see how the CAA expect you to navigate while VFR
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ga_srg_09webSSL05.pdf
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ga_srg_...L25October.pdf
Yes it is ilegal to fly VFR with GPS as primary mean of navigation.
You may like it or not, but it is the way it is.
LEVC
check what it says on the 3rd line, surprise!!!!!
It says exactly that GPS is not to be used as primary mean for VFR navigation.
You may also have a look in here too to see how the CAA expect you to navigate while VFR
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ga_srg_09webSSL05.pdf
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ga_srg_...L25October.pdf
Yes it is ilegal to fly VFR with GPS as primary mean of navigation.
You may like it or not, but it is the way it is.
LEVC
Remember that you do NOT need to be in sight of the surface to fly VFR!
How do you navigate above 8/8 in VMC outside CAS? DR??
GPS is an excellent navigation aid, yet some view it as a tool of Satan. Incidentally, what qualifies a GPS to be considered 'IFR approved'? The word of Garmin?
Any GPS should certainly be approved for en-route navigation in IMC above safety altitude without the need for other navigation aids. Some of us were taught to fly with only V/UHF DF as the available 'navigation aid' under such circumstances, so having a GPS available in addition should be entirely acceptable. But not, however, for terminal approaches unless a higher degree of performance is included in the GPS.
Devices such as the Garmin aera 500 series will become more and more popular. The CAA is going to have to accept that and MUST change its view on GPS navigation outside controlled airspace......whether VMC or IMC. Yes, much as it will shock certain €uropeans, in the UK we can fly IMC outside controlled airspace if we wish and are suitably qualified.
bose-x, your response to the absurd comments made by LEVC were remarkably restrained, I thought!
How do you navigate above 8/8 in VMC outside CAS? DR??
GPS is an excellent navigation aid, yet some view it as a tool of Satan. Incidentally, what qualifies a GPS to be considered 'IFR approved'? The word of Garmin?
Any GPS should certainly be approved for en-route navigation in IMC above safety altitude without the need for other navigation aids. Some of us were taught to fly with only V/UHF DF as the available 'navigation aid' under such circumstances, so having a GPS available in addition should be entirely acceptable. But not, however, for terminal approaches unless a higher degree of performance is included in the GPS.
Devices such as the Garmin aera 500 series will become more and more popular. The CAA is going to have to accept that and MUST change its view on GPS navigation outside controlled airspace......whether VMC or IMC. Yes, much as it will shock certain €uropeans, in the UK we can fly IMC outside controlled airspace if we wish and are suitably qualified.
bose-x, your response to the absurd comments made by LEVC were remarkably restrained, I thought!
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes it is ilegal to fly VFR with GPS as primary mean of navigation.
You may like it or not, but it is the way it is.
You may like it or not, but it is the way it is.
bose-x, your response to the absurd comments made by LEVC were remarkably restrained, I thought!
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Europe
Age: 49
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The links are for official documents published by the UK CAA, they are the ones in charge, the documents are there for a reason, and not to be used as toilet paper, although you may choose to use them for this purpose, democracy rules in the UK after all.
The CAA may, in the future , change it´s view on the use of GPS for VFR flights, untill they do, they expect GPS not to be used as primary mean of navigation when flying VFR, if you do, you are not following the rules, thus flying ilegally, wether it makes sense to you or to me, it is a different matter, we are talking about what is legal or not.
Of course GPS gizzmos are nice and reliable nowadays, and a very useful tools too, same for VOR´s & DME´s, but they are not accepted by the CAA as primary means for VFR navigation.
If that sounds an absurd, Beagle, you may want to refresh your knowledge on very basic regulations, which any FI should be familiar with.
LEVC
The CAA may, in the future , change it´s view on the use of GPS for VFR flights, untill they do, they expect GPS not to be used as primary mean of navigation when flying VFR, if you do, you are not following the rules, thus flying ilegally, wether it makes sense to you or to me, it is a different matter, we are talking about what is legal or not.
Of course GPS gizzmos are nice and reliable nowadays, and a very useful tools too, same for VOR´s & DME´s, but they are not accepted by the CAA as primary means for VFR navigation.
If that sounds an absurd, Beagle, you may want to refresh your knowledge on very basic regulations, which any FI should be familiar with.
LEVC