EASA Part FCL
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LEVC, so far you have insulted Beagle who will have forgotten more about teaching than most of us will ever learn in a lifetime and have done nothing but quote a few CAA leaflets that are CAA opinion at best.
I am merely asking you to quote the LAW which after all is what will back up your assertion that flying using a GPS as the sole means of navigation is ILLEGAL. You must know where to find the LAW as you have been so vociferous in your assertion that it is ILLEGAL.
Us 'new boys' will be glad to bow to your superior knowledge when you do that one simple thing for us. So come on put your money where you mouth is..... I stand by to be educated.
I am merely asking you to quote the LAW which after all is what will back up your assertion that flying using a GPS as the sole means of navigation is ILLEGAL. You must know where to find the LAW as you have been so vociferous in your assertion that it is ILLEGAL.
Us 'new boys' will be glad to bow to your superior knowledge when you do that one simple thing for us. So come on put your money where you mouth is..... I stand by to be educated.
LEVC - You are an arrogant fool and, what is more, you are demonstrably wrong.
Rule 25 of the Rules of the Air Regulations states
Nowhere in Rule 27, 28, 29 or 30 is there any reference to navigational technique or to the use of GPS. Consequently, your statement that it is "ilegal to fly VFR with GPS as primary mean of navigation" is entirely incorrect, both factually and grammatically.
You are making the very basic error (typical of the inexperienced) of confusing CAA guidance with the law and you would do well to take heed of your, somewhat offensive, advice to BEagle and refresh your knowledge of the regulations, which is currently sadly inadequate.
Rule 25 of the Rules of the Air Regulations states
(1) Within controlled airspace rules 27, 29 and 30 shall be the Visual Flight Rules.
(2) Outside controlled airspace rule 28 shall be the Visual Flight Rules.
(2) Outside controlled airspace rule 28 shall be the Visual Flight Rules.
You are making the very basic error (typical of the inexperienced) of confusing CAA guidance with the law and you would do well to take heed of your, somewhat offensive, advice to BEagle and refresh your knowledge of the regulations, which is currently sadly inadequate.
LEVC, do please enlighten us. To which 'very basic regulations' do you refer?
No need to quote them in full as I realise that your English is barely up to ICAO Level 4 standard. Just the ANO references will suffice.
Assuming, that is, that know what the ANO actually is....
No need to quote them in full as I realise that your English is barely up to ICAO Level 4 standard. Just the ANO references will suffice.
Assuming, that is, that know what the ANO actually is....
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Europe
Age: 49
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You mean if itīs not in the ANO it is not regulated?, In thought the UK CAA was a regulatory body, and that they do have a say on how aircrafts are operated in the UK, if they provide you with guidance as to how to operate a VFR flight I think you must stick to it, unless one has this kind of superior judgement you made refference to earlier.
I can think of several matters not covered specifically in the UK ANO but regulated by the UK CAA that can get you or anyone not complying in to trouble, legal kind of trouble I mean.
By the way if you have any trouble understanding my post, just let me know and Iīll get double checked for any gramatical or spelling mistake.
LEVC
I can think of several matters not covered specifically in the UK ANO but regulated by the UK CAA that can get you or anyone not complying in to trouble, legal kind of trouble I mean.
By the way if you have any trouble understanding my post, just let me know and Iīll get double checked for any gramatical or spelling mistake.
LEVC
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Up North
Age: 57
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VFR navigtion
LEVC
As someone who's learned their lesson regarding "sloppy" posting, I'd suggest you really should be sure of your facts before hitting the submit button. It's easy to try and present opinion as fact or law unless you're careful.
CAA guides and safety leaflets, even LASORS are not the law, they are either the CAA's recommendations, guidance and advice or their opinion or interpretation. The law is what's in the ANO, and there's simply nothing in the rules of the air, visual flight rules, to back up your assertations regarding the use of GPS and other radio aids for navigating while VFR.
As someone who's learned their lesson regarding "sloppy" posting, I'd suggest you really should be sure of your facts before hitting the submit button. It's easy to try and present opinion as fact or law unless you're careful.
CAA guides and safety leaflets, even LASORS are not the law, they are either the CAA's recommendations, guidance and advice or their opinion or interpretation. The law is what's in the ANO, and there's simply nothing in the rules of the air, visual flight rules, to back up your assertations regarding the use of GPS and other radio aids for navigating while VFR.
Thread Starter
In thought the UK CAA was a regulatory body
The latter assumes that it has the necessary technical expertise to do so. In recent years with cost cutting in place, the CAA's expertise has fallen to an all time low. It is not their job to tell people how to operate aeroplanes; only to ensure that they do so safely and in accordance with the current regulation. It has a little more autonomy when it comes to the issue of licences and approvals.
Last edited by Whopity; 14th Jul 2010 at 08:12.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LEVC, you really are rather foolish. If I were to fly across an expanse of water (lets say the Irish Sea) I will have no means of visually confirming my position. Consequently, I can either use the GPS or, even worse 
, fly using RNAV. If I do either of the latter, are you telling me that I'm breaking the law? If so, I'll take myself straight to the CAA and demand my public spanking.
Now, can I suggest you understand regulatory principles. The only regulatory document is the ANO; everything else is an interpretation and expansion of this document. If you are perceived to be breaking the law, you can only be charged against one or more of the rules stipulated in the ANO.
, fly using RNAV. If I do either of the latter, are you telling me that I'm breaking the law? If so, I'll take myself straight to the CAA and demand my public spanking.Now, can I suggest you understand regulatory principles. The only regulatory document is the ANO; everything else is an interpretation and expansion of this document. If you are perceived to be breaking the law, you can only be charged against one or more of the rules stipulated in the ANO.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Emirates Living - The Meadows
Age: 79
Posts: 405
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AEIO540
The point I was making re CAS incursions was that CPL/ATPL pilot thinks in a different way than a PPL pilot regardless of the experience of either. i.e a low hour CPL FI 200hrs TT is a professional pilot and having demonstrated to the authority that they are such a professional they have no excuse for doing and therefore likely teaching the student anything other than that same standard. Where as even a 3000hr PPL is still a PPL.
Whopity I agree that some of the rules were made by very knowledgeable people and also that some of the rules were/are very good but many need change. I agree with you and BEagle re the fact that the CPL exam question bank needs a big change.
I also think that GPS are a marvellous invention and will soon be so standard in every single vehicle air or other that exists that that the legislation will have to change to reflect this. I mean do we teach use of sextant for night flying even at ATPL level this is gone now.
However re IO540s comment I do not agree that CAS incursions are anything other than poor instruction and weak technique. The source of this weak technique sorry I would argue is that the instructors are not subject to sufficient standardization and professional standards, they are not united enough as a profession should be because they are not all professional pilots............
I cannot see what CAS busts have to do with the pilot's instructor having sat the 11 or so (14 in most cases; CPL/IR) CPL exams.
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.
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.
Whopity I agree that some of the rules were made by very knowledgeable people and also that some of the rules were/are very good but many need change. I agree with you and BEagle re the fact that the CPL exam question bank needs a big change.
I also think that GPS are a marvellous invention and will soon be so standard in every single vehicle air or other that exists that that the legislation will have to change to reflect this. I mean do we teach use of sextant for night flying even at ATPL level this is gone now.
However re IO540s comment I do not agree that CAS incursions are anything other than poor instruction and weak technique. The source of this weak technique sorry I would argue is that the instructors are not subject to sufficient standardization and professional standards, they are not united enough as a profession should be because they are not all professional pilots............
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a low hour CPL FI 200hrs TT is a professional pilot and having demonstrated to the authority that they are such a professional they have no excuse for doing and therefore likely teaching the student anything other than that same standard. Where as even a 3000hr PPL is still a PPL.
I do not agree that CAS incursions are anything other than poor instruction and weak technique.
Not suggesting that anything can be done about any of this from the regulatory end. Introducing GPS into PPL training would force mandatory installation which would be fiercely resisted by the industry, and you still have the variation in user interfaces, etc. It will never happen.
It will instead be sorted from the practical end: given time (another 20 years, in the UK) most of the fleet will be glass cockpits, and sticking a huge post-it pad over these is not viable. The FAA has done a master stroke (probably inadvertent) by requiring a checkride candidate to demonstrate competence on all installed equipment (to the extent applicable to the test so e.g. no need to program a G1000 for a GPS approach on a VFR checkride) and this indirectly forces the introduction of GPS in the ground school.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The FAA has done a master stroke (probably inadvertent) by requiring a checkride candidate to demonstrate competence on all installed equipment (to the extent applicable to the test so e.g. no need to program a G1000 for a GPS approach on a VFR checkride) and this indirectly forces the introduction of GPS in the ground school.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lots of misunderstandings here.
First, there is the total misunderstanding with regard to the difference between VFR - Visual Flight Rules and navigation techniques. They are not the same and in fact are not in any way related. The main requirement on a VFR flight is to remain in VMC. There are some others but how the flight navigates is not one of them. Remember that the requirement for adequate lookout applies to all flights - VFR and IFR and as BEagle correctly pointed out VFR is legal above an overcast provided that it is VMC.
If IO540 can not navigate from A to B across Europe without a GPS that is more an issue with IO540's abilities than a problem with the system of navigation when properly taught.
Ded Reckoning (DR) is not a navigation technique in it's self. DR is simply a method of projecting where one expects the aircraft to be at a future time based on certain assumptions.
VFR flights generally use Visual Navigation they look out the window and see where they are. At the lower levels this is the most accurate form of navigation.
Pilots using Visual navigation will also often use DR to give a heading to fly and then update this heading based on their actual progress (visual navigation). This is the primary method of navigation taught. DR and other associated methods are also covered. Problem is that at PPL and CPL level the candidate is required to demonstrate the ability to apply DR during the test and unfortunately this is mistaken for a requirement to use DR as a sole technique and at all times. That is not the case.
Let's make some things clear - Sole means of navigation means that the information derived from that source is the only information on which the progress (and safety) of the aircraft is based on.
Primary source of navigation means that more than one source of navigation information is available but should there be a difference in information the primary source will be deemed correct.
Also, for an electronic system to be used as sole or primary source of navigation information it must be an approved instalation and must meet the applicable performance requirements. This applies to unfiltered VOR instalations as much as unapproved GPS instalations. No handheld GPS (or other) units are approved.
So for the average VFR flight unless they have an approved GPS instalation and comply with the requirements for using such an instalation the GPS will never be either the sole source or the primary source of navigational information.
BEagle mentioned flying above an overcast. Yes DR can be used provided that an appropriate allowance is made for the lack of updates from visual navigation and therefore after 100nm the circle within which the aircraft could be may be large if there is a strong wind. Same goes for flying across the ocean. However, while a handheld GPS can in such cases provide some information which is always better than none at all, it would be rather poor technique to set out on a flight above an 8/8 cloud layer without having first determined a DR heading and time i.e. relying on the GPS to provide these.
Therefore one could argue that pilots who can't navigate visually and who only get by using a GPS are permanently lost even when visual with the surface and as everyone knows when lost any information is better than no information al all - eh IO540?
In sumary, not having the ability to navigate accurately without GPS does not in any way mean that Visual Navigaytion is any less efficient or accurate when done by a competent pilot (of any level). Unless the GPS instalation is approved it can not be used as primary or sole source of navigation information.
Finally, GPS does not replace DR. One still has to complete a plan pre-flight which of course will be DR since the actual winds etc are not known at that stage. During flight while GPS will provide a continuous indication of position and track it will only ever display the current track and curent groundspeed. Therefore for efficient navigation the pilot needs to be able to apply DR to future progress inorder to determine what the groundspeed will be on different tracks and also to work out what heading to fly to follow a track of 090 when the current track is 060 and the wind is 180/30.
It has taken a long time for GPS to evolve to the current situation where when you look at the screen it looks very similar to what you see when you look out the window. I still find it hard to understand how an older GPS with very few ground features indicated provides more information than looking out the window where everything is in full view. Oh of course, it is very hard to read the road signs from 2000ft and the GPS names the towns - yes, but isn't the inability to read a map and know what the name of the town over there is the fault of the pilot rather than the system of navigation??
First, there is the total misunderstanding with regard to the difference between VFR - Visual Flight Rules and navigation techniques. They are not the same and in fact are not in any way related. The main requirement on a VFR flight is to remain in VMC. There are some others but how the flight navigates is not one of them. Remember that the requirement for adequate lookout applies to all flights - VFR and IFR and as BEagle correctly pointed out VFR is legal above an overcast provided that it is VMC.
If IO540 can not navigate from A to B across Europe without a GPS that is more an issue with IO540's abilities than a problem with the system of navigation when properly taught.
Ded Reckoning (DR) is not a navigation technique in it's self. DR is simply a method of projecting where one expects the aircraft to be at a future time based on certain assumptions.
VFR flights generally use Visual Navigation they look out the window and see where they are. At the lower levels this is the most accurate form of navigation.
Pilots using Visual navigation will also often use DR to give a heading to fly and then update this heading based on their actual progress (visual navigation). This is the primary method of navigation taught. DR and other associated methods are also covered. Problem is that at PPL and CPL level the candidate is required to demonstrate the ability to apply DR during the test and unfortunately this is mistaken for a requirement to use DR as a sole technique and at all times. That is not the case.
Let's make some things clear - Sole means of navigation means that the information derived from that source is the only information on which the progress (and safety) of the aircraft is based on.
Primary source of navigation means that more than one source of navigation information is available but should there be a difference in information the primary source will be deemed correct.
Also, for an electronic system to be used as sole or primary source of navigation information it must be an approved instalation and must meet the applicable performance requirements. This applies to unfiltered VOR instalations as much as unapproved GPS instalations. No handheld GPS (or other) units are approved.
So for the average VFR flight unless they have an approved GPS instalation and comply with the requirements for using such an instalation the GPS will never be either the sole source or the primary source of navigational information.
BEagle mentioned flying above an overcast. Yes DR can be used provided that an appropriate allowance is made for the lack of updates from visual navigation and therefore after 100nm the circle within which the aircraft could be may be large if there is a strong wind. Same goes for flying across the ocean. However, while a handheld GPS can in such cases provide some information which is always better than none at all, it would be rather poor technique to set out on a flight above an 8/8 cloud layer without having first determined a DR heading and time i.e. relying on the GPS to provide these.
Therefore one could argue that pilots who can't navigate visually and who only get by using a GPS are permanently lost even when visual with the surface and as everyone knows when lost any information is better than no information al all - eh IO540?
In sumary, not having the ability to navigate accurately without GPS does not in any way mean that Visual Navigaytion is any less efficient or accurate when done by a competent pilot (of any level). Unless the GPS instalation is approved it can not be used as primary or sole source of navigation information.
Finally, GPS does not replace DR. One still has to complete a plan pre-flight which of course will be DR since the actual winds etc are not known at that stage. During flight while GPS will provide a continuous indication of position and track it will only ever display the current track and curent groundspeed. Therefore for efficient navigation the pilot needs to be able to apply DR to future progress inorder to determine what the groundspeed will be on different tracks and also to work out what heading to fly to follow a track of 090 when the current track is 060 and the wind is 180/30.
It has taken a long time for GPS to evolve to the current situation where when you look at the screen it looks very similar to what you see when you look out the window. I still find it hard to understand how an older GPS with very few ground features indicated provides more information than looking out the window where everything is in full view. Oh of course, it is very hard to read the road signs from 2000ft and the GPS names the towns - yes, but isn't the inability to read a map and know what the name of the town over there is the fault of the pilot rather than the system of navigation??
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: IRS NAV ONLY
Posts: 1,230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also worth mentioning, GPS has a lot more functions than just "follow magenta line", which is actually what most owners/users of it do - sadly...
Even the oldest GPS gives you the most important information: position (latitude, longitude), ground speed and TRUE TRACK. In my opinion, flying dead-reckoning (as IO540 suggests) across the Europe is stupid. With GPS (or radio-navigation if you fly VOR to VOR/NDB) you can fly approximately great circle tracks, while with dead reckoning you have to be a magician to fly calculated headings and get no drift whatsoever. And if you forget to check your average Directional Indicator every 10 minutes, you might end up flying to origin instead of destination after an hour. From my experience, flying true tracks indicated by GPS instead of compass heading, calculated with various roundings in the process is much much better and accurate, it gives you very little drift. Sadly, many instructors don't teach various GPS techniques, but only D-> and follow magenta line until you see the destination airport.
My opinion on GPS and all the new technology: if you have it, use it. That of course doesn't mean you have to stare into your shiny new G1000 from rotation to flare...
You should always however maintain reduncancy in navigation: if GPS dies, you always have a backup one. If even that fails, you have VOR/NDB/DME and if all hell brakes loose, you still have good old DR. If you only know how to use DR, havent tracked a radial/QDM/QDR for ages and GPS is the worst sin on Earth you could possibly commit, then whenever the wind forecast is wrong, you will get either lost or at least enormous drift.
My 2 cents....
Even the oldest GPS gives you the most important information: position (latitude, longitude), ground speed and TRUE TRACK. In my opinion, flying dead-reckoning (as IO540 suggests) across the Europe is stupid. With GPS (or radio-navigation if you fly VOR to VOR/NDB) you can fly approximately great circle tracks, while with dead reckoning you have to be a magician to fly calculated headings and get no drift whatsoever. And if you forget to check your average Directional Indicator every 10 minutes, you might end up flying to origin instead of destination after an hour. From my experience, flying true tracks indicated by GPS instead of compass heading, calculated with various roundings in the process is much much better and accurate, it gives you very little drift. Sadly, many instructors don't teach various GPS techniques, but only D-> and follow magenta line until you see the destination airport.
My opinion on GPS and all the new technology: if you have it, use it. That of course doesn't mean you have to stare into your shiny new G1000 from rotation to flare...
You should always however maintain reduncancy in navigation: if GPS dies, you always have a backup one. If even that fails, you have VOR/NDB/DME and if all hell brakes loose, you still have good old DR. If you only know how to use DR, havent tracked a radial/QDM/QDR for ages and GPS is the worst sin on Earth you could possibly commit, then whenever the wind forecast is wrong, you will get either lost or at least enormous drift.
My 2 cents....
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and that is a 100% perfect example of tyhe total misunderstanding I am talking about.
FlyingStone,
Why on earth would you solely rely on DR when you can look out the window and see exactly where you are? i.e. Visual Navigation.
When you look out the window you see exactly where you are - 100% accurate. No errors you are absolutley 100% where your eyes see that you are when you look out the window.
The problem comes when you want to name the village you are over and you are unable to corelate what you see on the map and what you see out the window.
Visual navigation presents the user with two pictures of the same situation - one out the window and on on a piece of paper. They are the same. However, some skill is required to map read and sadly it is lacking. map reading is essential for visual navigation - in it's most basic form following roads, railways and rivers. This basic skill is missing in those that can not use this method.
Now why would anyone get lost using visual navigation if the wind is different from planned (which it is a lot of the time).
navigation exercise:
Fly from Atown (VOR at it's centre) to Btown (VOR at it's centre) which is directly East 60nm in your 120Kt aircraft. The two towns are joined by a wandering railway track.
1. Visual navigation - follow the railway track. Works 100% but not very efficient due to the wandering track. Hard to work out ETA
2. Visual navigation - calculate a heading and time that you expect will work and after 6 minutes check your progress, adjust back onto track and fly directly to Btown.
3. VOR/dme - calculate a heading and time that you expect will work and if the heading does not work adjust back onto track (and the eta if applicable) and fly directly to Btown.
4. GPS - calculate a heading and time that you expect will work and if heading does not work adjust back onto track (and eta if applicable) and fly to Btown.
Perhaps it is me but 2, 3 and 4 above are exactly the same navigation technique but with different sources of information - Visual information, VOR/DME or GPS.
May questions for anyone who dismisses the pre-calculation of headings for a navigation exercise / crosscountry flight are;
1. How do you determine how much fuel you are going to require; and
2. How do you determine that a) the aid you are using is working and that the flight is proceeding (close to) as planned?
Finally, I have to point out that on most commonally used navigation charts at PPL level when one draws a straight line it is a great circle. Therefore following the pencil line on your half million will cause you to fly a great circle - just like the GPS will do so provided one can navigate visually one can fly as accurately and as efficiently as when using a GPS.
PS GPS is part of the PPL sylabus and should be included in the practical aspects of visual navigation i.e. DR is only one aspect of the overall sylabus and not the only piece that should the taught simply because that specific element is what people find difficult and is guaranteed to be tested.
FlyingStone,
Why on earth would you solely rely on DR when you can look out the window and see exactly where you are? i.e. Visual Navigation.
When you look out the window you see exactly where you are - 100% accurate. No errors you are absolutley 100% where your eyes see that you are when you look out the window.
The problem comes when you want to name the village you are over and you are unable to corelate what you see on the map and what you see out the window.
Visual navigation presents the user with two pictures of the same situation - one out the window and on on a piece of paper. They are the same. However, some skill is required to map read and sadly it is lacking. map reading is essential for visual navigation - in it's most basic form following roads, railways and rivers. This basic skill is missing in those that can not use this method.
If you only know how to use DR, havent tracked a radial/QDM/QDR for ages and GPS is the worst sin on Earth you could possibly commit, then whenever the wind forecast is wrong, you will get either lost or at least enormous drift.
navigation exercise:
Fly from Atown (VOR at it's centre) to Btown (VOR at it's centre) which is directly East 60nm in your 120Kt aircraft. The two towns are joined by a wandering railway track.
1. Visual navigation - follow the railway track. Works 100% but not very efficient due to the wandering track. Hard to work out ETA
2. Visual navigation - calculate a heading and time that you expect will work and after 6 minutes check your progress, adjust back onto track and fly directly to Btown.
3. VOR/dme - calculate a heading and time that you expect will work and if the heading does not work adjust back onto track (and the eta if applicable) and fly directly to Btown.
4. GPS - calculate a heading and time that you expect will work and if heading does not work adjust back onto track (and eta if applicable) and fly to Btown.
Perhaps it is me but 2, 3 and 4 above are exactly the same navigation technique but with different sources of information - Visual information, VOR/DME or GPS.
May questions for anyone who dismisses the pre-calculation of headings for a navigation exercise / crosscountry flight are;
1. How do you determine how much fuel you are going to require; and
2. How do you determine that a) the aid you are using is working and that the flight is proceeding (close to) as planned?
Finally, I have to point out that on most commonally used navigation charts at PPL level when one draws a straight line it is a great circle. Therefore following the pencil line on your half million will cause you to fly a great circle - just like the GPS will do so provided one can navigate visually one can fly as accurately and as efficiently as when using a GPS.
PS GPS is part of the PPL sylabus and should be included in the practical aspects of visual navigation i.e. DR is only one aspect of the overall sylabus and not the only piece that should the taught simply because that specific element is what people find difficult and is guaranteed to be tested.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forgot to say;
DR in isolation is for navigating on top of an 8/8 clound layer or over the sea out of sight of land when no other navigation information is available.
I can't think of anywhere in Europe where that applies for more than a few minutes when flying VFR in signt of the surface with no radio aids or GPS.
Therefore it is safe to say that in Europe even without any radio aids or a GPS one is still not going to use DR on it's own.
Perhaps that can clear up one of the biggest problems
DR in isolation is for navigating on top of an 8/8 clound layer or over the sea out of sight of land when no other navigation information is available.
I can't think of anywhere in Europe where that applies for more than a few minutes when flying VFR in signt of the surface with no radio aids or GPS.
Therefore it is safe to say that in Europe even without any radio aids or a GPS one is still not going to use DR on it's own.
Perhaps that can clear up one of the biggest problems
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: IRS NAV ONLY
Posts: 1,230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC, I was only referring to earlier posts where LEVC insisted DR is only legal mean of navigation for VFR flights... 
I've done DR, I never got so lost I couldn't determine my position within a minute or two. But now when almost every aircraft has GPS, I use it since as you've said, it gives you pretty accurate ETA and everything else.
I've done DR, I never got so lost I couldn't determine my position within a minute or two. But now when almost every aircraft has GPS, I use it since as you've said, it gives you pretty accurate ETA and everything else.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh yes, dear old DFC... welcome back 
I didn't say I can't. I said I wouldn't dream of even trying it due to the potential for trouble.
Most accurate? Oh dear...
For crop spraying, maybe. I believe that is among your several hundred specialities (which include test flying the lunar landing module) so I won't argue with that.
Reference please... (for GPS usage under VFR)
No, don't bother, there isn't one.
I hope you are not a currently working instructor, "DFC". I had a chemistry teacher at school who ensured that a couple of generations of kids hated chemistry.
If IO540 can not navigate from A to B across Europe without a GPS that is more an issue with IO540's abilities than a problem with the system of navigation when properly taught.
VFR flights generally use Visual Navigation they look out the window and see where they are. At the lower levels this is the most accurate form of navigation.
For crop spraying, maybe. I believe that is among your several hundred specialities (which include test flying the lunar landing module) so I won't argue with that.
Also, for an electronic system to be used as sole or primary source of navigation information it must be an approved instalation and must meet the applicable performance requirements.
No, don't bother, there isn't one.
I hope you are not a currently working instructor, "DFC". I had a chemistry teacher at school who ensured that a couple of generations of kids hated chemistry.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO540,
You seem to have totally missed the reason for having VOR, NDB, ILS and GPS not to mention airspeed indicators, altimeters etc
If I give a GPS to a 5 year old and they can't manage to navigate between A and B is that a problem with GPS or a problem with the ability of the 5 year old to operate an advanced electronic unit?
You say
Where is the potential for trouble if one is a competent person when it comes to visual navigation?
I teach at all levels and I do include GPS as part of the PPL sylabus because it is a required element.
However, one can never get away from the fact that GPS is there to replicate what is already possible based on visual navigation just like VOR, ILS, NDB and DME.
Now most of those navaids were brought into use because when one flies in cloud one can no longer use visual navigation so we need the next best thing we can get to replace the information we are missing i.e. that we are going to miss the hill out to the left and the mast to the right without being so low that we clip that chimney below aka ILS.
The problem is that no matter what system is used - VOR, NDB, ILS, GPS, they all have some error even if it is very small. As someone who claims to be an engineering based person you must understand this basic principle.
Therefore you will also understand that all of the above are designed to replace the information that can be seen easily by the mark 1 eyeball when flying in visual met conditions in contact with the surface. Even the mark 1 eyeball gets more accurate as it gets closer to the runway and can beat any CAT3B ILS at deciding if the nosewheel is on the centerline or not.........provided that the pilot is skilled and competent.
If I fly over my house and look down to see that I am directly over my house then I am directly over my house. I do not have to take into acccount various RSS errors that occur in the system or atmospheric issues or thre latest sun flares.
So when navigating visually, why would any competent person with an up to date map have to rely on GPS (or any other aid) to tell them what they should already know?
You are very confused. Are you asking for a reference as to the use of GPS as a primary / sole information source for safe navigation or are you asking about flying VFR? the two are not automatically linked.
In order for a non-visual aid to be used for navigation it must be certified. The reference is the ANO. Forget GPS. If your VOR is not FM immune then it can not be relied upon for primary / sole source of navigation. That is becuase non-FM immune VORs are no longer certified as such. the same applies to non-approved GPS instalations and of course hand-hel GPS units.
Being very accurate and being certified are separate issues.
PS Don't slag off instructors too much. Some day one will stick round you lomg enough to teach you how to navigate without a crutch!!
You seem to have totally missed the reason for having VOR, NDB, ILS and GPS not to mention airspeed indicators, altimeters etc
If I give a GPS to a 5 year old and they can't manage to navigate between A and B is that a problem with GPS or a problem with the ability of the 5 year old to operate an advanced electronic unit?
You say
I didn't say I can't. I said I wouldn't dream of even trying it due to the potential for trouble.
I teach at all levels and I do include GPS as part of the PPL sylabus because it is a required element.
However, one can never get away from the fact that GPS is there to replicate what is already possible based on visual navigation just like VOR, ILS, NDB and DME.
Now most of those navaids were brought into use because when one flies in cloud one can no longer use visual navigation so we need the next best thing we can get to replace the information we are missing i.e. that we are going to miss the hill out to the left and the mast to the right without being so low that we clip that chimney below aka ILS.
The problem is that no matter what system is used - VOR, NDB, ILS, GPS, they all have some error even if it is very small. As someone who claims to be an engineering based person you must understand this basic principle.
Therefore you will also understand that all of the above are designed to replace the information that can be seen easily by the mark 1 eyeball when flying in visual met conditions in contact with the surface. Even the mark 1 eyeball gets more accurate as it gets closer to the runway and can beat any CAT3B ILS at deciding if the nosewheel is on the centerline or not.........provided that the pilot is skilled and competent.
If I fly over my house and look down to see that I am directly over my house then I am directly over my house. I do not have to take into acccount various RSS errors that occur in the system or atmospheric issues or thre latest sun flares.
So when navigating visually, why would any competent person with an up to date map have to rely on GPS (or any other aid) to tell them what they should already know?
Reference please... (for GPS usage under VFR)
In order for a non-visual aid to be used for navigation it must be certified. The reference is the ANO. Forget GPS. If your VOR is not FM immune then it can not be relied upon for primary / sole source of navigation. That is becuase non-FM immune VORs are no longer certified as such. the same applies to non-approved GPS instalations and of course hand-hel GPS units.
Being very accurate and being certified are separate issues.
PS Don't slag off instructors too much. Some day one will stick round you lomg enough to teach you how to navigate without a crutch!!
but isn't the inability to read a map and know what the name of the town over there is the fault of the pilot rather than the system of navigation??
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Accident and infringement rates are indeed the fault of the pilot when they can't navigate.
Everyone accepts that pilots using GPS will reduce the incident rate.
However, there are lots of pilots these days who like for example IO540 are constantly telling us that unless they have GPS information available they would be unable to navigate visually.
Perhaps we should thank these pilots for using GPS and recognising their failings and doing something that will reduce the carnage they leave in their wake.
But that should not be a reason for ignoring the fact that there are more and more pilots who can not navigate visually.
Everyone accepts that pilots using GPS will reduce the incident rate.
However, there are lots of pilots these days who like for example IO540 are constantly telling us that unless they have GPS information available they would be unable to navigate visually.
Perhaps we should thank these pilots for using GPS and recognising their failings and doing something that will reduce the carnage they leave in their wake.
But that should not be a reason for ignoring the fact that there are more and more pilots who can not navigate visually.
