DR Navigation
NVFR is possibly harder than IFR
Quote:
NVFR is possibly harder than IFR
It's been a while since I've flown NVFR but it's definitely not harder than IFR.
NVFR is possibly harder than IFR
It's been a while since I've flown NVFR but it's definitely not harder than IFR.
IFR for a current and experienced IR pilot is WAY easier in similar benign conditions that are a requirement for NVFR!
But then again, NVFR is pretty easy for a current and experienced IR pilot also!
Dr
That quote may have come from one of my posts. The point I would make is that NVFR in good conditions is not much harder than VFR. In that regard smiling monkey is correct. But NVFR in adverse conditions can be harder than IFR. With IFR you are on the gauges. Full stop. NVFR is a shandy and visual illusions from black nights, sunsets, and partial cloud make it a lot harder without full IF training to support it. Unless the NVFR flight is sightseeing around the "patch" you can't be sure when you'll be unexpectedly in a tough situation. You can only see towns 50 mile away if there is no cloud and its hard to identify cloud at night
Quote:
Does anyone know the definition of "full time licensed flight navigator"?
Does anyone know the definition of "full time licensed flight navigator"?
That would be a person holding a Flight Navigator's license
Last edited by ForkTailedDrKiller; 31st May 2013 at 06:58.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so nothing to preclude you launching off into complete darkness with all the issues that come with that (illusions, possibility of CFIT, possibility of inadvertent IMC, etc etc).
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 71
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
flight navigator licence??
why would you want a flight navigator's licence??
I would not be surprised if the rating vanished after WW2, and if not then, then about the time that flight engineers vanished.
navigation is the skill area developed between the restricted licence and the unrestricted licence when learning to become a private pilot in australia.
the restricted licence was the point that just about everyone ran out of money and had to pause in the flying to save up some more. the GFPT that is issued now instead of the restricted PPL isnt nearly as nice as the old Restricted licence because it doesnt allow the daily inspection to be signed off.
for the life of me I cant understand why you would want that licence.
I would not be surprised if the rating vanished after WW2, and if not then, then about the time that flight engineers vanished.
navigation is the skill area developed between the restricted licence and the unrestricted licence when learning to become a private pilot in australia.
the restricted licence was the point that just about everyone ran out of money and had to pause in the flying to save up some more. the GFPT that is issued now instead of the restricted PPL isnt nearly as nice as the old Restricted licence because it doesnt allow the daily inspection to be signed off.
for the life of me I cant understand why you would want that licence.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Australia
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't want the license, I'm just curious as to why it is in the AIP under navigation of an IFR flight despite nothing being mentioned on the CASA site. I also assume that if the flight is navigated by a full time licensed flight navigator that deduced reckoning can then be used as a navigation technique?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools.’ Douglas Bader.
I have been flying for a long time now – Student Pilot License issued Nov 1963. My Night VMC test was undertaken in Dec 1967.
The requirements then are a bit obscure now, but at that time there were very few GA pilots with an instrument rating. The training required was, I think, some limited panel IF instruction and some instruction on intercepting and tracking to and from a navaid. Having met a standard satisfactory to your CFI you undertook a Nav exercise at night which had to include a dog leg route over a nominated visual fix in visual conditions. If you did that successfully you were given the rating. In those days most instructors had very little more experience at the task than the student. Anyone with experience had probably achieved it illegally any way. I may be wrong but I think the rating was brought in because modern American light aircraft were being imported in large numbers and they could be used legally at night in the USA. As well, it was legal to conduct charter flights at night in a twin engine aeroplane if you held a class four instrument rating and a night VMC rating. The class four instrument rating was a qualification to navigate solely with reference to a navaid – that meant, the ability to intercept and track to or from a VOR or NDB, it didn’t confer any rights to do it in IMC but you could fly over cloud without the requirement for 30 minute visual fixes. The Dead/Ded Reckoning was the only method available to fly over featureless terrain at night, often at low level to stay clear of cloud; Cobar to Parkes for instance below 5000 feet. You calculated the course and flew the heading. The destination might occur on your left or right!!
There were none-the-less, other checks and balances which have been dispensed with today. Flight plans were compulsory. Operational approval lay with the Department of Civil Aviation so they assessed the weather as well as the pilot. There were eight classifications of cloud cover instead of today’s five and they were more conservative. Departmental presence took the form of established Flight Service Units and mobile Examiners of Airmen, who actually flew themselves in Departmental Aeroplanes and who did know what was going on. As well, they were generally well respected. Thorough endorsements were required for each type of aircraft you flew. Rules were published on paper in the form of the Act, the Regulations and the Civil Aviation Orders, none of which changed much or often and were provided without cost. Compliance was with the spirit, rather than the letter of the law. Accidents were seen as such and generally scalps weren’t sought. Aero Clubs were vibrant and the young were fostered and counseled by their peers. Safety Digests were treasured, widely read and discussed. Access to workshops, hangars and airports and schools was virtually unrestricted.
Sadly, nowadays, there is little left of the industry of old; little experience in the schools; little camaraderie socially; no respect for the regulator; a mix of old rules and new, bewildering in their complexity and changing day to day.
I feel very sorry for people like Jseward who is obviously keen to learn and understand what is behind the plethora of regulations he/she has to deal with in their training and need to resort to the anonymous “experts” of the internet for guidance. The genesis of most rules lies in hard learnt experience. The rules continue to exist often past their use-by-date whilst the reasons for them are lost in time.
I have been flying for a long time now – Student Pilot License issued Nov 1963. My Night VMC test was undertaken in Dec 1967.
The requirements then are a bit obscure now, but at that time there were very few GA pilots with an instrument rating. The training required was, I think, some limited panel IF instruction and some instruction on intercepting and tracking to and from a navaid. Having met a standard satisfactory to your CFI you undertook a Nav exercise at night which had to include a dog leg route over a nominated visual fix in visual conditions. If you did that successfully you were given the rating. In those days most instructors had very little more experience at the task than the student. Anyone with experience had probably achieved it illegally any way. I may be wrong but I think the rating was brought in because modern American light aircraft were being imported in large numbers and they could be used legally at night in the USA. As well, it was legal to conduct charter flights at night in a twin engine aeroplane if you held a class four instrument rating and a night VMC rating. The class four instrument rating was a qualification to navigate solely with reference to a navaid – that meant, the ability to intercept and track to or from a VOR or NDB, it didn’t confer any rights to do it in IMC but you could fly over cloud without the requirement for 30 minute visual fixes. The Dead/Ded Reckoning was the only method available to fly over featureless terrain at night, often at low level to stay clear of cloud; Cobar to Parkes for instance below 5000 feet. You calculated the course and flew the heading. The destination might occur on your left or right!!
There were none-the-less, other checks and balances which have been dispensed with today. Flight plans were compulsory. Operational approval lay with the Department of Civil Aviation so they assessed the weather as well as the pilot. There were eight classifications of cloud cover instead of today’s five and they were more conservative. Departmental presence took the form of established Flight Service Units and mobile Examiners of Airmen, who actually flew themselves in Departmental Aeroplanes and who did know what was going on. As well, they were generally well respected. Thorough endorsements were required for each type of aircraft you flew. Rules were published on paper in the form of the Act, the Regulations and the Civil Aviation Orders, none of which changed much or often and were provided without cost. Compliance was with the spirit, rather than the letter of the law. Accidents were seen as such and generally scalps weren’t sought. Aero Clubs were vibrant and the young were fostered and counseled by their peers. Safety Digests were treasured, widely read and discussed. Access to workshops, hangars and airports and schools was virtually unrestricted.
Sadly, nowadays, there is little left of the industry of old; little experience in the schools; little camaraderie socially; no respect for the regulator; a mix of old rules and new, bewildering in their complexity and changing day to day.
I feel very sorry for people like Jseward who is obviously keen to learn and understand what is behind the plethora of regulations he/she has to deal with in their training and need to resort to the anonymous “experts” of the internet for guidance. The genesis of most rules lies in hard learnt experience. The rules continue to exist often past their use-by-date whilst the reasons for them are lost in time.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In navigation, dead reckoning (also ded (for deduced) reckoning or DR) is the process of calculating one's current position by using a previously determined position, or fix, and advancing that position based upon known or estimated speeds over elapsed time, and course.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 71
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
one correction Casper.
back in the day there was schedule 67. what this schedule was about was identifying all the similar handling single engine aircraft.
if you were endorsed to fly one of the schedule 67 aircraft then , after studying the Pilot's Operating Handbook for the aircraft, you could fly any of the other aircraft in the schedule.
It worked because all the aircraft were designed to FAR 23 and as part of FAR23 certification the designs were adjusted until they met the handling characteristics required by the FAR. ( FAR = American Federal Aviation Regulation. FAR23 dealt with design standards.)
which meant that they handled almost the same.
why it has all descended to the current level of over prescriptive crap I dont know.
back in the day there was schedule 67. what this schedule was about was identifying all the similar handling single engine aircraft.
if you were endorsed to fly one of the schedule 67 aircraft then , after studying the Pilot's Operating Handbook for the aircraft, you could fly any of the other aircraft in the schedule.
It worked because all the aircraft were designed to FAR 23 and as part of FAR23 certification the designs were adjusted until they met the handling characteristics required by the FAR. ( FAR = American Federal Aviation Regulation. FAR23 dealt with design standards.)
which meant that they handled almost the same.
why it has all descended to the current level of over prescriptive crap I dont know.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 71
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To answer JSeward's question about using DR...
you can use any navigation technique that does the job. you can swap between techniques whenever you want.
by legislation a Day VFR aircraft is setup with the tools for visual navigation.
you have a magnetic compass, an air speed indicator, you must carry an accurate time piece, and the current maps for the area.
with these tools, an E6B and a pencil and ruler you can actually navigate.
however lets face reality. those navigational tools arent all that accurate.
these days our american friends have made publicly available their network of Global Positioning Satellites. A garmin gps receiver is probably the best investment you can make. ( I still use a garmin gps 2 plus
)
A GPS Ipad running OzRunways software is what many favour as well.
My son in law uses ozrunways on his iPhone to keep track of the local area frequency in the high speed stuff he flies.
Dont shy away from learning to use an E6B. The battery life is infinite and they dont get hard to see in bright sunlight, but try all the techniques and use whatever you find does the job for you.
I knew a 29,000 hour airline pilot who wasnt too proud to fly IFR ( I follow railways ) when he wanted to go somewhere.
my gps has meant that I have never done a one in 60 calculation in all my flying life. if I divert miles out of the way to skirt around weather I use the goto function to point the way to the next waypoint. easy squeezie.
you can use any navigation technique that does the job. you can swap between techniques whenever you want.
by legislation a Day VFR aircraft is setup with the tools for visual navigation.
you have a magnetic compass, an air speed indicator, you must carry an accurate time piece, and the current maps for the area.
with these tools, an E6B and a pencil and ruler you can actually navigate.
however lets face reality. those navigational tools arent all that accurate.
these days our american friends have made publicly available their network of Global Positioning Satellites. A garmin gps receiver is probably the best investment you can make. ( I still use a garmin gps 2 plus
)A GPS Ipad running OzRunways software is what many favour as well.
My son in law uses ozrunways on his iPhone to keep track of the local area frequency in the high speed stuff he flies.
Dont shy away from learning to use an E6B. The battery life is infinite and they dont get hard to see in bright sunlight, but try all the techniques and use whatever you find does the job for you.
I knew a 29,000 hour airline pilot who wasnt too proud to fly IFR ( I follow railways ) when he wanted to go somewhere.
my gps has meant that I have never done a one in 60 calculation in all my flying life. if I divert miles out of the way to skirt around weather I use the goto function to point the way to the next waypoint. easy squeezie.
