Mmmmm... GPS for confidence (for low hours peeps!)
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Use of GPS
Good article in a recent GASIL about the use of GPS and the risk of GPS-induced collision.
Given that many pilots programme in standard waypoints such as beacons or airfields or VRPs, and aim to fly straight lines between them (boring stuff), the recommendation seems to be that when flying you should aim to offset the waypoint by a mile or so rather than overflying it. They also recommend adding further waypoints to give added spacing.
Sounds like a good plan to me and might even encourage pilots to look out of the window from time to time, instead of squinting onto a cr*p LCD display
Given that many pilots programme in standard waypoints such as beacons or airfields or VRPs, and aim to fly straight lines between them (boring stuff), the recommendation seems to be that when flying you should aim to offset the waypoint by a mile or so rather than overflying it. They also recommend adding further waypoints to give added spacing.
Sounds like a good plan to me and might even encourage pilots to look out of the window from time to time, instead of squinting onto a cr*p LCD display
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having used GPS's for a few years now and owning a great garmin 196. I do use them as my primary navigation tool. The only thing I would say is keep a back-up, either visual or instruments. The only time my GPS packed up was when I was in cloud at night...Makes you wake up thats for sure. imc
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes I don't think anyone is saying they arn't a great bit of kit to have.
But sorry to drag the whole thread back onto topic
Its the fact that any person can purchase a GPS and go flying with it without any background training in its principles, limitations and good methods of using it.
The question is should this be cover in the PPL on a pratical level?
Or cover it on a theoretical level?
Or any level?
I would say no to the first idea. It would require a gps to be avialable at all schools costs alot more than a set of foggles. The syllabus is full already for the time allocated. The training would tend to be device specific.
Theoretical yes good idea. As mentioned before GPS jamming NOTAMS, databases, principles behind it, errors etc.
Yes it should be included in the PPL training somewhere, its here its staying and it will be used more and more.
I have seen people try to fly with a knackard alt runnning off the GPS altitude. So this issue does need addressed.
I have was telling our local 81year old NPPL ex Halifax bomber pilot about the debate. A pilot that could even call BEagle "son" !!!
He first asked if you could get that internet porn on the thing.
When informed no. He informed me that he used to drop supplys into Italy for the partisans using a Sextant, compass, stopwatch, chart, morse radio and a bit of wet seaweed. But what a bloody good idea GPS was. I presume transair will be getting some of his money soon.
So to the coffin dodgers my humble apologys for being a cheeky git and being agest.
MJ
edited opps just realised I was replying to a highjack. Does any one mind a discussion about if it should be in the PPL or shall I start a new thread?
But sorry to drag the whole thread back onto topic
Its the fact that any person can purchase a GPS and go flying with it without any background training in its principles, limitations and good methods of using it.
The question is should this be cover in the PPL on a pratical level?
Or cover it on a theoretical level?
Or any level?
I would say no to the first idea. It would require a gps to be avialable at all schools costs alot more than a set of foggles. The syllabus is full already for the time allocated. The training would tend to be device specific.
Theoretical yes good idea. As mentioned before GPS jamming NOTAMS, databases, principles behind it, errors etc.
Yes it should be included in the PPL training somewhere, its here its staying and it will be used more and more.
I have seen people try to fly with a knackard alt runnning off the GPS altitude. So this issue does need addressed.
I have was telling our local 81year old NPPL ex Halifax bomber pilot about the debate. A pilot that could even call BEagle "son" !!!
He first asked if you could get that internet porn on the thing.
When informed no. He informed me that he used to drop supplys into Italy for the partisans using a Sextant, compass, stopwatch, chart, morse radio and a bit of wet seaweed. But what a bloody good idea GPS was. I presume transair will be getting some of his money soon.
So to the coffin dodgers my humble apologys for being a cheeky git and being agest.
MJ
edited opps just realised I was replying to a highjack. Does any one mind a discussion about if it should be in the PPL or shall I start a new thread?
Last edited by mad_jock; 14th Apr 2004 at 11:24.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: N.E. Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Probably a good idea to keep the GPS away from the compass, if that’s mounted on the glare shield.
I use a Garmin GPSIII (standard model, not the Pilot version) purely as secondary backup to dead reckoning, lines on the chart and PLOG etc. On some occasions, putting the unit next to the compass on our C172 has caused the compass to swing out by over 30 degrees. Moving the GPS six inches away from the compass removes this error.
I think this must be something to do with certain batteries rather than the unit itself, as recently (with standard batteries) this hasn't been happening, but with a certain well-known brand of 'long-life' batteries it happened every time....
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Use of GPS
IMC1
Ooooh - use of GPS as primary nav aid..........now there's an admission.
I wonder what will be happening when the powers-that-be decide that Al-Quaida might be using GPS to target stuff, how long it will be before they start to degrade or disable the signal. Then where will some of you be.
I was flying with GPS-only types recently and thought their route planning was total cr*p. "Joining the dots" on their moving map certainly is easy, useful and, generally, reliable, but not always sensible. I prefer to fly IFR (ie "I follow roads")
Being old and not-so-bold, I can't use the Pilot 111 mainly cos the display is too small and indistinct for me and has the irritating habit of beeping at me for no good reason - tea's made, or something.
I can't afford a Skymap or 196 so have a 'half-reliable' old Garmin with big buttons and a Skyforce locator to help with radio calls.
Oh and a decent look at the route beforehand and a chart with lines and frequencies on it. I can even doodle on that in the air when I'm bored.
Ooooh - use of GPS as primary nav aid..........now there's an admission.
I wonder what will be happening when the powers-that-be decide that Al-Quaida might be using GPS to target stuff, how long it will be before they start to degrade or disable the signal. Then where will some of you be.
I was flying with GPS-only types recently and thought their route planning was total cr*p. "Joining the dots" on their moving map certainly is easy, useful and, generally, reliable, but not always sensible. I prefer to fly IFR (ie "I follow roads")
Being old and not-so-bold, I can't use the Pilot 111 mainly cos the display is too small and indistinct for me and has the irritating habit of beeping at me for no good reason - tea's made, or something.
I can't afford a Skymap or 196 so have a 'half-reliable' old Garmin with big buttons and a Skyforce locator to help with radio calls.
Oh and a decent look at the route beforehand and a chart with lines and frequencies on it. I can even doodle on that in the air when I'm bored.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ooooh - use of GPS as primary nav aid..........now there's an admission.
I've flown 5 times with my new 196. On the first trip it kept switching itself off. A post here elicited the info that others had experienced the same problem which was due to vibration causing intermittent battery contact so the last 3 flights have been with the old Magellan 315 as backup, during which the 196 behaved faultlessly.
The 315 froze now and again with no indication that anything was wrong other than that the distance to next waypoint was not reducing.
There are a lot of questions on the 196 that are not answered in the manual.
I agree that GPS is a great work reducer when used properly. You can maintain your positional awareness with far less head down time.
Mike
Last edited by Mike Cross; 14th Apr 2004 at 22:45.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beagle
The GPS units you’ve got are practically a waste of time. Not having a moving map probably means entering waypoints manually, and that is by far the most error prone bit of the whole process. It also doesn't reduce cockpit workload, so removing the biggest potential safety improvement.
The comment about a moving map display making you look at it too much is even more bizzare, I am sorry to say. A real man doesn't need gyros to fly in IMC either; one can do it by looking at the speedo (pitch) and the compass (roll).
Hersham Boy
It’s Ok to load user waypoints; the issue with them is that it’s easy to make a mistake. This is nothing to do with aviation; if you just examine the process and where a human can make a mistake easily, this is where it is by far most likely.
Obviously with a moving-map display you can review your flight plan and check for obvious errors, but traditionally the people who have been loading user waypoints were users of non-moving map units who had no overall preview facility. In practice, one tends to make use of existing database items as much as possible; IFR waypoints (e.g. ORTAC, HILLY etc) are very handy for that because they are peppered all over the place (though, not on the CAA VFR charts, you have to use a program like Navbox or an IFR chart to see them). Today I flew about 500nm, "VFR" mostly, and used a whole load of these IFR waypoints. ATC like them too; far less work for them.
There’s no need to update the database that often. I update mine once a year, about now (US$400 for what I have, a lot less for a handheld GPS). The airfields and ground based places and IFR waypoints/navaids don’t move; what does potentially change is controlled airspace boundaries but one wouldn’t rely on the depiction of those on the GPS map alone. One plans the flight on the paper chart, on the ground, loads it into the GPS, views it as a whole (in the GPS) to check for gross errors, and then during flight it is dead easy to see where you are relative to the airspace etc because the shapes on the GPS map are easy to relate to the obviously identical shapes on the chart. The problem is that the Jeppesen GPS databases don’t show some airways properly; they show as just a line and are easily missed during flight, which is another reason why one must plan the planned altitude on the ground. So there is no need to update the GPS database that often. Other stuff that changes is e.g. airfield phone numbers but you don't need the GPS to look those up!
Re software, I personally use Navbox Proplan (www.navbox.nl) - it is a great timesaver and is very cheap for what it does. You can also load up most handheld GPS units with the flight plan from it, via a cable. I’ve used it for 3 yrs and never found a single bug. The Jepp software does more, and costs a lot more.
Robin
The GASIL articles about GPS are the standard anti-anything-modern stuff and are mostly bunk. The last thing to do is to add user waypoints just to break up the track. Who-ever wrote that has never used a GPS, doesn’t know how to, and probably doesn’t fly anything made since one of the recent World Wars
If the Taliban start to use GPS to send missiles to Europe, none of us will be flying anywhere. I am sure an EMP would affect GPS reception too.
Mad_jock
I agree; the PPL syllabus is packed already. But something needs to be done. The problem is that the starting point needs to be not PPL training but the attitudes of so many people (as illustrated in this thread, though I am sure Pprune is not generally representative of the GA population). I suppose one could run some sort of ground school module, but when I see the bunk written on the subject in GASIL or “Flight Safety” (these being basically CAA approved publications) I wonder how many years away this is…
The GPS units you’ve got are practically a waste of time. Not having a moving map probably means entering waypoints manually, and that is by far the most error prone bit of the whole process. It also doesn't reduce cockpit workload, so removing the biggest potential safety improvement.
The comment about a moving map display making you look at it too much is even more bizzare, I am sorry to say. A real man doesn't need gyros to fly in IMC either; one can do it by looking at the speedo (pitch) and the compass (roll).
Hersham Boy
It’s Ok to load user waypoints; the issue with them is that it’s easy to make a mistake. This is nothing to do with aviation; if you just examine the process and where a human can make a mistake easily, this is where it is by far most likely.
Obviously with a moving-map display you can review your flight plan and check for obvious errors, but traditionally the people who have been loading user waypoints were users of non-moving map units who had no overall preview facility. In practice, one tends to make use of existing database items as much as possible; IFR waypoints (e.g. ORTAC, HILLY etc) are very handy for that because they are peppered all over the place (though, not on the CAA VFR charts, you have to use a program like Navbox or an IFR chart to see them). Today I flew about 500nm, "VFR" mostly, and used a whole load of these IFR waypoints. ATC like them too; far less work for them.
There’s no need to update the database that often. I update mine once a year, about now (US$400 for what I have, a lot less for a handheld GPS). The airfields and ground based places and IFR waypoints/navaids don’t move; what does potentially change is controlled airspace boundaries but one wouldn’t rely on the depiction of those on the GPS map alone. One plans the flight on the paper chart, on the ground, loads it into the GPS, views it as a whole (in the GPS) to check for gross errors, and then during flight it is dead easy to see where you are relative to the airspace etc because the shapes on the GPS map are easy to relate to the obviously identical shapes on the chart. The problem is that the Jeppesen GPS databases don’t show some airways properly; they show as just a line and are easily missed during flight, which is another reason why one must plan the planned altitude on the ground. So there is no need to update the GPS database that often. Other stuff that changes is e.g. airfield phone numbers but you don't need the GPS to look those up!
Re software, I personally use Navbox Proplan (www.navbox.nl) - it is a great timesaver and is very cheap for what it does. You can also load up most handheld GPS units with the flight plan from it, via a cable. I’ve used it for 3 yrs and never found a single bug. The Jepp software does more, and costs a lot more.
Robin
The GASIL articles about GPS are the standard anti-anything-modern stuff and are mostly bunk. The last thing to do is to add user waypoints just to break up the track. Who-ever wrote that has never used a GPS, doesn’t know how to, and probably doesn’t fly anything made since one of the recent World Wars
If the Taliban start to use GPS to send missiles to Europe, none of us will be flying anywhere. I am sure an EMP would affect GPS reception too.
Mad_jock
I agree; the PPL syllabus is packed already. But something needs to be done. The problem is that the starting point needs to be not PPL training but the attitudes of so many people (as illustrated in this thread, though I am sure Pprune is not generally representative of the GA population). I suppose one could run some sort of ground school module, but when I see the bunk written on the subject in GASIL or “Flight Safety” (these being basically CAA approved publications) I wonder how many years away this is…
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Almost Scotland
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course, there's nothing to stop schools adding some theoretical appreciation of GPS to the syllabus locally - it might create, from those schools, more aware pilots.
As far as the official syllabus is concerned, is there no way that suggestions to the CAA could be made about this?
It seems that to have more awareness of use and abuse of GPS receivers would do a lot to foster a general raising of standards for safe navigation - especially if integrated with other navigational techniques and the need for appropriate lookout and acquisition of positional awareness.
As far as the official syllabus is concerned, is there no way that suggestions to the CAA could be made about this?
It seems that to have more awareness of use and abuse of GPS receivers would do a lot to foster a general raising of standards for safe navigation - especially if integrated with other navigational techniques and the need for appropriate lookout and acquisition of positional awareness.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Location, Location
Age: 52
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks, IO540...
I realised when manually entering co-ords that error was almost certain (I did make an E/W typo which, fortunately, I spotted as I checked the positions of the waypoints I'd entered against the ground). Actually, these waypoints were VRPs which I thought were in the Garmin/Jepp database, but don't seem to be. I'll look at using the IFR points as well, as you suggest.
I've bought the VFR FlightStar on a 30 day trial - it's cheap but way more complex than I need and the entire manual is written in, and for, American(s)! I thought we spoke the same language, but clearly not
I'll go to NavBox if the Jepp stuff is still confusing after 28 days!
Mike Cross - I don't think I've ever come across such a poor piece of user instruction than the 196 manual. It starts with the assumption that the new owner already 100% understands how to use even th most detailed functions of a GPS and, basically, only tell you which buttons to press in order to access them!
I didn't expect it to teach me to fly (!), but when I find that I've got parts in the box that were (and remain) completely unidentifiable, I get worried. I've got a 'spare' knurled knob that looks like it should belong to the yoke mount, but gawd knows where!
I realised when manually entering co-ords that error was almost certain (I did make an E/W typo which, fortunately, I spotted as I checked the positions of the waypoints I'd entered against the ground). Actually, these waypoints were VRPs which I thought were in the Garmin/Jepp database, but don't seem to be. I'll look at using the IFR points as well, as you suggest.
I've bought the VFR FlightStar on a 30 day trial - it's cheap but way more complex than I need and the entire manual is written in, and for, American(s)! I thought we spoke the same language, but clearly not
I'll go to NavBox if the Jepp stuff is still confusing after 28 days!
Mike Cross - I don't think I've ever come across such a poor piece of user instruction than the 196 manual. It starts with the assumption that the new owner already 100% understands how to use even th most detailed functions of a GPS and, basically, only tell you which buttons to press in order to access them!
I didn't expect it to teach me to fly (!), but when I find that I've got parts in the box that were (and remain) completely unidentifiable, I get worried. I've got a 'spare' knurled knob that looks like it should belong to the yoke mount, but gawd knows where!
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know why having GPS leads to more "head inside" time....any more than someone using VORs or NDBs. Even flying IFR in VMC you are responsible for "see and avoid" yet you still have to fly accurate course, headings or radials. Doesn't lead to more head inside in my opinion.
On the subject of dB errors....I use the Memory Map digital CAA charts on an Ipaq.....they are excellent..........You can plan your trip on the desktop PC and transfer the route / waypoints to the Ipaq and / or GPS depending on model.
I've used GPS as primary method of navigation for IFR flight in the USA, terminating in a GPS approach and so long as you know how to use it, then it is an excellent tool. The thing about GPS is it can tell you when its not working (the good ones anyway), unlike NDBs unless you continually ident them.
EA
On the subject of dB errors....I use the Memory Map digital CAA charts on an Ipaq.....they are excellent..........You can plan your trip on the desktop PC and transfer the route / waypoints to the Ipaq and / or GPS depending on model.
I've used GPS as primary method of navigation for IFR flight in the USA, terminating in a GPS approach and so long as you know how to use it, then it is an excellent tool. The thing about GPS is it can tell you when its not working (the good ones anyway), unlike NDBs unless you continually ident them.
EA
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DRJAD
I made that suggestion to two CAA men at seminars I went to last year. One listened (despite extensive hissing and "this young man is going to kill himself" whispers from the mostly over-60s audience ) and, in response to my suggestion that without the ICAO agreeing nothing can be done, said that the ICAO is looking into the general matter of modern avionics (more head twisting and hissing from the audience). The other one, I believe a seasoned presenter at CAA safety evenings, was entirely uninterested in changing anything in the PPL training, despite having spent the previous two hours putting up graphs of airspace infringements, CFIT, etc statistics. He seemed happy telling people to not try to squeeze between a 2000ft hill, 2200ft cloudbase, in rain.
Suggestions? I don't have any
Hersham Boy
In my view, putting VRPs into a GPS flight plan isn't great unless they are predefined in the GPS database, and even then it is better to use the more conventional database items (navaids, IFR waypoints) because they make position reporting clearer.
Secondly I believe one should always navigate using TWO methods concurrently. (This is in conflict with the PPL training where they teach you just dead reckoning, but they've only got 45hrs in which to do it, so this keeps D&D on 121.50 in employment).
Navigating "PPL-style" you can fly the GPS track / the plog, while running a continuous visual check out of the window.
However the really reliable way is to use the GPS together with radio navaids, and then your waypoints are likely to be VORs or NDBs. Then you fly the GPS track / the plog while having the CDI tuned in and the current leg's track on the OBS and the CDI's bar is centred, with the TO flag showing, changing to the FROM flag as you pass the waypoint. Very easy, practically 100% reliable and, most importantly, the gross errors which you are likely to make in each method is different. This method is what one uses for real flights from A to B via X,Y,Z where you just want to get there with a zero chance of ever being "uncertain of position", but isn't so good for just messing about, and there will be route sections which don't lie on a VOR.
I made that suggestion to two CAA men at seminars I went to last year. One listened (despite extensive hissing and "this young man is going to kill himself" whispers from the mostly over-60s audience
) and, in response to my suggestion that without the ICAO agreeing nothing can be done, said that the ICAO is looking into the general matter of modern avionics (more head twisting and hissing from the audience). The other one, I believe a seasoned presenter at CAA safety evenings, was entirely uninterested in changing anything in the PPL training, despite having spent the previous two hours putting up graphs of airspace infringements, CFIT, etc statistics. He seemed happy telling people to not try to squeeze between a 2000ft hill, 2200ft cloudbase, in rain. Suggestions? I don't have any
Hersham Boy
In my view, putting VRPs into a GPS flight plan isn't great unless they are predefined in the GPS database, and even then it is better to use the more conventional database items (navaids, IFR waypoints) because they make position reporting clearer.
Secondly I believe one should always navigate using TWO methods concurrently. (This is in conflict with the PPL training where they teach you just dead reckoning, but they've only got 45hrs in which to do it, so this keeps D&D on 121.50 in employment).
Navigating "PPL-style" you can fly the GPS track / the plog, while running a continuous visual check out of the window.
However the really reliable way is to use the GPS together with radio navaids, and then your waypoints are likely to be VORs or NDBs. Then you fly the GPS track / the plog while having the CDI tuned in and the current leg's track on the OBS and the CDI's bar is centred, with the TO flag showing, changing to the FROM flag as you pass the waypoint. Very easy, practically 100% reliable and, most importantly, the gross errors which you are likely to make in each method is different. This method is what one uses for real flights from A to B via X,Y,Z where you just want to get there with a zero chance of ever being "uncertain of position", but isn't so good for just messing about, and there will be route sections which don't lie on a VOR.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HB
The spare knob in the 196 box, together with the Allen key is referred to in the "Quick Start Guide". It's there to allow the mount to be configured for yokes with a centre column.
Mike
The spare knob in the 196 box, together with the Allen key is referred to in the "Quick Start Guide". It's there to allow the mount to be configured for yokes with a centre column.
Mike
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Location, Location
Age: 52
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike - really..? how embarrassing!
As a bloke, I thought I was doing well by skipping the 'let's get straight to the toys' booklet and reading the 'here's the detail' book!
I'll shut-up now, then...
As a bloke, I thought I was doing well by skipping the 'let's get straight to the toys' booklet and reading the 'here's the detail' book!
I'll shut-up now, then...
